Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing the Instructional Materials Accessibility Act, which will ensure that, for the first time, blind students will be able to fully enjoy an equal opportunity to a quality education. This same bill attracted 88 bipartisan cosponsors in the 107th Congress, most notably my friend George Miller, the Ranking Member of the House Committee on Education and the Workforce, who has worked closely with me on crafting this legislation.

Unfortunately, it is the exception rather than the rule that blind students have access to textbooks for a given class at the beginning of the school year. Because of the cumbersome process needed to translate a textbook into Braille or other specialized format, it can take up to six months for the blind student to have the same materials as his or her sighted peers. Only a heroic effort can save this student from being hopelessly behind in class.

This was not much of an issue before the 1960's. Before that time, most blind children attended centralized schools for the blind, and there was (and is) existing infrastructure, such as the American Printing House for the Blind in Kentucky, to provide support services such as production of Braille textbooks. Beginning in the 1960's, though, blind children began attending schools in their home communities, and now the vast majority do so. As a result, every local school district which has one or more blind students must obtain or create the necessary specialized textbooks for these students. However, again this is a laborious process that is beyond the capability of most school districts to carry out quickly or easily.

Although states already have the obligation under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and other federal statutes to provide equivalent educational opportunities to disabled and non- disabled students, it has become apparent that specific and practical standards need to be put in place to anticipate and meet accessibility needs in this area. The Instructional Materials Accessibility Act (IMAA) takes several approaches that, taken together, will greatly reduce the waiting time for blind students to receive their textbooks.

This bill establishes a standardized electronic file format for instructional materials. Conversion into an electronic format is a necessary step in the process of creating a Braille version of a textbook. Twenty-six states currently require publishers to provide electronic copies of textbooks but have no agreed-upon file format. This drives up costs for publishers and often results in unusable electronic files provided. And it does nothing to reduce the months- long period needed for production of the specialized textbook.

Our bill requires statewide plans to ensure that students who are blind or visually impaired have access to instructional materials in formats they can use at the same time the materials are provided to all other students. Our bill will establish a national clearinghouse to provide ``one-stop shopping'' for local school districts to acquire the needed materials. In the future, publishers will be able to submit an electronic copy of a textbook to this clearinghouse, rather than having to deal with inconsistent state requirements. Finally, our bill authorizes a small capacity-building grant program to assist state and local educators in using electronic files supplied by publishers.

This issue has been a bone of contention between textbook publishers and the blind community for quite a while. However, working together over a period of many months, both communities finally arrived at a mutually agreeable and practical solution to this problem and the publishers and the blind advocates strongly support the IMAA as introduced in both Houses.

In the 107th Congress, the support and great need for this legislation prompted the Department of Education to fund the development of a voluntary standardized electronic format for specialized instructional materials. Once completed, this standardized file format would implement a significant piece of the IMAA. However, a standardized file format by itself will not solve all the problems which cause delays in the delivery of textbooks to visually impaired students. That is why this legislation is still needed. Once implemented, the IMAA will make life easier for states, publishers and most of all blind students, at a very modest cost.

Mr. Speaker, today my colleague, the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller), and I are introducing the Instructional Materials Accessibility Act, which makes sure that blind students will be able to enjoy an equal opportunity to a quality education.

It often takes months for a blind student to have the same materials as his or her sighted peers because of the cumbersome process needed to translate a textbook into Braille or other specialized format. This legislation will eliminate these delays by putting in place standards to assist States and school districts in delivering instructional materials to blind students.

I would urge my colleagues to support this important bill.

Mr. Speaker, today, I am introducing legislation to increase the disclosure requirements for telephone ``push polls.'' As many candidates for public office have learned through personal experience, these push polls are not legitimate telephone surveys, but campaign devices designed to smear a candidate under the guise of a standard opinion poll.

Imagine a voter, who has been identified as a supporter of candidate X, being asked in a survey if this support would continue if it was learned that candidate X was guilty of a terrible indiscretion or an outright crime. It doesn't matter whether the allegations are true because the idea that candidate X is somehow unfit for office has been planted successfully. This is a telephone push poll.

My legislation, the Push Poll Disclosure Act of 2003, requires that each participant in a poll conducted for a candidate for a Federal office seeking the opinion of more that 1,200 households be told the identity of the survey's sponsor, It also requires further disclosures when a survey's results are not to be released to the public. In this case, the cost of the poll and the sources of its funding must be reported to the Federal Election Commission, along with a count of the households contacted and a transcript of the questions asked.

The Push Poll Disclosure Act of 2003 is a simple bill. It will not hinder the traditional use of polling, nor will it burden polling firms with excessive regulations. What this bill does do, however, is regulate push polls for what they are--campaign activities, and questionable ones at that. This legislation is noncontroversial and should be bipartisan, and its passage will make campaigns for Federal office a little bit cleaner.

