Domestic Partnership Benefits and Obligations Act of 2007

Mr. President, while we are facing new difficulties in the mortgage and subprime markets, we cannot forget the ongoing and deepening crisis that affordable rental housing presents for our Nation. Long-term changes in the housing market have dramatically limited the availability of affordable rental housing across the country and have severely increased the cost of rental housing that remains. As a result, more and more families are forced to pay more than 50 percent of their income for housing. In 2005, a record 37.3 million households paid more than 30 percent of their income on housing costs, according to the Nation's Housing 2007 Report from the Joint Center

for Housing Studies at Harvard University. Approximately 17 million families paid more than half of their incomes on housing costs. This is unacceptable. Our Nation must act to ease this rental housing crisis by producing more affordable housing options.

We can no longer ignore the lack of affordable housing and the impact it is having on families and children around the country. I believe it is time for our Nation to take a new path--one that insures that all Americans, especially our poorest children, have the opportunity to live in decent and safe housing.

Housing construction is a critical part of our economy. Unfortunately, just yesterday the Commerce Department reported that construction of new homes dropped by 5.5 percent last month, the lowest level since April 1991. The overall construction decline left home building 24.2 percent below the level of activity a year ago. Residential construction has seen the largest share of job losses, more than 192,000 since March 2006.

The question is, what do we do today to face--and to finance--this mounting challenge?

In September 2000, I wrote and introduced the original National Affordable Housing Trust Fund legislation. Today, along with Senator Snowe, I am again proposing to address the severe shortage of affordable housing by introducing legislation that will establish a National Affordable Housing Trust Fund and begin a rental housing production program.

The Affordable Housing Trust Fund that is established in this legislation would create a production program that will ensure 1.5 million new rental units are built over the next 10 years for extremely low-income families and working families. The goal is to create long- term affordable, mixed-income developments in areas with the greatest opportunities for low-income families. Sixty percent of Trust Fund assistance will be awarded to participating local jurisdictions. Forty percent of Trust Fund assistance will be awarded to States, Indian Tribes and insular areas. A proportionate amount of funds to the States must go to rural areas. If the total amount available for the Trust Fund is less than $2 billion, then there is a $750,000 minimum funding threshold for local jurisdictions.

All funding from the Trust Fund must be used for low-income families, defined as those families with incomes below 80 percent of the State or local median income. However, if the funding for the trust fund is less than $2 billion for any year, then the income ceiling is reduced to 60 percent of local median income.

The funding from the Trust Fund can be used for construction, rehabilitation, acquisition, preservation incentives, and operating assistance to ease the affordable housing crisis. Funds can also be used for downpayment and closing cost assistance by first time homebuyers.

The Trust Fund will be funded through amounts transferred from the Federal National Mortgage Association and the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation under Title XIII of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1992. It will also be funded through any amounts appropriated under the authorization in the Expanding American Homeownership Act of 2007, relating to the use of FHA savings for an affordable housing grant program. Finally, the Trust Fund will be funded through any amounts as are or may be appropriated, transferred or credited to such fund under any other provisions of law.

The National Affordable Housing Trust Fund bill is cosponsored by a bipartisan group of Senators. Earlier this year, the House of Representatives passed legislation, introduced by House Financial Services Chairman Barney Frank, to establish a National Affordable Housing Trust Fund by a 264-148 vote. It has been endorsed by more than 5,700 community organizations led by the National Low-Income Housing Coalition and including the National Association of Realtors, the National Association of Home Builders, Children's Defense Fund, U.S. Conference of Mayors, National Coalition for the Homeless, and others. I am pleased that Senator Reed, within the Government Sponsored Enterprise Mission Improvement Act, included legislative language within the Affordable Housing Block Grant section to provide grants to an Affordable Housing Trust Fund.

Enacting the National Affordable Housing Trust Fund will help reverse the recent declines in housing jobs, starts, permits and construction in every State. It will help small businesses across the Nation continue to produce the jobs that are critical to our economic security today and in the future.

