Telecommuter Tax Fairness Act of 2005

Mr. President. I am pleased to rise today, together with my colleague Senator Lieberman, to introduce The Telecommuter Tax Fairness Act of 2005.

The Telecommuter Tax Fairness Act of 2005 will put an end to legal doctrine that unfairly penalizes thousands of workers in Connecticut and in other States throughout the country whose only offense is that they sometimes work from home or from a local office of their employer.

Technology has changed the way business is conducted in America. With the use of cell phones, lap-top computers, email, the Internet, mobile networking, and many other telecommunication advancements of the 21st century, Americans have a greater flexibility in where they can work, without compromising productivity. Many citizens now choose to work from home or alternative offices when their physical presence is not necessary at their primary place of work.

Telecommuting provides enormous benefits for businesses, families, and communities. It helps businesses lower costs and raise worker productivity. It reduces congestion on our roads and rails, and in so doing it lowers pollution. It helps workers better manage the demands of work and family. And last but not least, it can mean lower income taxes for working men and women.

Yet, the many benefits to workers of telecommuting are today placed in jeopardy because of current law in New York and a few other States. Today, New York State requires that workers pay income tax on income even if it is not earned in the State through their ``convenience of the employer'' rule. While there are several States that have the ``convenience of the employer'' rule, no other State applies it with the same rigor as New York.

New York's ``convenience of the employer'' rule requires that by working for a New York employer, all income earned from that employer must be declared in New York so long as the worker ``could'' perform his or her duties in New York. A worker for a New York employer who works part-time from home in Connecticut or another State is still subject to taxation by New York on 100 percent of his or her income. At the same time, the work done by that worker in a State outside New York is subject to taxation by that State.

This unfairly subjects many workers who telecommute from their homes or from satellite offices outside of New York to a double tax on that part of the income earned from home. According to Connecticut's Attorney General, thousands of Connecticut residents alone are affected by this unfair double taxation.

However, it isn't only Connecticut residents that are affected.

Thomas Huckaby is a Tennessee-based computer programmer that telecommuted for a firm in Queens, NY. In 1994 and 1995, Mr. Huckaby spent 75 percent of his time working in Tennessee and the remaining 25 percent working in the Queens office and attempted to apportion his income accordingly. New York, however, sought to tax 100 percent of his income and was successful due to it's ``convenience of employer'' rule. On March 29, 2005 the New York Court of Appeals upheld New York's rule in a 4 to 3 decision. Currently, Mr. Huckaby is in the process of petitioning the Supreme Court.

A similar story involves Arthur Gray, a New Hampshire resident who worked for the New York Company Cowen & Co. as an investment counselor from 1976 through 1996, and paid New York State income taxes during that time. In 1997, Arthur Gray, per his employer's request, opened and managed an office from his home in New Hampshire. Several times during the year, Mr. Gray worked in New York, but most of his days were spent in New Hampshire. When paying his taxes during this time, he paid New York State income taxes for the days he was in New York, but not for the days he worked in New Hampshire. New York, however, sought to tax 100 percent of his income and was successful due to this ``convenience of the employer'' rule.

These are only two examples of the far-reaching consequences of this ``convenience of employer'' rule. There are thousands of individuals across the country who are adversely impacted by this rule. Most, however, but most lack the time, money, or energy to take their case to court.

This potential for double taxation is not only unfair, it also discourages workers from telecommuting when we should be doing the opposite.

Legislation is needed to protect these honest workers who deserve fair and equitable treatment under the law. The Telecommuter Tax Fairness Act of 2005 accomplishes this by specifically preventing a State from engaging in the current fiction of deeming a nonresident to be in the taxing State when the nonresident is actually working in another State. In doing so, it will eliminate the possibility that citizens will be double-taxed when telecommuting.

Establishing a ``physical presence'' test--as this legislation would do--is the most logical basis for determining tax status. If a worker is in a State, and taking advantage of that State's infrastructure, the worker should pay taxes in that State.

