IV
108th CONGRESS
2d Session
H. RES. 838
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

October 7, 2004
Mr. Nadler (for himself and Mr. Lantos) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on International Relations

RESOLUTION
Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives regarding the creation of refugee populations in the Middle East, North Africa, and the Persian Gulf region as a result of human rights violations.

Whereas Jews and other ethnic groups have lived mostly as minorities in the Middle East, North Africa, and the Persian Gulf region for more than 2,500 years, more than 1,000 years before the advent of Islam;
Whereas the United States has long voiced its concern about the mistreatment of minorities and the violation of human rights in the Middle East and elsewhere;
Whereas the United States continues to play a pivotal role in seeking an end to conflict in the Middle East and to promoting a peace that will benefit all the people of the region;
Whereas a comprehensive peace in the region will require the resolution of all outstanding issues through bilateral and multilateral negotiations involving all concerned parties;
Whereas the discussion of refugees in the Middle East generally centers on Palestinian refugees, even though estimates indicate that, as a result of the 1948 war in which numerous Arab armies attacked the newly-founded State of Israel, more Jews (approximately 850,000) were displaced from Arab countries than were Palestinians (approximately 726,000) from Israel;
Whereas the United States has demonstrated interest and concern about the mistreatment, violation of rights, forced expulsion, and expropriation of assets of minority populations in general, and in particular, former Jewish refugees displaced from Arab countries, as evidenced, inter alia, by the following actions:
(1)A Memorandum of Understanding signed by President Jimmy Carter and Israeli Foreign Minister Moshe Dayan on October 4, 1977, states that [a] solution of the problem of Arab refugees and Jewish refugees will be discussed in accordance with rules which should be agreed.
(2)After negotiating the Camp David Accords, the Framework for Peace in the Middle East, President Jimmy Carter stated in a press conference on October 27, 1977 that Palestinians have rights . . . obviously there are Jewish refugees . . . they have the same rights as others do.
(3)In an interview with Israeli television immediately after the issue of the rights of Jews displaced from Arab lands was discussed at Camp David II in July 2000, President Clinton stated clearly that [t]here will have to be some sort of international fund set up for the refugees. There is, I think, some interest, interestingly enough, on both sides, in also having a fund which compensates the Israelis who were made refugees by the war, which occurred after the birth of the State of Israel. Israel is full of people, Jewish people, who lived in predominantly Arab countries who came to Israel because they were made refugees in their own land..
(4)In Senate Resolution 76, 85th Congress, agreed to January 29, 1957, the Senate—
(A)notes that individuals in Egypt who are tied by race, religion, or national origin with Israel, France, or the United Kingdom have been subjected to arrest, forced exile, confiscation of property, and other punishments although not charged with any crime; and
(B)requests the President to instruct the chief delegate to the United Nations to urge the prompt dispatch of a United Nations observer team to Egypt with a view to obtain a full factual report concerning this violation of rights.
(5)In House Concurrent Resolution 158, 85th Congress, Congress notes that the Government of Egypt had initiated a series of measures against the Jewish community, that many Jews were arrested as a result of such measures, that, beginning in November 1956, many Jews were expelled from Egypt, and that the Jews of Egypt faced sequestration of their goods and assets and denial or revocation of Egyptian citizenship, and resolves that the treatment of Jews in Egypt constituted persecution on account of race, religious beliefs, or political opinions, further resolving that these issues should be raised by the United States either in the United Nations or by other appropriate means.
(6)Section 620 of H.R. 3100, 100th Congress, states that Congress finds that with the notable exceptions of Morocco and Tunisia, those Jews remaining in Arab countries continue to suffer deprivations, degradations, and hardships, and continue to live in peril and that Congress calls upon the governments of those Arab countries where Jews still maintain a presence to guarantee their Jewish citizens full civil and human rights, including the right to lead full Jewish lives free of fear and to emigrate if they so choose;
Whereas the seminal United Nations resolution on the Arab-Israeli conflict and other international initiatives refer generally to the plight of refugees and do not make any distinction between Palestinian and Jewish refugees, including the following:
(1)United Nations Security Council Resolution 242 of November 22, 1967, calls for a just settlement of the refugee problem without distinction between Palestinian and Jewish refugees. Justice Arthur Goldberg, the United States delegate to the United Nations at that time, has pointed out that a notable omission in 242 is any reference to Palestinians, a Palestinian state on the West Bank or the PLO. The resolution addresses the objective of achieving a just settlement of the refugee problem. This language presumably refers both to Arab and Jewish refugees, for about an equal number of each abandoned their homes as a result of the several wars.
(2)The Madrid Conference, which was first convened in October 1991 and was co-chaired by United States President George H.W. Bush and President of the U.S.S.R. Mikhail Gorbachev, included delegations from Spain, the European Community, the Netherlands, Egypt, Syria, and Lebanon, as well as a joint Jordanian-Palestinian delegation. In his opening remarks before the January 28, 1992, organizational meeting for multilateral negotiations on the Middle East in Moscow, United States Secretary of State James Baker made no distinction between Palestinian refugees and Jewish refugees in articulating the mission of the Refugee Working Group, stating that [t]he refugee group will consider practical ways of improving the lot of people throughout the region who have been displaced from their homes.
(3)The Roadmap to a Permanent Two-State Solution to the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict, in referring to an agreed, just, fair, and realistic solution to the refugee issue, uses language that is equally applicable to all persons displaced as a result of the conflict in the Middle East;
Whereas Egypt, Jordan, and the Palestinians have affirmed that a comprehensive solution to the Middle East conflict will require a just solution to the plight of all refugees as evidenced by the following:
(1)The 1978 Camp David Accords, the Framework for Peace in the Middle East, includes a commitment by Egypt and Israel to work with each other and with other interested parties to establish agreed procedures for a prompt, just and permanent resolution of the implementation of the refugee problem. The Treaty of Peace between Israel and Egypt, signed at Washington, D.C. March 26, 1979, in addition to general references to United Nations Security Council Resolution 242 as the basis for comprehensive peace in the region, provides in Article 8 that the Parties agree to establish a claims commission for the mutual settlement of all financial claims, including those of former Christian and Jewish refugees displaced from Egypt.
(2)Article 8 of the Treaty of Peace Between the State of Israel and the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, done at Arava/Araba Crossing Point October 26, 1994, entitled Refugees and Displaced Persons recognizes the massive human problems caused to both Parties by the conflict in the Middle East. The reference to massive human problems in a broad manner suggests that the plight of all refugees of the conflict in the Middle East includes Jewish refugees from Arab countries;
Whereas the United States is encouraged by recent statements by Libyan leader Muammar Qadhafi that he is ready to compensate Libyan Jews whose properties were confiscated and that he is prepared to allow Libyans to travel to Israel;
Whereas the Law of Administration for the State of Iraq for the Transitional Period, signed at Baghdad March 8, 2004, is a landmark document that enshrines the right to freedom of thought, conscience, and religious belief and practice that had long been denied to Iraqis and states that the Transitional Government shall take steps to end the vestiges of the oppressive acts arising from, among other things, forced displacement, deprivation of citizenship, [and] expropriation of financial assets and property; and
Whereas, while progress is being made, continued emphasis needs to be placed on the rights and redress for Jewish refugees: Now, therefore, be it