During this time of rising rents, increased housing costs, and the loss of affordable housing units, it is incomprehensible that we are not doing more to increase the amount of housing assistance available to working families. The need for affordable housing is severe. Many working families have been unable to keep up with the increase in housing costs. In 2005, one in seven households was considered to be ``severely housing cost burdened.''

For too many low-income families and their children, the cost of privately owned rental housing is simply out of reach. Today, working families in this country increasingly find themselves unable to afford housing. According to the National Low-Income Housing Coalition, in Massachusetts, the fair market rent for a two-bedroom apartment is almost $1,200 per month. In order to afford this apartment without paying more than 30 percent of income on housing, a household must earn over $47,000 per year. This means teachers, janitors, social workers, police officers and other full-time workers are having trouble affording even a modest two-bedroom apartment.

The cost of rental housing keeps going up. According to the Consumer Price Index, CPI, contract rents began to rise above the rate of inflation in 1997 and have continued every year since. Rental costs have outpaced renter income gains for households across the board. Low wage workers have been hardest hit by the increase in the cost of rental housing.

Because of the lack of affordable housing, too many families are forced to live in substandard living conditions putting their children at risk. Children living in substandard housing are more likely to experience violence, hunger, lead poisoning and to suffer from infectious diseases such as asthma. They are more likely to have difficulties learning and more likely to fall behind in school. Our Nation's children depend upon access to affordable rental housing.

At the same time the cost of rental housing has been increasing, there has been a significant decrease in the number of affordable rental housing units. According to Real Capital Analytics, the number of rentals in larger multifamily properties converted to for-sale units jumped from just a few thousand in 2003 to 235,000 in 2005. New construction of multifamily buildings intended for rental use dipped from 262,000 units in 2003 to 184,000 in 2006. Simultaneously, the number of renter households increased by 1.2 million. The decline in affordable rental units has already forced many working families eligible for Section 8 vouchers in Boston to live outside the city because there are no available rental housing units that accept vouchers.

The loss of affordable housing has exacerbated the housing crisis in this country, and the Federal Government must take action. We need to enact the National Affordable Housing Trust Fund to jumpstart the production of affordable housing in the U.S.

Decent housing, along with neighborhood and living environment, play enormous roles in shaping young lives. Federal housing assistance over the past generation has helped millions of low-income children across the Nation and has helped in developing stable home environments. However, changes in the housing market clearly show that we need to take additional steps to both produce and maintain affordable housing units. Otherwise, many more children and their families will live in substandard housing or will become homeless. These children are less likely to do well in school and less likely to be productive citizens. They deserve our best efforts and require our help.

I ask all Senators to support the National Affordable Housing Trust Fund Act.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce an important piece of legislation, the MediKids Health Insurance Act of 2007. This legislation will provide health insurance for every child in the U.S. by 2014, regardless of family income. My long-time friend from California, Congressman Stark, introduced companion legislation earlier this year in the House. He has worked tirelessly to improve access to health care for all Americans, and I am pleased to join him once again to advocate on behalf of America's children.

This past year, the majority in Congress made it clear that improving health care access for children was a priority. I proudly worked with my colleagues in a truly bipartisan fashion to reauthorize and expand the Children's Health Insurance Program, CHIP, to meet the serious health care needs of children in a very cost-effective manner. This legislation, which had the support of Democrats and Republicans in both chambers of Congress, would have maintained health insurance coverage for the over 6 million children currently enrolled and expanded health insurance coverage to an additional 4 million uninsured children. Unfortunately, the President, in vetoing this legislation not once, but twice, has shown the nation that providing health insurance to children is simply not a priority. I am outraged by the President's decision to veto this legislation multiple times, but I remain committed to making health insurance a reality for all children.