Mr. Speaker, today, I am introducing legislation to authorize a deduction from corporate income for dividends paid to stockholders. This legislation, the Dividend Payment Incentive Act of 2003, will provide benefits to shareholders, public company managers, and the broader U.S. economy. Passage of this bill is important for many reasons, including:

This legislation will end the double taxation of dividends. Currently, corporate income is taxed at 35 percent and then shareholders also pay personal income tax on any dividends received. An investor in the 27 percent tax bracket nets less than 48 cents for each dollar of earnings a public company allocates to dividend payments.

Current tax policy provides a disincentive for corporations to transfer earnings to shareholders, and dividend payments have declined significantly. In fact, many corporations make no dividend distributions.

Clearly, the expectation of receiving regular dividend payments from profitable companies can persuade investors to invest money in our equity markets. It has been estimated that dividends comprised half of the average return to shareholders in the decades before 1990. Encouraging managers to make dividend distributions can help to boost overall stock market performance by providing a very real incentive for investors to put their hard-earned money back into the stock market.

Because corporate income is taxed at a single 35 percent rate and personal income is taxed at marginal rates ranging from 15 to 38.6 percent, ending the double taxation of dividends on the corporate tax side will provide a fairer distribution of the benefit to taxpayers at all income levels. This stands in sharp contrast with proposals to reduce the personal income tax on dividends received which will give a greater benefit to taxpayers paying higher marginal tax rates.

Income allocated to dividends is fully taxed while interest payments are deductible. This uneven treatment of different financing vehicles distorts the corporate decisionmaking process by creating a distinct financial advantage for borrowing. Allowing a deduction for dividends paid will equalize this treatment and enable corporate managers to consider the full range of debt and equity financing options.

The time has come to end the double taxation of dividends, and it should be clear that enacting this reform through a corporate side deduction will provide the greatest benefit to the broadest array of taxpayers.

Mr. Speaker, today, I am introducing legislation to establish a program of limited tax credits and tax deductions to get average Americans involved in the political process. My bill, the Citizens Involvement in Campaigns (CIVIC) Act, will broaden the base of political contributors and limit the influence of big money donors in federal elections.

Members of Congress can be forgiven for being exhausted by the recent debates over campaign finance reform that last year concluded with passage of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA). Although that legislation will curb some of the worst abuses of our current campaign system, such as the unlimited soft money loophole, the reality is that special interests and high-income donors still will have a disproportionate level of influence in our political system. We cannot stop here, with the job only partly complete.

As the next step in the process of campaign finance reform, we need to take a fresh look at innovative approaches, including ways that encourage, and not restrict, people's participation in our campaigns. Toward this end, I have been advocating tax credits and deductions for small political contributions for many years. An updated tax credit system would be a simple and effective means of balancing the influence of big money donors and bringing individual contributors back to our campaigns. The impact of this counterweight will reduce the burden of raising money, as well as the appearance of impropriety that accompanies the money chase.

Most would agree that the ideal way to finance political campaigns is through a broad base of donors. But, as we are all painfully aware, the economic realities of modern-day campaigning lead many candidates to focus most of their efforts on collecting funds from a few large donors. This reality alienates many Americans from the political process.

The concept of empowering small donors is not a new idea. For example, from 1972 to 1986, the federal government offered a tax credit for small political contributions. This provided an incentive for average Americans to contribute to campaigns in small amounts while simultaneously encouraging politicians to solicit donations from a larger pool of contributors. Currently, six geographically and politically diverse states (Oregon, Minnesota, Ohio, Virginia, Arkansas, and Arizona) offer their own tax credits for political contributions. These state-level credits vary in many respects, but all share the same goal of encouraging average Americans to become more involved.

The CIVIC Act can begin the process of building this counterweight for federal elections. This bill is designed to encourage Americans who ordinarily do not get involved in politics beyond casting a vote every two or four years (that is, if they bother to vote at all) to become more active participants in our political process.

The CIVIC Act will reestablish and update the discontinued federal tax credit. Taxpayers can choose between a 100 percent tax credit for political contributions to federal candidates or national political parties (limited to $200 per taxable year), or a 100 percent tax deduction (limited to $600 per taxable year). Both limits, of course, are doubled for joint returns. As long as political parties and candidates promote the existence of these credits, the program can have a real impact and aid in making elections more grassroots affairs than they are now.

A side benefit of this legislation will be to strengthen political parties, which, many feel, have been weakened by the passage of BCRA. Under the CIVIC Act, only federal candidates and national party committees count as eligible recipients for purposes of the tax benefits. This will allow the parties to tap new sources of revenue and begin to replace the massive soft-money donations that have been cut off.

In conclusion, a limited tax credit for political contributions can be a bipartisan, cost-efficient method for helping balance the influence of large money donors in the American electoral process. Instead of driving away most Americans from participation in political life, we can invite them in. It seems to me that this will be a fruitful way to clean up our system, while at the same time convincing Americans that they actually have a meaningful stake in elections.