1.Sense of the house of representatives on human rights and refugeesIt is the sense of the House of Representatives that—
(1)the United States deplores the past and continuing violation of the human rights and religious freedoms of minority populations in Arab countries;
(2)with respect to Jews and Christians displaced from Arab countries, for any comprehensive Middle East peace agreement to be credible, durable, and enduring, constitute an end to conflict in the Middle East, and provide for finality of all claims, the agreement must address and resolve all outstanding issues, including the legitimate rights of all peoples displaced from Arab countries; and
(3)the United States will work to ensure that the provisions of both the Law of Administration for the State of Iraq for the Transitional Period, signed at Baghdad March 8, 2004, and the permanent constitution to be presented to the people of Iraq for approval in a general referendum no later than October 15, 2005—
(A)are universally applied to all groups forced to leave Iraq; and
(B)will rectify the historical injustices and discriminatory measures perpetrated by previous Iraqi regimes.
2.United states policy on middle east refugeesThe House of Representatives urges the President to—
(1)instruct the United States Representative to the United Nations and all United States representatives in bilateral and multilateral fora that, when the United States considers or addresses resolutions that allude to the issue of Middle East refugees, the United States delegation should ensure that—
(A)the relevant text refers to the fact that multiple refugee populations have been caused by the Arab-Israeli conflict; and
(B)any explicit reference to the required resolution of the Palestinian refugee issue is matched by a similar explicit reference to the resolution of the issue of Jewish refugees from Arab countries; and
(2)make clear that the United States Government supports the position that, as an integral part of any comprehensive peace, the issue of refugees and the mass violations of human rights of minorities in Arab countries must be resolved in a manner that includes—
(A)redress for the legitimate rights of all refugees displaced from Arab countries; and
(B)recognition of the fact that Jewish and Christian property, schools, and community property was lost as a result of the Arab-Israeli conflict.


I
108th CONGRESS 2d Session
H. R. 5032
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

September 8, 2004
Mr. Saxton introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce

A BILL
To require the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to consider certain criteria in relicensing nuclear facilities, and to provide for an independent assessment of the Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station by the National Academy of Sciences prior to any relicensing of that facility.

1.Congressional findingsThe Congress finds the following:
(1)The Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station, operating for over 35 years, is the oldest nuclear facility in the country.
(2)More than 3,500,000 people now reside within a 50-mile radius of Oyster Creek.
(3)Nuclear power plants have been identified as inviting targets for terrorist attacks.
(4)It is necessary to assess the safety, performance, and reliability of the Nation’s oldest operating reactor.
(5)An independent assessment will help in determining if the plant can continue to maintain adequate levels of safety.
2.Relicensing criteria for nuclear facilitiesSection 182 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2232) is amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:

e.In determining whether to approve an application for relicensing, the Commission shall evaluate the facility with respect to health risks, vulnerability to terrorist attack, evacuation plans, population increases, ability to store nuclear waste, safety and security record, and the impact of a nuclear accident..
3.Independent assessment of oyster creek nuclear generating station
(a)In generalThe Nuclear Regulatory Commission shall not relicense the Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station until—
(1)at least 90 days have expired after it has transmitted under subsection (e) the recommendations from the National Academy of Sciences; and
(2)it has given appropriate consideration to those recommendations.
(b)Assessment by national academy of sciencesThe Nuclear Regulatory Commission shall enter into an arrangement with the National Academy of Sciences to provide, with respect to the Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station, an independent assessment of safety performance along with recommendations for relicensing and relicensing conditions.
(c)FunctionsPursuant to guidelines provided by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the National Academy of Sciences shall—
(1)provide an independent assessment of the conformance of Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station to its design and licensing bases, including appropriate reviews at the site and corporate offices;
(2)provide an independent assessment of operational safety performance, identifying risk factors where appropriate;
(3)provide an independent assessment of health risks, vulnerability to terrorist attack, evacuation plans, population increases, ability to store nuclear waste, safety and security record, and the impact of a nuclear accident;
(4)evaluate the effectiveness of licensee self-assessments, corrective actions, and improvement plans; and
(5)determine the cause or causes of safety problems and assess overall performance.
(d)AccessThe Nuclear Regulatory Commission shall issue such orders as are necessary to ensure appropriate access for the National Academy of Sciences to carry out this section.
(e)ReportNot later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission shall transmit to the Congress the report received from the National Academy of Sciences under this section.


		II
		109th CONGRESS
		2d Session
		S. 3633
		IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

			July 11, 2006
			Mr. Inhofe (for himself,
			 Mr. Nelson of Nebraska,
			 Ms. Snowe, Mr.
			 Warner, Mr. Graham,
			 Mr. DeWine, Mr.
			 Stevens, Mr. Martinez,
			 Mr. Bunning, Mr. Crapo, Mr.
			 Craig, Mr. Kyl,
			 Mr. Ensign, Mr.
			 Coburn, Mr. Shelby,
			 Mr. Thomas, Mr.
			 DeMint, Mr. Chambliss,
			 Mrs. Hutchison, Mr. Vitter, Mr.
			 Isakson, Mr. Sessions,
			 Mr. Thune, Mr.
			 Bond, Mr. Smith,
			 Mr. Cochran, Mr. Gregg, Mr.
			 Burns, Mr. Talent,
			 Mr. Burr, Mr.
			 Allen, and Mrs. Dole)
			 introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the
			 Committee on Foreign
			 Relations

		A BILL
		To require the withholding of United States contributions
		  to the United Nations until the President certifies that the United Nations is
		  not engaged in global taxation schemes.