Congressman Stark and I have introduced our MediKids legislation in each of the last four Congresses because we know how vital health insurance is to a child. Children with untreated illnesses are more likely to miss school, leaving them at a disadvantage both in their health and education. Also, parents with sick children must miss work to care for them. These factors make it less likely uninsured children will move out of poverty and present significant barriers to becoming productive members of society. We can have a positive impact on our children's lives today, as well as tomorrow, by guaranteeing health insurance coverage for all. Children are inexpensive to insure, but the rewards for providing them with health care during their early education and development years are invaluable.

Despite the well-documented benefits of providing health insurance coverage for children, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation, there are still over 9 million uninsured children in America. We can and must do better. Our children are our future. No child in this country should ever be without access to health care. This is why I am proud to reintroduce the MediKids Health Insurance Act.

This legislation is a clear investment in our future--our children. Every child would be automatically enrolled at birth into a new, comprehensive federal safety net health insurance program beginning in 2009. The benefits would be tailored to meet the needs of children and would be similar to those currently avable to chldren through the Medicaid Early and Periodic Screening, Diagnosis, and Treatment, EPSDT, program. Families below 150 percent of poverty would pay no premiums or copayments, while those between 150 and 300 percent of poverty would pay graduated premiums up to 5 percent of income and a graduated refundable tax credit for cost sharing. Families above 300 percent of poverty would pay a small premium equivalent to \1/4\ of the average annual cost per child. There would be no cost sharing for preventive or well-child visits for any child.

MediKids children would remain enrolled in the program throughout childhood. When families move to another state, Medikids would be available until parents enroll their children in a new insurance program. Between jobs or during family crises, Medikids would offer extra security and ensure continuous health coverage to our Nation's children. During the critical period when a family climbs out of poverty and out of the eligibility range for means-tested assistance programs, MediKids would fill in the gaps as parents move into jobs that provide reliable health insurance coverage. Our program rests on the premise that whenever other sources of health insurance fail, MediKids would stand ready to cover the health needs of our next generation. Ultimately, every child in America would grow up with consistent, continuous health insurance coverage.

Like Medicare, MediKids would be independently financed, would cover benefits taylored to the needs of its target population, and would have the goal of achieving nearly 100 percent health insurance coverage for the children of this country just as Medicare has done for our Nation's seniors and individuals with disabilities throughout its more than 40- year history. When Congress created Medicare in 1965, seniors were more likely to be living in poverty than any other age group. Most were unable to afford needed medical services and unable to find health insurance in the market even if they could afford it. Today, it is our Nation's children who shoulder that burden of poverty.

Children in America are nearly twice as vulnerable to poverty as adults. It is time we make a significant investment

in the future of America by guaranteeing all children the health coverage they need to get a healthy start in life.

Congress cannot rest on the success we achieved by expanding Medicaid and passing the Children's Health Insurance Program. Although each was a remarkable step toward reducing the ranks of the uninsured, particularly uninsured children, we still have a long way to go, as is evidenced by the millions of children who are still uninsured.

It's long past time to rekindle the discussion about how to provide health insurance for all Americans. Americans have told us loud and clear that they want leadership in solving the health insurance crisis. The bill I am introducing today--the MediKids Health Insurance Act of 2007--is a comprehensive approach toward eliminating the irrational and tragic lack of health insurance for so many children in our country. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Full Faith & Credit in Our Communities Act of 2007. Strong communities form the bedrock of a successful economy and ultimately, a healthy society. For communities to be strong and families to prosper, there must be economic opportunity. Economic opportunity, in turn, depends on access to capital. Unfortunately, many communities across our Nation lack this fundamental tool for financial prosperity and self-sufficiency.

We must provide economic opportunity not only today, but also lay the groundwork so that future generations can thrive and prosper, and we must do it in a way that fosters real and permanent change rather than short-term solutions. We cannot simply rely on short-term band aids that serve to only mask the vast inequalities in income and unacceptable levels of poverty that plague our Nation. We must invest in our Nation's future. We must close the wealth gaps that are growing wider each day in this country by investing in our citizens and closing the opportunity gap. We must invest in entrepreneurship, ownership, and economic growth--but we must do so in a fiscally responsible manner.

