Real Estate Investment Thrift Savings Act of 2006

Mr. President, I rise today with Senator Kennedy to introduce the Family Reunification Act, a

measure designed to remedy a regrettable injustice in our immigration laws. A minor oversight in the law has led to an unfortunate, and likely unintended, consequence. Parents of U.S. citizens are currently able to enter the country as legal permanent residents, but our laws do not permit their minor children to join them. Simply put, the Family Reunification Act will close this loophole by including the minor siblings of U.S. citizens in the legal definition of ``immediate relative.'' This legislation will ensure that our immigration laws can better accomplish one of the most important policy goals behind them-- the goal of strengthening the family unit.

Congress took an important first step in promoting family reunification when it enacted the Immigration and Nationality Act. By qualifying as ``immediate relatives,'' this law currently offers parents, spouses and children of U.S. citizens the ability to obtain immigrant visas to enter the country legally.

We can all agree that this is good immigration policy. Unfortunately, a ``glitch'' in this law has undermined the effectiveness of the important principle of family reunification. Each year, a number of families--in Wisconsin and across the country--are finding that they cannot take full advantage of this family reunification provision.

Today, U.S. citizens often petition for their parents to be admitted to the United States as ``immediate relatives.'' As I have said, that is clearly allowed under current law. It is not always quite that simple, though. In a small number of cases, a problem arises because minor siblings of U.S. citizens do not qualify as an ``immediate relative'' under current law. So, a young man or woman can bring his parents into the country, but not his or her 5-year-old brother or sister. Because the parents are unable to leave a young child behind, the child is not the only family member who does not come to the United States. The parents--forced to choose between their children--are effectively prevented from coming as well. The result, then, is that we are unnecessarily keeping families apart by excluding minor siblings from the definition of immediate relative.

For example, one family in my home State of Wisconsin is truly a textbook example of what is wrong with this law. Effiong and Ekon Okon, both U.S. citizens by birth, requested that their parents, who were living in Nigeria, be admitted as ``immediate relatives.'' The law clearly allows for this. Their father, Leo, had already joined them in Wisconsin, and their mother, Grace, was in possession of a visa, ready to join the rest of her family. However, Grace was unable to join her husband and sons in the United States because their 6-year-old daughter, Daramfon, did not qualify as an ``immediate relative.'' Because it would be unthinkable for her to abandon her small child, Grace was forced to stay behind in Nigeria, separated from the rest of her family. That is not what this law was intended to accomplish.

It is difficult to determine the exact scope of this problem. Because minor siblings do not qualify for visas, the Department of Homeland Security, DHS, does not keep track of how many families have been adversely affected. What we do know, however, is that the cases in my home State are not unique. Though the number is admittedly not large, DHS has notified us that they run into this problem regularly, with the number reaching into the hundreds each year.

If only one family suffers because of this loophole, I would suggest that changes should be made. The fact that there have been numerous cases, probably in the hundreds, demands that we address this issue now, so we can avoid tearing even more families apart.

Many parts of our immigration laws are outdated and in need of repair. The definition of ``immediate relative'' is no different. Congress's intent when it granted ``immediate relatives'' the right to obtain immigrant visas was to promote family reunification, but the unfortunate oversight which Senator Kennedy and I have highlighted has interfered with many families' opportunity to do just that. The legislation introduced today would expand the definition of ``immediate relatives'' to include the minor siblings of U.S. citizens. By doing so, we can truly provide our fellow citizens with the ability to reunite with their family members. This is a simple and modest solution to an unthinkable problem that too many families have already had to face, so I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.

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

Mr. President, I rise today, with Senator Kennedy and Senator Durbin, to introduce the State Court Interpreter Grant Program Act of 2006. This legislation would create a modest grant program to provide much needed financial assistance to States for developing and implementing effective State court interpreter programs, helping to ensure fair trials for individuals with limited English proficiency.

States are legally required, under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, to take reasonable steps to provide meaningful access to court proceedings for individuals with limited English proficiency. Currently, however, court interpreting services vary greatly by State. Some States have highly developed programs. Others are trying to get programs up and running, but lack adequate funds. Still others have no certification program at all. It is critical that we protect the constitutional right to a fair trial by adequately funding State court interpreter programs.

Our States are finding themselves in an impossible position. Qualified interpreters are in short supply because it is difficult to find individuals who are both bilingual and well-versed in legal terminology. The skills required of a court interpreter differ significantly from those required of other interpreters or translators. Legal English is a highly particularized area of the language, and requires special training. Although anyone with fluency in a foreign language could attempt to translate a court proceeding, the best interpreters are those that have been tested and certified as official court interpreters.