Some suggest that the double-taxation quandary can easily be fixed by having other States provide a tax credit to those telecommuters. However, why should Connecticut, or any other

State, be required to allow a credit on income actually earned in the State? If a worker is working in Connecticut, he or she is benefiting from a range of Services paid for and maintained by Connecticut including roads, water, police, fire protection, and communications services. It's only fair that Connecticut ask that worker to help support the services that he or she uses.

This is not just an issue which deals with a small group of citizens from one small State. Rather, this is an issue which affects workers throughout the country. It will only grow more pressing as people and businesses continue to seek to take advantage of new technologies that affect the way we live and work.

I hope our colleagues will favorably consider this legislation.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today with Senators Cochran, Levin, Kennedy and Akaka to introduce The International and Foreign Language Studies Act of 2005.

In recent years, foreign language needs have significantly increased throughout the Federal Government due to the presence of a wider range of security threats, the emergence of new nation states, and the globalization of the U.S. economy. Likewise, American business increasingly needs internationally experienced employees to compete in the global economy and to manage a culturally diverse workforce.

Currently, the U.S. government requires 34,000 employees with foreign language skills across 70 Federal agencies. These agencies have stated over the last few years, that translator and interpreter shortfalls have adversely affected agency operations and hindered U.S. military, law enforcement, intelligence, and diplomatic efforts.

Despite our growing needs, the number of undergraduate foreign language degrees conferred is only one percent of all degrees. Only one third of undergraduates report that they are taking foreign language courses and only 11 percent report that they have studied abroad.

At a time when our security needs are more important than ever, at a time when our economy demands that we enter new markets, and at a time when the world requires us to engage in diplomacy in more thoughtful and considered ways, it is extremely important that we have at our disposal a multilingual, multicultural, internationally experienced workforce. The Dodd-Cochran International and Foreign Language Studies Act attempts to do this in a number of ways.

The Dodd-Cochran International and Foreign Language Studies Act will increase undergraduate study abroad as a means to enhance foreign language proficiency and deepen cultural knowledge. The bill will reinstate undergraduate eligibility for Foreign Language and Area Studies Fellowships. The bill will encourage the Department of Education to engage in the collection, analysis and dissemination of

data on international education and foreign language needs so that we know and understand exactly what our needs in this area are. Within the Institute for International and Public Policy, the bill provides scholarships and creates an ``expert track'' for doctoral students in critical areas, disciplines and languages. And, most importantly, the Dodd-Cochran bill will demonstrate our nation's commitment to increasing the foreign language proficiency and international expertise of our citizens by increasing the amount appropriated to international education, including international business education, to allow for more opportunities for more students.

The Higher Education Act authorizes the Federal Government's major activities as they relate to financial assistance for students attending colleges and universities. It provides aid to institutions of higher education, services to help students complete high school and enter and succeed in postsecondary education, and mechanisms to improve the training of our emerging workforce. This bill will help fulfill that mission.

Foreign language skills and international study are vital to secure the future economic welfare of the United States in an increasingly international economy. Foreign language skills and international study are also vital for the nation to meet 21st century security challenges properly and effectively, especially in light of the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001.

I hope our colleagues who are not cosponsoring this bill will give it serious consideration. By working together, I believe that the Senate as a body can act to ensure that we strengthen our Nation's security and economy by capitalizing on the talents and dreams of those who wish to enter the international arena.

Mr. President. I am pleased to rise today, together with my colleague Senator Lieberman, to introduce The Telecommuter Tax Fairness Act of 2005.

The Telecommuter Tax Fairness Act of 2005 will put an end to legal doctrine that unfairly penalizes thousands of workers in Connecticut and in other States throughout the country whose only offense is that they sometimes work from home or from a local office of their employer.