Federal resources are scarce. We must focus our efforts and invest in successful programs that give us the biggest bang for our buck. CDFIs have a history of prudently using scarce public funds to leverage additional private funding to finance emerging domestic markets. They are able to lend successfully in these markets in part because CDFIs build their borrowers' capacity by combining their financing with technical assistance such as homeownership counseling, entrepreneurial training, and financial literacy education. CDFIs finance small businesses, homeownership, affordable rental housing, childcare facilities, charter schools, and other needed development resources. About 1,000 CDFIs operating in the U.S. manage more than $25 billion in assets, providing much-needed financial services to low-income communities across the U.S.

Unfortunately, CDFIs have limited access to capital due to the relatively small size of, and lack of awareness about, their projects. This results in a hesitancy of Wall Street to invest in CDFIs, forcing them to rely largely on commercial banks which usually only offer short-term loans with high interest rates. Every dollar wasted on interest payments is another dollar lost to communities, making these additional costs a clear impediment to community development efforts.

This legislation would increase the length and decrease the cost of capital available to CDFIs by providing them access to the enormous financial power of Wall Street. It would accomplish this by allowing the Treasury Department to guarantee up to $1 billion per year in bonds issued by qualified CDFIs. These bonds would be sold on Wall Street with the proceeds going to CDFIs to finance a myriad of community and economic development projects such as job-training centers and health care clinics. Unlike many legislative proposals that often result in winners and losers, this legislation is a win-win for everyone involved. CDFIs will have access to much-needed, low-cost capital. Communities will benefit from an infusion of investments in community and economic development projects. And investors will have an opportunity to make sound, long-term investments.

Perhaps the best part of this legislation is that it should not end up costing the American taxpayer a single dollar. Since these bonds will be issued by CDFIs, they will be the ones responsible for honoring the bonds when they reach maturity. Considering the fact that CDFIs have very low loan default rates that are often below mainstream bank averages, the risk of insolvency is very low. To further mitigate this risk, CDFIs will be required to create a loan loss reserve fund, similar in nature, but much smaller in scope, to the FDIC.

In addition to providing low-cost capital to underserved communities, this legislation would require CDFIs to pay a portion of their savings to a subaccount of the Treasury Department's CDFI Fund. These funds will be used to provide technical and financial assistance grants to non-profits for community and economic development purposes. CDFIs can apply for these grants through a competitive application process with the requirement to match, dollar for dollar, Federal funds with private investment. According to the Treasury Department, for every Federal dollar of investment, CDFIs leverage $19 in non-federal funds. CDFIs use the ``seed capital'' from the Federal Government to attract private-sector capital, ensuring continued community investment well beyond the initial Federal funding.

A community isn't complete without places to shop and work, without affordable housing, without the prosperity that thriving businesses represent. My Full Faith & Credit in Our Communities Act will help CDFIs develop retail and commercial facilities, train and place neighborhood residents in jobs, and provide affordable housing across the country. This bill is essential for our people and communities most in need. Beyond the obvious tangible benefits, the Full Faith & Credit in Our Communities Act will provide our Nation's distressed communities with something all but lost in many: HOPE. Hope for a better future, a safe community, flourishing businesses, and a more prosperous future for generations to come.

In closing, I urge my colleagues to support the Full Faith & Credit in Our Communities Act to ensure that every American has access to the American Dream. With this bill, we can not only change lives and communities today, but for generations to come.

Mr. President, as one of the Senate's commercially licensed pilots, I rise to talk about an issue near and dear to my heart--flying. As many in this Chamber know, I love flying and have flown thousands of hours, attended the well-known AirVenture aviation event in Oshkosh, Wisconsin, each year, and even recreated Wiley Post's trip around the world. I have received notable recognition for this beloved hobby.