		1.Short
			 titleThis Act may be cited as
			 the Protection against United Nations
			 Taxation Act of 2006, the PUNT Act of 2006, or as the
			 Helms-Biden Reauthorization Act of
			 2006.
		2.FindingsCongress makes the following
			 findings:
			(1)Congress has
			 previously taken action in opposition to United Nations taxation schemes in
			 section 921 of the United Nations Reform Act of 1999 (chapter 2 of title IX of
			 the Admiral James W. Nance and Meg Donovan Foreign Relations Act, Fiscal Years
			 2000 and 2001 (as enacted into law by section 1000(a)(7) of Public Law 106–113
			 and contained in appendix G of that Act; 113 Stat. 1501A–478) (commonly
			 referred to as Helms-Biden)).
			(2)The 2005 United
			 Nations’ Human Development Report, released September 7, 2005, envisages
			 raising additional revenue through international taxation
			 mechanisms.
			(3)The 2005 United
			 Nations’ Human Development Report states, Several governments are
			 assessing the implications of an international tax on aviation fuel. Even set
			 at a low level, such a tax could raise $9-$10 billion a year.
			(4)The 2005 United
			 Nations’ Human Development Report states, Another proposal calls for a
			 flat-rate tax on airline passenger tickets, with several countries
			 having reached an agreement in principle to introduce a national air
			 ticketing tax to finance development spending.
			(5)The 2005 United
			 Nations’ Human Development Report states, Other countries have advocated
			 a tax on currency transactions. Indeed, Belgium has already passed legislation
			 on the adoption of a currency tax.
			(6)It has been
			 estimated that a Tobin tax, named after Dr. James Tobin who
			 first proposed it, would raise $13,000,000,000,000 from a small levy on
			 international currency transactions.
			(7)The 2005 United
			 Nations’ Human Development Report states, Advocates for the use of
			 international levies to mobilize financing for development claim that the
			 approach would produce important benefits for the MDGs [Millennium Development
			 Goals] and beyond.
			(8)The 2005 United
			 Nations’ Human Development Report highlights the fact that, in a 2004 report,
			 the Government of France argues that new international taxes and fees are a
			 good idea.
			(9)The 2005 United
			 Nations’ Human Development Report recognizes that the United States, in
			 particular, is opposed to the approach of employing international
			 taxation mechanisms.
			(10)United Nations
			 officials have made numerous and repeated proposals to provide financing for
			 the United Nations outside the scrutiny of Member States of the United Nations,
			 including borrowing from international financial institutions, assuming control
			 of bonds issued by Member States, and imposing taxes on an extensive range of
			 transactions, goods, and services.
			(11)The 1994 United
			 Nations' Human Development Report stated that [i]t is appropriate that
			 the proceeds of an international tax be devoted to international purposes and
			 be placed at the disposal of international institutions.
			(12)On January 14,
			 1996, United Nations General Secretary Boutros Boutros-Ghali stated that an
			 international tax would mean that [he would] not be under the daily
			 financial will of the Member States.
			(13)The United
			 Nations and its organizations are replete with mismanagement, waste,
			 corruption, and inefficiency which cost American taxpayers millions of dollars
			 each year.
			(14)The power to tax
			 is an attribute of sovereignty.
			(15)The United
			 Nations does not have the attributes of sovereignty and is not a sovereign
			 power.
			(16)The United
			 Nations has no legal authority to impose taxes on United States
			 citizens.
			(17)On August 30,
			 2005, the United States Representative to the United Nations wrote to
			 colleagues at the United Nations to caution against international spending
			 targets which bear no relation to countries’ needs or ability to use aid
			 effectively and to warn against ignor[ing] the need for an
			 enabling environment at the national level for aid to be effective in promoting
			 development.
			(18)The Report of
			 the United Nations Commission on the Private Sector and Development estimates
			 that developing countries have $9,400,000,000,000 in private financial assets
			 that cannot be fully mobilized because of corruption and inadequate legal
			 protection for property and contracts.
			(19)On August 30,
			 2005, the United States Representative to the United Nations observed,
			 Prosperity requires institutions at the national level that generate
			 wealth and enable countries to participate in the global
			 economy.
			(20)As a matter of
			 prioritization, foreign national and international corruption and legal
			 protection for property and contracts must be addressed before additional
			 spending of American taxpayer dollars on foreign aid exacerbates these
			 problems.
			(21)On August 30,
			 2005, the United States Representative to the United Nations observed,
			 Development is about putting into place a complex set of policies and
			 institutions that will generate economic growth and sustain it over the long
			 haul to the benefit of all countries.
			(22)On August 30,
			 2005, the United States Representative to the United Nations observed, A
			 global partnership is predicated on the acceptance by developing countries of
			 their national responsibility to undertake specific reforms to improve their
			 economic governance and respect for human rights and the rule of
			 law.
			(23)On August 30,
			 2005, the United States Representative to the United Nations stated clearly and
			 firmly that the United States is unable to agree to new
			 open-ended donor financial commitments.
			(24)On August 30,
			 2005, the United States Representative to the United Nations stated clearly and
			 firmly that the U.S. does not accept global aid targets or global
			 taxes.
			(25)Any activity by
			 United Nations officials, personnel, agents, or contractors to develop,
			 advocate, or promote international taxes or fees, except as noted in section
			 3(b)(4), is unacceptable and must be thoroughly investigated.
			(26)On August 30,
			 2005, the United States Representative to the United Nations cautioned against
			 global governance and objected to assert[ing] a primacy
			 for the United Nations in international economic governance without respecting
			 the roles and mandates of other institutions.
			(27)On March 21,
			 2005, United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan addressed the General
			 Assembly to present a report entitled, In Larger Freedom that
			 advocates, Global development assistance must be more than doubled over
			 the next few years. . . . Each developed country that has not already done so
			 should establish a timetable to achieve the 0.7 percent target of gross
			 national income for official development assistance no later than 2015,
			 starting with significant increases no later than 2006, and reaching 0.5
			 percent by 2009. The increase should be front-loaded through an International
			 Finance Facility, and other innovative sources of financing should be
			 considered for the longer term.
			(28)The term
			 innovative sources of financing involves developing, advocating,
			 endorsing, publicizing, promoting, and collecting international taxes and
			 fees.
			(29)According to the
			 In Larger Freedom report, the United Nations proposes to create
			 an international revenue service named the International Finance
			 Facility.
			(30)This proposed
			 international revenue service would extract long-term binding financial
			 commitments from developed nations and collect this money.
			(31)This proposed
			 international revenue service would also issue debt on the global market for
			 bonds issued by supranational institutions and agencies and transfer wealth to
			 developing nations.
			(32)The January 2003
			 proposal of the United Kingdom for an International Financing Facility, which
			 the United Nations has endorsed, states, There have been other proposals
			 for new and innovative ways to raise funds to meet these goals, including a
			 Tobin tax, arms tax and an issue of IMF special drawing rights
			 (SDRs).
			(33)On Friday, June
			 10, 2005, at the United Nations in New York, the Inter-Parliamentary Union
			 (IPU), in cooperation with the United Nations Department for Economic and
			 Social Affairs (Financing for Development Office), organized a panel discussion
			 entitled, Promoting innovative sources of financing for development:
			 What role for parliaments?.
			(34)The United
			 Nations panel of June 10, 2005, laid the lobbying groundwork for global taxes
			 and fees, stating The panel aimed at providing the United Nations with a
			 first direct impression of the political support that currently exists at the
			 parliamentary level or that may be mobilized in future for innovative sources
			 of development financing.
			(35)The United
			 Nations panel of June 10, 2005, concluded that most proposed new sources
			 of financing will eventually require a legislative framework either to regulate
			 existing financing mechanisms or to create brand new ones.
			(36)The United
			 Nations panel of June 10, 2005, stated, [T]he role of parliaments is
			 essential to mobilize the required political support for the various innovative
			 mechanisms on the table.
			(37)The United
			 Nations panel of June 10, 2005, lobbied to maximize new international taxes,
			 The seven parliamentarians on the panel agreed that no single innovative
			 proposal alone would suffice to fill the financing gap left open by traditional
			 sources (estimated between 50 and 100 billion dollars a year). It was important
			 therefore that a number of proposals be advanced at the same
			 time.
			(38)The United
			 Nations panel of June 10, 2005, explained the rationale behind the first, most
			 promising way to levy new international revenues from the likes of United
			 States nationals, stating, Among these, the IFF was likely to be a
			 favourite because it did not require universality, could mobilize considerable
			 sums, created a more predictable and stable flow, and could easily be
			 scrutinized by contributing countries’ parliaments. Because the IFF can be
			 implemented in the short term, it constitutes the most rapid response. . . .
			 The first IFF, to raise $4 billion . . . will be launched this
			 year.
			(39)The United
			 Nations panel of June 10, 2005, lobbied to find the most efficient way to
			 transfer wealth out of the United States, stating, On remittances, the
			 impression of the panel was that it should not be too difficult to find some
			 creative solution to reduce the average 20 percent transaction fee, and thus
			 increase the overall flow.
			(40)The United
			 Nations panel of June 10, 2005, lobbied to make life easier for illegal
			 immigrants, stating, A more intractable problem, however, has to do with
			 facilitating money transfers for illegal migrants who fear exposure to the
			 authorities. The situation has become particularly difficult in the United
			 States, the largest remittance-sending country, following the tightening of
			 security measures since the September 11th attacks.
			(41)The United
			 Nations panel of June 10, 2005, confronted the challenges of international
			 taxation and offered some glimmer of hope, When it comes to discussions
			 about international taxation, some of the parliamentarians on the panel felt
			 strongly that this would for several years to come be a political non-starter
			 in too many legislatures (although the Canadian House of Commons did adopt a
			 motion on an international currency transaction tax that expressed support for
			 such a tax in concert with the international community). The
			 reasons adduced for this negative assessment were the classic ones:
			 international taxes can distort investment and trade flows, can undermine
			 national sovereignty, may be impossible to universalize, and may even tamper
			 with a country’s defence capacities (in the case of taxes on arms
			 sales).
			(42)In order to tax
			 with the greatest of ease, the United Nations panel of June 10, 2005, advocated
			 the following: For other panelists, however, at least some new fiscal
			 levies could be instituted without seeking a universal consensus. The best
			 example of this is given by flight departure taxes; these can be implemented at
			 the country level and can generate a fairly predictable and rich
			 stream.
			(43)On August 28,
			 2005, Asia-Europe Dialogue & Partner offered their Declaration on
			 Innovative Sources of Financing for Development, At the initiative of
			 President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, of Brazil, we gathered in New York, on
			 20th September 2004, to . . . increase financing for development. . . . [T]he
			 international discussions of innovative sources of funding have gained
			 momentum. The issue has become a regular feature in UN discussions on financing
			 for development and has been in the agenda of multilateral financial
			 institutions and other important international fora.
			(44)The United
			 Nations General Assembly agenda item dated on October 15, 2004, and titled
			 Follow-up to and implementation of the outcome of the International
			 Conference on Financing for Development states the determination of the
			 General Assembly to continue to implement and build further on the
			 commitments made and agreements reached at the International Conference on
			 Financing for Development and to strengthen the coordinated and coherent
			 engagement of all relevant stakeholders in the financing for development
			 process.
			(45)The World
			 Federalist Movement Web page on Global Economic Governance states that
			 organization’s position on global levies or taxes, noting the United Nations’
			 calls for major efforts to mobilize additional financial resources and stating
			 that a treaty or convention for collection of revenues for funding is in the
			 works:

					For multilateral institutions to be
			 effective and independent they must have stable and adequate funding. There is
			 a fundamental need for new financial mechanisms to provide for a strengthened
			 and democratized multilateral system. Since the U.N. conference on Financing
			 for Development in 2002, more intergovernmental attention has been given to the
			 possibility of innovative sources of finance such as environmental charge,
			 currency transaction taxation, taxation of arms trade, International Financial
			 Facility as proposed by the British government, and remittance’s benefits as
			 well as voluntary contributions through credit cards and
			 lotteries.Several
				reports have been written on the feasibility of some of these innovative
				sources of finance by Member-States and U.N. bodies. In the note by the U.N.
				Secretary-General on innovative sources of financing for development, he calls
				for major efforts by developing countries and the international
				community to mobilize additional financial resource. Brazil, France,
				Chile and Spain have taken the lead in a campaign for Action against Hunger and
				Poverty emphasizing the need for innovative finance mechanisms if the
				Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) are to be accomplished.
					Whereas the
				current intergovernmental debate about innovative sources of finance is placed
				within the framework of financing development and more specifically the MDGs,
				WFM believes that the debate should be seen in a broader perspective to also
				include the element of independent funding of multilateral
				organizations.
					At present the
				most powerful countries provide the vast majority of funding for international
				organizations and possess an immense and unbalanced control over the political
				decisions of these organizations. To reverse this trend, WFM calls for a
				mixture of state and independent funding of international organizations to
				ensure fair and democratic decision-making processes exempt from power
				politics. WFM thus believes that independent funding for multilateral
				organizations would address the challenges and obstacles for achieving
				democratic global governance.
					WFM
				specifically consider the global taxation of transnational currency
				transactions to be the most important source of independent funding and
				advocates a global implementation of the Tobin tax. Eventually, in cooperation
				with other NGOs and legal experts, WFM hopes to draft a treaty or convention
				for collection of revenues for funding the multilateral system that can be
				proposed and carried forth in intergovernmental
				processes.