Technology has changed the way business is conducted in America. With the use of cell phones, lap-top computers, email, the Internet, mobile networking, and many other telecommunication advancements of the 21st century, Americans have a greater flexibility in where they can work, without compromising productivity. Many citizens now choose to work from home or alternative offices when their physical presence is not necessary at their primary place of work.

Telecommuting provides enormous benefits for businesses, families, and communities. It helps businesses lower costs and raise worker productivity. It reduces congestion on our roads and rails, and in so doing it lowers pollution. It helps workers better manage the demands of work and family. And last but not least, it can mean lower income taxes for working men and women.

Yet, the many benefits to workers of telecommuting are today placed in jeopardy because of current law in New York and a few other States. Today, New York State requires that workers pay income tax on income even if it is not earned in the State through their ``convenience of the employer'' rule. While there are several States that have the ``convenience of the employer'' rule, no other State applies it with the same rigor as New York.

New York's ``convenience of the employer'' rule requires that by working for a New York employer, all income earned from that employer must be declared in New York so long as the worker ``could'' perform his or her duties in New York. A worker for a New York employer who works part-time from home in Connecticut or another State is still subject to taxation by New York on 100 percent of his or her income. At the same time, the work done by that worker in a State outside New York is subject to taxation by that State.

This unfairly subjects many workers who telecommute from their homes or from satellite offices outside of New York to a double tax on that part of the income earned from home. According to Connecticut's Attorney General, thousands of Connecticut residents alone are affected by this unfair double taxation.

However, it isn't only Connecticut residents that are affected.

Thomas Huckaby is a Tennessee-based computer programmer that telecommuted for a firm in Queens, NY. In 1994 and 1995, Mr. Huckaby spent 75 percent of his time working in Tennessee and the remaining 25 percent working in the Queens office and attempted to apportion his income accordingly. New York, however, sought to tax 100 percent of his income and was successful due to it's ``convenience of employer'' rule. On March 29, 2005 the New York Court of Appeals upheld New York's rule in a 4 to 3 decision. Currently, Mr. Huckaby is in the process of petitioning the Supreme Court.

A similar story involves Arthur Gray, a New Hampshire resident who worked for the New York Company Cowen & Co. as an investment counselor from 1976 through 1996, and paid New York State income taxes during that time. In 1997, Arthur Gray, per his employer's request, opened and managed an office from his home in New Hampshire. Several times during the year, Mr. Gray worked in New York, but most of his days were spent in New Hampshire. When paying his taxes during this time, he paid New York State income taxes for the days he was in New York, but not for the days he worked in New Hampshire. New York, however, sought to tax 100 percent of his income and was successful due to this ``convenience of the employer'' rule.

These are only two examples of the far-reaching consequences of this ``convenience of employer'' rule. There are thousands of individuals across the country who are adversely impacted by this rule. Most, however, but most lack the time, money, or energy to take their case to court.

This potential for double taxation is not only unfair, it also discourages workers from telecommuting when we should be doing the opposite.

Legislation is needed to protect these honest workers who deserve fair and equitable treatment under the law. The Telecommuter Tax Fairness Act of 2005 accomplishes this by specifically preventing a State from engaging in the current fiction of deeming a nonresident to be in the taxing State when the nonresident is actually working in another State. In doing so, it will eliminate the possibility that citizens will be double-taxed when telecommuting.

Establishing a ``physical presence'' test--as this legislation would do--is the most logical basis for determining tax status. If a worker is in a State, and taking advantage of that State's infrastructure, the worker should pay taxes in that State.

Some suggest that the double-taxation quandary can easily be fixed by having other States provide a tax credit to those telecommuters. However, why should Connecticut, or any other

State, be required to allow a credit on income actually earned in the State? If a worker is working in Connecticut, he or she is benefiting from a range of Services paid for and maintained by Connecticut including roads, water, police, fire protection, and communications services. It's only fair that Connecticut ask that worker to help support the services that he or she uses.