Today, I am here to acknowledge a group of people who share my love of flying--volunteer pilots. Non-profit, charitable associations called Volunteer Pilot Organizations, VPOs, provide the resources to help these self-sacrificing men and women serve people in need.

There are approximately 40 to 50 VPO's in the United States ranging from small, local groups to large, national associations. Air Charity Network, ACN, is the Nation's largest VPO and has seven member organizations that collectively serve the entire country and perform about 90 percent of all charitable aviation missions in the U.S. ACN's volunteer pilots provide free air transportation for people in need of specialized medical treatment at distant locations due to family, community or national crises. They also step in when commercial air service is not available with middle-of-the-night organ transplant patient flights, disaster response missions evacuating special needs patients, and transport of blood or blood products in emergencies.

ACN and its more than 8,000 volunteer pilots use their own planes, pay for their own fuel, and even take time from their ``day'' jobs to serve people in need. These Good Samaritans will provide charitable flights for an estimated 24,000 patients this year alone and their safety record is phenomenal. In their more than 30 years of service, the pilots of ACN have flown over 250,000 missions covering over 80 million miles and have never had a fatal accident.

Following the September 11 terrorist attacks, ACN aircraft were the first to be approved to fly in disaster-response teams and supplies. Similarly, in 2005, ACN pilots flew over 2,600 missions after Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, reuniting families torn apart by the disaster and relocating them to safe housing. Their service was invaluable to the thousands of people they saved during these national crises.

Despite this goodwill, there is a loophole in the law that subjects these heroes and charitable organizations to frivolous, costly lawsuits. Currently, although volunteer pilots are required to carry liability insurance, if they have an accident, the injured party can sue for any amount of money--the sky is the limit. It would be up to a jury to decide on an amount. If that amount is higher than the liability limit on a pilot's insurance, then the pilot is at risk of losing their personal investments, home, business and other assets, potentially bringing them financial ruin.

Additionally, the cost of insurance and lack of available non-owned aircraft liability insurance for organizations since the terrorist attacks of September 11 prevents VPOs from acquiring liability protection for their organizations, boards, and staff. Without this insurance, if a volunteer pilot were to have an accident using his or her own aircraft, everyone connected to the organization could be subject to a costly lawsuit, despite the fact that none of those people were directly involved with the dispatch of the flight, the pilot's decisions, or the aircraft itself.

Exposure to this type of risk makes it difficult for these organizations to recruit and retain volunteer pilots and professional staff. It also makes referring medical professionals such as hospitals, doctors, nurses, social workers, and disaster agencies like the American Red Cross, less likely to tell patients or evacuees that charitable medical air transportation is available for fear of a liability suit against them. Instead of focusing on serving people with medical needs, these organizations are spending considerable time and resources averting a lawsuit and recruiting volunteers.

This is why today I am introducing the Volunteer Pilot Organization Protection Act of 2007, which I cosponsored in the last two Congresses, to help close this costly loophole. My bill amends the Volunteer Protection Act of 1997, VPA, which was intended to increase volunteerism in the United States, to include groups such as ACN and the American Red Cross in the list of types of organizations that are currently exempt from liability. More specifically, it will protect volunteer pilot organizations, their boards, paid staff and non-flying volunteers from liability should there be an accident. It will also provide liability protection for individual volunteer pilots over and above the liability insurance that they are currently required to carry, as well

as liability protection for the referring agencies who inform their patients of charitable flight services.

Similar legislation was introduced in the Senate in the past several Congresses and passed overwhelmingly in the House in the 108th Congress by a vote of 385-12 and by voice vote in the 109th Congress. Clearly, the Volunteer Pilot Organization Protection Act has significant support. The companion version, H.R. 2191, was introduced in May by my colleague, Congresswoman Thelma Drake, with ten original, bipartisan cosponsors.