			(46)The
			 International Financial Institutions in Latin America state on their Web page
			 the following:

					Another study on innovative
			 sources of financing for development, commissioned by the U.N. from WIDER (The
			 World Institute for Development Economics Research), was published in August
			 2004. Undertaken by Professor Anthony B. Atkinson of Nuffield College, Oxford
			 University, the study examines some of the same potential sources for
			 additional aid as well as considering how international taxes might be
			 administered by national authorities.In addition to
				the Tobin tax, it considers a global environmental levy, a carbon-use tax,
				applied at a rate of US4.8 cents a US gallon (E 0.01 per litre). This tax
				levied only on high-income countries could indeed raise some US$60
				billion a year..

			(47)On August 17,
			 2004, the United Nations General Assembly distributed a document entitled,
			 Innovative Sources of Financing for Development, which stated
			 the following:

					The General
				Assembly, in its resolution 58/230 of 23 December 2003, decided to consider at
				its fifty-ninth session possible innovative sources of financing for
				development, and requested the Secretary-General to submit the result of the
				analysis on this issue as called for in paragraph 44 of the Monterrey Consensus
				of the International Conference on Financing for Development. In the Consensus,
				heads of State and Government recognized the value of exploring innovative
				sources of finance provided that those sources did not unduly burden developing
				countries, and agreed to study, in the appropriate forums, the results of the
				analysis requested from the Secretary-General on possible innovative sources of
				finance.
					In this
				connection, it should be recalled that the General Assembly, in the context of
				the five-year review of the implementation of the outcome of the World Summit
				for Social Development, adopted resolution S-24/2 of 1 July 2000, on further
				initiatives for social development, in which it called for a rigorous analysis
				of the advantages, disadvantages and other implications of proposals for
				developing new and innovative sources of funding, both public and private, for
				dedication to social development and poverty eradication programmes.
					In response
				to the decisions of the Assembly, the Department of Economic and Social Affairs
				of the United Nations Secretariat commissioned the World Institute for
				Development Economics Research of the United Nations University (UNUWIDER) to
				undertake, during the period from 2003 to 2004, a study of new and innovative
				sources of development finance. The purpose of the study was not to devise new
				financing mechanisms for development but to consider some of the better-known
				existing proposals, focusing on their design and policy implications. An
				international expert on fiscal issues, Professor Anthony B. Atkinson, Warden of
				Nuffield College, Oxford University, led the project, which engaged a number of
				academics to prepare separate papers on a selection of innovative financing
				proposals. The UNU-WIDER study, entitled New Sources of Development Finance,
				will be published by Oxford University Press in 2004.
					An edited
				version of a policy-focused summary, entitled New Sources of Development
				Finance: Funding the Millennium Development Goals, prepared by
				Professor Atkinson in his capacity as director of the UNU-WIDER study, is
				contained in the annex to the present note. It presents the analytical
				framework, short summaries of the seven proposed sources of funding (i.e.,
				global environmental taxes, tax on currency transactions, creation of new
				special drawing rights, an international finance facility, increased private
				donations for development, a global lottery and global premium bond, and
				increased remittances from emigrants), an overview of the key findings, and
				some
				conclusions.
					.
			(48)The foreword to
			 the United Nations University book entitled New Sources of Development
			 Finance observes that, Proposals for any form of global taxation
			 meet immediate opposition from powerful elements in the US Congress. On the
			 other hand, there is widespread appreciation of the need for new resource
			 flows… .
			(49)The foreword to
			 the book also explains that earmarking of taxes for particular uses can be an
			 effective tactic for the implementation of new taxes, stating that [w]e
			 can learn from the analysis of the ear-marking of taxes….
			(50)The foreword to
			 the book also clearly explains the lobbying goal of the book, stating,
			 The ultimate aim is to help break the present impasse in external
			 finance for developing countries, and we believe this study will make an
			 important contribution to the debate.
			(51)One contributor
			 to New Sources of Development Finance suggests that taxes be collected by
			 national governments and then provided for international purposes, perhaps
			 through an international agency. Another contributor suggests
			 the establishment of a World Tax Authority under the United
			 Nations system.
			(52)In June 2001,
			 Ruben P. Mendez, formerly of the United Nations Development Programme,
			 presented a paper entitled The Case for Global Taxes: An
			 Overview to the United Nations ad hoc Expert Group Meeting on
			 Innovation in Mobilizing Global Resources for Development.
			(53)In The
			 Case for Global Taxes Mr. Mendez claims that as a percentage of gross
			 national product, official development assistance from the United States to
			 foreign nations runs at about 0.22 per cent, or less than one-third of
			 the universally accepted norm of 0.7 per cent and explains that the
			 public transfer of resources from the United States to foreign nations could be
			 brought to 22 to 28 percent, or one hundred times what it is now, through a
			 formal system of international taxation of the United States.
			(54)According to
			 Jeffrey D. Sachs, a Special Advisor to United Nations Secretary-General Annan
			 on the Millennium Development Goals, the rate of United States assistance
			 remains at 0.15 percent and, therefore, We are short by $65 billion each
			 year.
			(55)In his 2001
			 United Nations paper, Mr. Mendez states, Permits to pollute, in fact,
			 are a form of corrective, or Pigovian, taxation and could
			 presage the acceptance of global taxation per se in view of the interest of the
			 big industrial polluting nations in this approach.
			(56)The 2001 United
			 Nations paper continues, In the international economy, however, the
			 global commons are generally used free of charge. It is therefore only logical
			 to have a system of global taxes, or user charges. The global commons may be
			 defined as those physical attributes of the universe that fall outside national
			 jurisdiction or ownership. In addition to the traditional, tangible kinds of
			 geographical space and features, e.g., land, bodies of water, ocean depths,
			 air, natural resources and ecosystems, they include impalpable but nevertheless
			 important physical facts such as the different levels of outer space, the
			 orbits of geostationary satellites, and the electromagnetic
			 spectrum.
			(57)The 2001 United
			 Nations paper reflects, Nobel Memorial Prize-winning economist James
			 Tobin of Yale has proposed taxing foreign exchange transactions. . . .
			 Professor Tobin has noted that it could also be a terrific fund
			 raiser that could cover everything—a potential that has
			 not been lost on people concerned with international fund raising, who have now
			 latched on to the Tobin tax bandwagon.
			(58)Journalist
			 Steven Solomon, a former staff reporter at Forbes Magazine, estimates that the
			 Tobin tax might net some $13 trillion a year.
			(59)The 2001 United
			 Nations paper alternately advocates the creation of a foreign currency exchange
			 to replace the role banks currently play and to levy user charges.
			(60)The 2001 United
			 Nations paper also advocates an ad valorem tax on international trade, which
			 the paper claims is justified, arguing, trade uses the global commons,
			 and 95 percent consists of goods transported by ocean freight. It would be a