This is not just an issue which deals with a small group of citizens from one small State. Rather, this is an issue which affects workers throughout the country. It will only grow more pressing as people and businesses continue to seek to take advantage of new technologies that affect the way we live and work.

I hope our colleagues will favorably consider this legislation.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, today I rise with Senator DeWine to introduce the ``Improving Head Start Access for Homeless and Foster Children Act of 2005.''

Head Start has made significant strides in providing comprehensive services to low-income children. Since

Head Start was established in 1965, low-income preschool-aged children have received education, health, nutritional, social and developmental services they would not otherwise have access to. Unfortunately, children in greatest need of these services--homelss and foster youth-- are not receiving those services at adequate levels.

It is estimated that 1.35 million children experience homelessness each year, and the mean income of a homeless family is at 46 percent of the Federal poverty level. Due to extreme poverty and the inherent instability of homelessness, children facing these conditions have considerably higher physical, mental and emotional difficulties. It is not surprising that homeless children are reported to be twice as likely to have a learning disability and three times as likely of having an emotional or behavioral problem that interferes with their learning.

These children also face significant barriers to participation in Head Start. These children lack transportation. They lack the necessary documentation. They suffer from the invisibility of homeless families which leaves the community unaware of the need to include these children in Head Start recruitment and prioritization. As a result of these and other barriers, only 15 percent of preschool children identified as homeless are enrolled in preschool programs of any kind, compared to the 57 percent of low-income preschool children. Currently only 2 percent of the more than 900,000 students served by Head Start are children identified as homeless. States report that 60 percent of homeless students are having difficulties gaining access to Head Start.

In addition to homeless children, kids in foster care face a unique set of challenges which both increase their need for the stability and educational services provided by Head Start. Tragically, these same challenges also hinder their ability to gain access to those services. Foster children are likely to suffer from both emotional and physical instability. With more than 500,000 children in foster care and a shortage of foster parents in this country, these children often go without the attention and advocacy that preschool age children need.

More than 40 percent of the children in homeless shelters are under the age of five. The first years of a child's life significantly impact personal development and future academic achievement. That is why I once again stand with Senator DeWine to increase access to Head Start for homeless and foster children.

Our bill would ensure equal access and benefits from to early education and supportive services provided by Head Start for the Nation's poorest children. It would make all homeless children eligible for Head Start. The bill also allow homeless children to be immediately enrolled in Head Start by allowing them extra time to provided required documentation; providing that that documentation be in a reasonable time frame. And, our bill would require school, district liaisons to assist families in obtaining necessary documents. In addition, our bill increases Head Start's outreach to homeless and foster children. Further, the bill would reduce barriers by encouraging coordination between Head Start agencies and community programs that serve these vulnerable populations.

Again, I would like to thank my colleague Senator DeWine for his many efforts in supporting homeless and foster youth. I urge the Senate to ensure that all children, despite their background and socioeconomic situation receive equal access to a quality education.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Head Start Improvements for School Readiness Act with my colleague, Senator Kennedy.

This legislation would reauthorize the Head Start program and make important improvements to the Head Start Act and help ensure that today's children receiving services by this important program will be better prepared for success in the future. Success in life depends a great deal on the preparation for that success, which comes early in life. It is well documented in early childhood education research that students who are not reading well by the third grade will struggle with reading most of their lives. That is why the Head Start program is so important. Head Start provides early education for thousands of children each year, most of whom would not have the opportunity to attend preschool programs elsewhere.

The Head Start program is important generally, but there is some room for improvement. Earlier this year the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions held a hearing on the administration of the Head Start program, and found that a number of changes might help improve the performance of the program overall.

The first change required by this program would be providing for all Head Start grantees found to have a deficiency to recompete the next time the program's grant is up for renewal. The bill would also require grantees to recompete if they have not resolved issues of noncompliance within 120 days, or a longer time specified by the Secretary of Health and Human Services. This will create an important incentive for programs to operate at their best, which is in the best interest of our children.