My bill will go a long way to help eliminate unnecessary liability risk and allow volunteer pilots and the charitable organizations for which they fly to concentrate on what they do best--save lives. Please join me in supporting the Volunteer Pilot Organization Protection Act of 2007.

Mr. President, I rise to urge my colleagues to support the domestic Partnership Benefits and Obligations Act of 2007, which my good friend from the other side of the aisle, Senator Smith, and I introduced last Congress and are introducing again today, along with 19 other cosponsors.

This legislation is another step in the process to make the Federal Government more competitive in an ever-changing business world. It would require the Government to extend employee benefit programs to the same-sex domestic partners of Federal employees. It is sound public policy and it makes excellent business sense.

Under our bill, Federal employee and the employee's domestic partner would be eligible to participate in health benefits, Family and Medical Leave, long-term care, Federal retirement benefits, and other benefits to the same extent that married employees and their spouses participate. Employees and their partners would also assume the same obligations that apply to married employees and their spouses, such as anti-nepotism rules and financial disclosure requirements.

The Federal Government is our Nation's largest employer and should lead other employers, rather than lagging behind, in the quest to provide equal and fair compensation and benefits to all employees. That thousands of Federal workers who have dedicated their careers to public service and who live in committed relationships with same-sex domestic partners receive fewer protections for their families than those married employees is patently unfair and, frankly, makes no economic sense.

Just ask the leaders of more than half of the Fortune 500 companies who already extend employee benefit programs to their employees' domestic partners. The fact is that most of America's major corporations now offer health benefits to employees' domestic partners, up from 25 percent in 2000. Overall, more than 9,700 private-sector companies provide available benefits to employees' domestic partners, as do several hundred State and local governments and colleges and universities.

General Electric, Chevron, Boeing, Texas Instruments, IBM, Raytheon, BP, Hospital Corporation of America, Lockheed Martin, Duke Energy Corp., and AT&T are among the major employers that have recognized the economic benefit of providing for domestic partners. The governments of 13 States--including, I might add, my home State of Connecticut--and about 145 local jurisdictions across the land, as well as multiple educational institutions, have joined the trend. They aren't all doing this just because it is the right thing to do. They are also doing it because it is good business policy.

Non-federal employers have told surveyors that they extend benefits to domestic partners to boost recruitment and retain quality employees--as well as to be fair. The Federal Government needs to compete against the private sector companies to recruit and retain the ``best and the brightest,'' to safeguard the Nation by serving in essential areas such as homeland security, national defense, and environmental protection and to help make sure that American taxpayers get their money's worth. The Government will always be at a definite disadvantage in competing for and retaining highly qualified personnel if it cannot match the domestic-partner benefits programs provided by leading non-federal employers.

Furthermore, coverage of domestic partners adds very little to the total cost of providing employee benefits. Based on the experience of private companies and State and local governments, the Congressional Budget Office has estimated that offering benefits to the same-sex domestic partners of Federal employees would increase the cost of those programs by less than \1/2\ of 1 percent.

Our former ambassador to Romania and Dean of the Foreign Service Institute recently felt obliged to quit the Foreign Service because the State Department does not offer the kind of domestic partnership benefits that this bill would provide. Let me read a line from his farewell speech. He said, ``. . . I have felt compelled to choose between obligations to my partner--who is my family--and service to my country. That anyone should have to make that choice is a stain on the Secretary's leadership and a shame for this institution and our country.''

Those are powerful and poignant words, and it is a tragedy that a loyal and talented public servant--who described the Foreign Service as the career he was ``born for . . . what I was always meant to do''-- felt he had to leave the Service because his Federal employee benefits would not enable him to adequately care for the needs of his family.

I call upon my colleagues to express their support for this important legislation. It is time for the Federal Government to catch up to the private sector, not just to set an example but so that it can compete for the most qualified employees and ensure that all of our public servants receive fair and equitable treatment. It makes good economic and policy senses. It is the right thing to do.

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