			 form of user fee. An alternative would be a tax on ocean
			 freight.
			(61)The 2001 United
			 Nations paper also advocates, Military expenditures and arms transfers
			 could also be taxed.
			(62)The 2001 United
			 Nations paper also advocates, Taxes could also be on specific traded
			 commodities, for instance, internationally traded oil, other exhaustible
			 materials . . . or manufactured goods.
			(63)The 2001 United
			 Nations paper also advocates serious attempts to compensate [developing
			 countries] for the opportunity costs of conservation or to promote the
			 generation of positive externalities whose returns these countries are unable
			 to capture.
			(64)The 2001 United
			 Nations paper also advocates taxing, overflight, stating, Like the high
			 seas, international air space provides a passage for international transport.
			 Since it lies outside national jurisdiction, is used by aircraft of various
			 nations and is congestible, there is logic behind having the international
			 public sector assert global ownership and charge user fees. One way this could
			 be accomplished is through a surcharge on international air tickets, a proposal
			 suggested by former Secretary-General Boutros Boutros-Ghali, but not repeated
			 since an outcry by a group of US congressmen.
			(65)The 2001 United
			 Nations paper also advocates, In addition to taxing and tapping foreign
			 exchange transactions, discussed at the beginning of this section, there are
			 two measures of a monetary nature, with considerable possibilities for fund
			 raising, that are worth revisiting: Special drawing rights (SDRs) and IMF gold
			 holdings.
			(66)The 2001 United
			 Nations paper also advocates, The Bhagwati tax is one of
			 many which have an economic and ethical rationale but must be appraised in
			 terms of political and national juridical considerations. Although not
			 presented initially within a public economics framework, it can be seen as a
			 way for the developed countries to compensate generators of positive
			 externalities—the countries of origin of the highly trained emigrants, who
			 benefit the receiving countries and do not produce returns that can be captured
			 by their home countries. Such taxes have existed for some time, such as the
			 exit taxes of the Russian Federation and the former USSR, although Bhagwati's
			 point is that it is the beneficiaries, including the recipient countries, which
			 should pay the taxes.
			(67)In the 2001
			 United Nations paper, Mendez declared that, The concept of automaticity
			 in international public financing [mandatory international taxation] was first
			 discussed in an official international forum in 1977, at the United Nations
			 Conference on Desertification (UNCOD) in Nairobi. It was developed and
			 incorporated in concrete proposals in subsequent studies and reports, in 1978
			 and 1980, by the United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP) and the
			 Secretary-General to the Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) and the General
			 Assembly on financing the UNCOD Plan of Action.7 These proposals were first
			 analysed in an international public finance framework in my 1992 book on the
			 subject. . . .
			(68)The global tax
			 proposals have thus been developed from 1977 to the present, calling into
			 question the validity of the Helms-Biden certification required under section
			 921 of the United Nations Reform Act of 1999 (chapter 2 of title IX of the
			 Admiral James W. Nance and Meg Donovan Foreign Relations Act, Fiscal Years 2000
			 and 2001 (as enacted into law by section 1000(a)(7) of Public Law 106–113 and
			 contained in appendix G of that Act; 113 Stat. 1501A–478) (commonly referred to
			 as Helms-Biden)).
			(69)The 2001 United
			 Nations paper concludes simply that the dawn of global taxation appears
			 to be at hand.
			(70)The handling by
			 the United Nations of the global tax issue is discussed in the book,
			 World Democratic Federalism, by Myron J. Frankman, who says that
			 one factor behind the hostile reaction of the United States
			 Congress to activity by the UN aimed at the promotion of any global
			 taxes was the publication by the United Nations Development Program of a 1996
			 book titled, The Tobin Tax.
			(71)The United
			 Nations and international organizations have developed, advocated, endorsed,
			 promoted, and publicized proposals concerning the imposition of taxes and fees
			 on United States nationals in order to raise revenue for the United Nations and
			 international organizations.
			3.Payment of
			 certain contributions contingent upon certification of no united nations
			 taxation schemes
			(a)Withholding of
			 portion of assessed contributionsNotwithstanding any other
			 provision of law, until the President submits the certification required under
			 subsection (b) for a fiscal year, the United States shall withhold during such
			 year 20 percent of assessed contributions to the regular budget of the United
			 Nations and other applicable international organizations.
			(b)Certification
				(1)Certification
			 requiredThe certification referred to in subsection (a) is an
			 annual certification made by the President to Congress that the following
			 conditions have been met:
					(A)No united
			 nations legal taxation authorityExcept as provided in paragraph
			 (2), neither the United Nations nor any of its specialized or affiliated
			 agencies nor any other international organization has the authority under
			 United States law to impose taxes or fees on the United States Government or on
			 the several States or on United States corporate citizens or on United States
			 nationals.
					(B)No taxes or
			 feesExcept as provided in paragraph (2), a tax or fee has not
			 been imposed on the United States Government or on the several States or on
			 United States corporate citizens or on United States nationals by the United
			 Nations or any of its specialized or affiliated agencies or any other
			 international organization.
					(C)No taxation
			 proposalsExcept as provided in paragraph (2), neither the United
			 Nations nor any of its specialized or affiliated agencies nor any other
			 international organization has developed, advocated, endorsed, promoted, or
			 publicized any proposal concerning the imposition of a tax or fee on any United
			 States national or any income earned in the United States in order to raise
			 revenue for the United Nations, any foreign government, or any international
			 organization.
					(2)ExceptionThe
			 conditions in subparagraphs (A) through (C) of paragraph (1) do not apply
			 to—
					(A)fees for
			 publications or other kinds of fees that are not tantamount to a tax on United
			 States citizens;
					(B)the World
			 Intellectual Property Organization; or
					(C)the staff
			 assessment costs of the United Nations and its specialized or affiliated
			 agencies.
					4.Savings
			 clause
			(a)Enforcement of
			 restrictions
				(1)In House of
			 RepresentativesIt shall not
			 be in order in the House of Representatives to consider any bill, joint
			 resolution, amendment, motion, or conference report suspending, waiving, or
			 repealing the requirement in section 3(a).
				(2)In
			 SenateIt shall not be in
			 order in the Senate to consider any bill, joint resolution, amendment, motion,
			 or conference report suspending, waiving, or repealing the requirement in
			 section 3(a).
				(b)Waiver of rule
			 in SenateSubsection (a) may be waived or suspended in the Senate
			 only by the affirmative vote of two-thirds of the Members, duly chosen and
			 sworn.
			(c)Appeals
				(1)ProcedureAppeals
			 in the Senate from the decisions of the Chair relating to any provision of this
			 section shall be limited to 1 hour, to be equally divided between, and
			 controlled by, the mover and the manager of the bill, resolution, amendment, or
			 conference report, as the case may be.
				(2)Sustainability
			 of appealAn affirmative vote of three-fifths of the Members,
			 duly chosen and sworn, shall be required in the Senate to sustain an appeal of
			 the ruling of the Chair on a point of order raised under this section.