The bill would also shorten the timeline for programs to be terminated. In some instances, Head Start grantees have been found to be operating programs that are unsafe, or improperly using Federal funds. In these cases, the Administration has acted to terminate these programs. Unfortunately, under the law, Head Start grantees have been able to appeal these rulings. This process can be lengthy, some examples exceed 600 days, or almost two years, before a final ruling is made. In order to address this issue, and put the health and education of children first, the legislation we introduce today would limit the time available for Head Start grantees to appeal decisions made by the Secretary to terminate grants.

A third improvement is to clarify the role of the governing body and policy councils in individual Head Start programs. After careful review, the Committee found that many of the important fiscal and legal responsibilities of Head Start grantees were not explicitly assigned to either the policy council or the governing body, or in many instances, were assigned equally to both. In order to clarify the shared governance model, the bill we introduce today would clarify the responsibilities of the governing body and the policy council for each Head Start grantee. We believe this will lead to more consistent, high quality fiscal and legal management, which will ensure these programs are serving children in the best way they can.

I wish to thank my colleagues on the Committee, particularly Senator Kennedy, for their help in drafting this bipartisan legislation to reauthorize the Head Start Act. I believe the legislation we are introducing today will improve the quality and effectiveness of the Head Start program for generations of children to come.

I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation that would allow States to use Federal funds to provide critical healthcare services to pregnant women and children. I want to thank Senator Chafee for his leadership on this important issue. I also want to recognize former Senator Bob Graham and the late Senator John Chafee, who championed this legislation for many years. Their commitment laid the groundwork for our bill introduction today.

This bill, the Immigrant Children's Health Improvement Act, is fundamentally about three things--fairness, fiscal relief, and financial savings.

I will start with fairness. All across New York and America, legal immigrants work hard, pay taxes, and exercise their civic responsibilities. I see examples of this every day in New York. They fight for our country in the military. They contribute to our Nation's competitiveness and economic growth. They help revitalize neighborhoods and small towns across the country. And most are fiercely proud to call themselves Americans.

Yet, in 1996, Congress denied safety net services to legal immigrants who had been in the country for less than 5 years. Today, Senator Chafee and I are here to introduce legislation that would take a first step towards correcting that injustice. The Immigrant Children's Health Improvement Act will allow States to use, Federal funds to make SCHIP, (the State Children's Health Improvement Program, and Medicaid available to pregnant women and children who are legal immigrants within the 5-year ban.

There is tremendous need for this legislation. An Urban Institute study found that children of immigrants are three times as likely to be in fair or poor health. While most children receive preventative medicine, such as vaccines, too often immigrant children do not. They are forced to receive their healthcare via emergency rooms--the least cost-effective place to provide care. To make matters worse, minor illnesses, which would be easily treated by a pediatrician, may snowball into life-threatening conditions.

This legislation is also a matter of good fiscal policy. Today, 19 States, including New York and Rhode Island, plus the District of Columbia, use State funds to provide healthcare services to legal immigrants within the 5-year waiting period. According to the most recent estimates from the Congressional Budget Office, at least 155,000 children and 60,000 adults are receiving these benefits. A total of 387,000 recent legal immigrants would be eligible to receive these services if their States opt to take advantage of the program.

And finally, this bill is about long-term healthcare cost savings. According to the National Bureau of Economic Research, covering uninsured children and pregnant women through Medicaid can reduce unnecessary hospitalization by 22 percent. Pregnant women who forgo prenatal care are likely to develop complications during pregnancy, which results in higher costs for postpartum care. And women without access to prenatal care are four times more likely to deliver low birth weight infants and seven times more likely to deliver prematurely than women who receive prenatal care, according to the Institute of Medicine. All of these health outcomes are costly to society and to the individuals involved.

Thank you for allotting me this time to speak on such an urgent matter. I look forward to working with you and the rest of my colleagues to enact this bill into law in the near future.