Making the problem worse, States continue to fall further behind as the number of Americans with limited English proficiency--and therefore the demand for court interpreter services--continues to grow. According to the most recent Census data, 18 percent of the population over age five speaks a language other than English at home. In 2000, the number of people in this country who spoke English less than ``very well'' was more than 21 million, approaching twice what the number was 10 years earlier. Illinois had more than 1 million. Texas had nearly 2.7 million. California had more than 6.2 million.

The shortage of qualified interpreters has become a national problem, and it has serious consequences. In Pennsylvania, a Committee established by the Supreme Court called the State's interpreter program ``backward'' and said that the lack of qualified interpreters ``undermines the ability of the . . . court system to determine facts accurately and to dispense justice fairly.'' When interpreters are unqualified, or untrained, mistakes are made. The result is that the fundamental right to due process is too often lost in translation. And, because the lawyers and judges are not interpreters, these mistakes often go unnoticed.

Some of the stories associated with this problem are simply unbelievable. In Pennsylvania, for instance, a husband accused of abusing his wife was asked to translate as his wife testified in court.

This legislation addresses this problem by authorizing $15 million per year, for the next five years, for a State Court Interpreter Grant Program. Those States that apply would be eligible for a $100,000 base grant allotment. In addition, $5 million would be set aside for States that demonstrate extraordinary need. The remainder of the money would be distributed on a formula basis, determined by the percentage of persons in that State over the age of five who speak a language other than English at home.

Some will undoubtedly question whether this modest amount can make a difference. It can, and my home State of Wisconsin is a testament to that. When Wisconsin's program got off the ground in 2004, using State money along with a $250,000 Federal grant, certified interpreters were scarce. Now, just two years later, it has 43 certified interpreters. Most of those are Spanish, where the greatest need exists. However, the State also has interpreters certified in sign language and Russian. The list of provisional interpreters--those who have received training and passed written tests--is much longer, including individuals trained in Arabic, Hmong, Korean, and other languages. All of this progress in only two years, and with only $250,000 of Federal assistance.

This legislation has the strong support of State court administrators and State supreme court justices around the country.

Our States face this difficult challenge, and Federal law requires them to meet it. Despite their noble efforts, many of them are failing. It is time we lend them a helping hand. This is an access issue, and no one should be denied justice or access to our courts merely because of a language barrier.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to help provide more affordable health coverage to millions of Americans. This legislation makes commonsense changes that will create tax parity between employer-sponsored insurance and insurance purchased in the individual market.

As we are well aware, the Federal tax code's treatment of medical care has shaped the development of the private third-party system of financing health care in the United States. The tax code treats the self-employed, unemployed, and workers at companies that do not offer health insurance, most of which are small businesses, less generously than it treats workers at companies that do offer health insurance. Employer-sponsored insurance receives a tax subsidy that individually- purchased insurance does not, and as a result two-thirds of non-elderly Americans receive health insurance through their own or a family member's employer.

Of equal concern, the percent of employer-sponsored insurance has dropped from 69 percent in 2000 to 60 percent in 2005 due mainly to the rapid rise in health insurance premiums, which have increased more than 60 percent in real terms over the past 5 years alone. The percent of the non-elderly population with employer-sponsored insurance has correspondingly dropped, from 68 percent in 2000 to 63 percent in 2004. Consequently, more Americans must look to the non-group market for their health insurance needs.

To help rectify this disparity, the legislation I am introducing today would permit premiums for high-deductible plans purchased in conjunction with a qualifying health savings accounts (HAS) on the individual market to be deductible from income taxes. In addition, an income tax credit would offset payroll taxes paid on these premiums. As such, people who purchase their health benefits in the individual market would receive the same tax treatment as those who receive employer-sponsored insurance.

Perhaps one of the most widespread criticisms of HSA plans is that they are only helpful to those who are young, healthy, and wealthy. However, a recent survey conducted by America's Health Insurance Plans reveals this not to be the case. In that survey, it was shown that 50 percent of all people covered by HSA plans in the individual market are 40 years of age or older. Moreover, 31 percent of new enrollees in HSA plans were previously uninsured.

My legislation would provide substantial savings to middle and low income families. For example, a family in the 15 percent income tax bracket, and 15.3 percent payroll tax bracket, would receive a tax subsidy of over $1,500 towards the purchase of a $5,000 family insurance HSA-qualified policy.

Moreover, the income tax credit to offset payroll taxes is designed to help lower income workers. These hard-working Americans are more likely to work for firms that do not offer health insurance, and many have low enough incomes that they are paying no income taxes, but still must pay payroll taxes. My bill helps to give them the affordable and quality health benefits they deserve.

Since being enacted in the Medicare Modernization Act, health savings accounts have helped to provide millions of Americans with an additional option in meeting their health care needs. It is simply not fair that the law does not provide these plans with the same tax treatment provided to employer-sponsored insurance. If we are to seriously begin addressing the rapidly rising cost of health care, it is imperative that we take steps now to ensure that available health care plans are as affordable as possible.

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

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

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