113 S774 IS: To require the Comptroller General of the United States to submit a report to Congress on the effectiveness of the Federal Communications Commission’s universal service reforms.
U.S. Senate
2013-04-22
text/xml
EN
Pursuant to Title 17 Section 105 of the United States Code, this file is not subject to copyright protection and is in the public domain.

		II
		113th CONGRESS
		1st Session
		S. 774
		IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

			April 22, 2013
			Mr. Begich (for himself
			 and Mrs. Fischer) introduced the
			 following bill; which was read twice and referred to the
			 Committee on Commerce, Science, and
			 Transportation

		A BILL
		To require the Comptroller General of the United States
		  to submit a report to Congress on the effectiveness of the Federal
		  Communications Commission’s universal service reforms.

		1.GAO
			 report on universal service reforms
			(a)PurposeThe
			 purpose of the report required under subsection (b) is to aid Congress in
			 monitoring and measuring the effects of a series of reforms by the Federal
			 Communications Commission (in this Act referred to as the FCC)
			 intended to promote the availability and affordability of broadband service
			 throughout the United States.
			(b)ReportThe
			 Comptroller General of the United States shall prepare a report providing
			 detailed measurements, statistics, and metrics with respect to—
				(1)the progress of
			 implementation of the reforms adopted in the FCC’s Report and Order and Further
			 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking adopted on October 27, 2011 (FCC 11–161) (in this
			 Act referred to as the Order);
				(2)the effects, if
			 any, of such reforms on retail end user rates during the applicable calendar
			 year for—
					(A)local voice
			 telephony services (including any subscriber line charges and access recovery
			 charges assessed by carriers upon purchasers of such services);
					(B)interconnected
			 VoIP services;
					(C)long distance
			 voice services;
					(D)mobile wireless
			 voice services;
					(E)bundles of voice
			 telephony or VoIP services (such as local and long distance voice
			 packages);
					(F)fixed broadband
			 Internet access services; and
					(G)mobile broadband
			 Internet access services;
					(3)any disparities
			 or trends detectable during the applicable calendar year with respect to the
			 relative average (such as per-consumer) retail rates charged for each of the
			 services listed in paragraph (2) to consumers (including both residential and
			 business users) located in rural areas and urban areas;
				(4)any disparities
			 or trends detectable during the applicable calendar year with respect to the
			 relative average (such as per-consumer) retail rates charged for each of the
			 services listed in paragraph (2) as between incumbent local exchange carriers
			 subject to price cap regulation and those subject to rate-of-return
			 regulation;
				(5)the effects, if
			 any, of those reforms adopted in the Order on average fixed and mobile
			 broadband Internet access speeds, respectively, available to residential and
			 business consumers, respectively, during the applicable calendar year;
				(6)any disparities
			 or trends detectable during the applicable calendar year with respect to the
			 relative average fixed and mobile broadband Internet access speeds,
			 respectively, available to residential and business consumers, respectively, in
			 rural areas and urban areas;
				(7)the effects, if
			 any, of those reforms adopted in the Order on the magnitude and pace of
			 investments in broadband-capable networks in rural areas, including such
			 investments financed by the Department of Agriculture's Rural Utilities Service
			 under the Rural Electrification Act of 1936 (7 U.S.C. 901 et seq.);
				(8)any disparities
			 or trends detectable during the applicable calendar year with respect to the
			 relative magnitude and pace of investments in broadband-capable networks in
			 rural areas and urban areas;
				(9)any disparities
			 or trends detectable during the applicable calendar year with respect to the
			 magnitude and pace of investments in broadband-capable networks in areas served
			 by carriers subject to price cap regulation and areas served by carriers
			 subject to rate-of-return regulation;
				(10)the effects, if
			 any, of those reforms adopted in the Order on adoption of broadband Internet
			 access services by end users; and
				(11)the effects, if
			 any, of such reforms on State universal service funds or other State universal
			 service initiatives, including carrier-of-last-resort requirements that may be
			 enforced by any State.
				(c)TimingOn
			 or before December 31, 2013, and annually thereafter for the following 5
			 calendar years, the Comptroller General shall submit the report required under
			 subsection (b) to the following:
				(1)The Committee on
			 Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate.
				(2)The Committee on
			 Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry of the Senate.
				(3)The Committee on
			 Energy and Commerce of the House of Representatives.
				(4)The Committee on
			 Agriculture of the House of Representatives.
				(d)Data
			 inclusionThe report required under subsection (b) shall include
			 all data that the Comptroller General deems relevant to and supportive of any
			 conclusions drawn with respect to the effects of the FCC’s reforms and any
			 disparities or trends detected in the items subject to the report.


114 HR 966 IH: Ready-to-Compete Act
U.S. House of Representatives
2015-02-13
text/xml
EN
Pursuant to Title 17 Section 105 of the United States Code, this file is not subject to copyright protection and is in the public domain.

		I
		114th CONGRESS
		1st Session
		H. R. 966
		IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

			February 13, 2015
			Mr. Yarmuth (for himself, Mr. Blumenauer, Mr. Carson of Indiana, Mr. Clay, Mr. McGovern, Mr. Meeks, and Mr. Rangel) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Education and the Workforce

		A BILL
		To amend the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 and the Workforce Investment Act of
			 1998 to award grants to prepare individuals for the 21st century workplace
			 and to increase America’s global competitiveness, and for other purposes.

 1.Short titleThis Act may be cited as the Ready-to-Compete Act. IReady to Learn: School Readiness and Success 101.Ready-to-learn grantsSubpart 3 of part D of title II of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6775) is amended to read as follows:

					3Ready-to-Learn
 2431.Short titleThis subpart may be cited as Ready-to-Learn Act. 2432.Ready-to-learn innovative multiplatform educational programming and services (a)In generalThe Secretary is authorized to award grants to eligible entities to enable such entities—
 (1)to provide a coordinated Ready-to-Learn service described in subsection (c); and (2)to award subgrants or enter into contracts or cooperative agreements with an eligible subgrantee to enable the eligible subgrantee to operate a high-quality Ready-to-Learn program that is a part of the coordinated Ready-to-Learn service.
 (b)Ready-to-Learn program requirementsEach eligible entity receiving a grant under this subpart shall operate a Ready-to-Learn program that—
 (1)develops, produces, and distributes innovative multiplatform educational programming and services for young children and youth (especially those young children and youth served under part A of title I), and the parents, educators, and caregivers of such children in order to help improve early childhood development and student achievement in the areas of—
 (A)reading; (B)mathematics;
 (C)science; (D)health and wellness;
 (E)social and emotional development; or (F)other academic or developmentally appropriate areas;
 (2)facilitates the development of— (A)innovative multiplatform educational programming and services, directly or through contracts, with producers of innovative multiplatform educational programming and services for young children and youth;
 (B)rigorous professional development for educators and caregivers that supports effective use of Ready-to-Learn innovative multiplatform educational programming and services or improves the effectiveness of teachers in classrooms serving young children and youth;
 (C)support materials and services that accompany such innovative multiplatform educational programming and services and professional development, including outreach services, in order to promote the effective use of such innovative multiplatform educational programming and services; and
 (D)related support resources for parents and caregivers that are designed for nationwide distribution over public television stations’ digital broadcasting channels and other high-tech delivery platforms;
 (3)contracts with an entity that owns and operates a television public broadcast station, as defined in section 397(6) of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 397(6))—
 (A)that demonstrates that the station is a member of a strong, local, community-based partnership, in order to deliver effective services which meet the educational needs of the children in the community served by the broadcast area; and
 (B)so that innovative multiplatform educational programming and services developed under this subpart are disseminated and distributed to the widest possible audience appropriately served by the most appropriate distribution technologies; or
 (4)develops and disseminates educational or training material, directly related to the television programs assisted under this subpart, that is designed—
 (A)to promote school readiness and success for all children, especially children served under part A of title I, including English language learners; and
 (B)to promote the effective use of related services and related support resources developed under paragraphs (2) and (3), respectively, among parents, caregivers, teachers, Head Start programs, reading and literacy programs funded under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, family literacy programs, child care providers, early childhood educators, public and school libraries, museums, State educational agencies, businesses, institutions of higher education, and after-school, summer, and extended day and year programs.
 (c)Coordinated Ready-to-Learn ServiceIn awarding subgrants and entering into contracts and cooperative agreements under this subpart, an eligible entity shall provide a coordinated Ready-to-Learn service that—
 (1)shall include— (A)innovative multiplatform educational programming, determined by the eligible entity to be of sound content and artistic excellence, aligned to—
 (i)State academic content and academic achievement standards described under section 1111 and State early learning standards, as appropriate;
 (ii)rigorous professional development for educators and caregivers that supports effective use of Ready-to-Learn innovative multiplatform educational programming and services or improves the effectiveness of teachers in classrooms serving young children and youth; and
 (iii)related services; (B)effective, ongoing community outreach programs and ongoing partnerships with local organizations to help ensure that the programming—
 (i)addresses specific community and school needs; (ii)addresses needs of caregivers and educators;
 (iii)reaches children served under part A of title I; and (iv)engages multiple constituencies of children, parents, caregivers, and educators;
 (C)academic and developmental television programming described in subsection (b) (1) in— (i)the topics described in subparagraphs (A) and (E) of subsection (b)(1); and
 (ii)not less than 1 other topic described in subparagraphs (B), (C), (D), and (F) of subsection (b)(1); and
 (D)a rigorous evaluation of the impact of the innovative multiplatform educational programming and services described in subsection (b)(l) on—
 (i)school readiness skills of young children in various socioeconomic areas, including rural and urban areas;
 (ii)school success of youth in various socioeconomic areas, including rural and urban areas; (iii)teacher effectiveness; and
 (iv)community engagement and awareness; and (2)may include a comprehensive preschool curriculum based upon the Ready-to-Learn programs.
 (d)Technical assistance, materials, training, and curriculaThe eligible entity shall provide eligible subgrantees that receive a subgrant or enter into a contract or cooperative agreement under this subpart with technical assistance, supporting materials, training, and curricula to ensure effective implementation of subsection (c).
 (e)Reservation of fundingThe eligible entity shall use such sums as may be necessary from the funds received under this subpart to award subgrants to or enter into contracts or cooperative agreements with eligible subgrantees that are public broadcast stations, as defined in section 397(6) of the Communications Act of 1934, to carry out subsection (c)(1)(B) and section 2435(c).
 (f)Availability of programming and related servicesIn awarding a grant under this subpart, the Secretary shall ensure that each eligible entity makes innovative multiplatform educational programming and services widely available, with support materials available, as appropriate, to young children and youth, parents, caregivers, teachers, reading and literacy programs funded under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, family literacy programs, child care providers, early childhood educators, public and school libraries, museums, State educational agencies, businesses, institutions of higher education, and afterschool, summer, and extended day and year programs in order to increase the effective use of innovative multiplatform educational programming and services.
 2433.Coordination of activitiesIn carrying out this subpart, an eligible entity shall— (1)consult with the Secretary and the Secretary of Health and Human Services—
 (A)to maximize the use of high-quality innovative multiplatform educational programming and services by young children and youth, and to make such programming widely available to federally funded programs serving such children; and
 (B)to coordinate activities assisted under this subpart with Federal programs that have a major professional development component for educators of young children and youth, including programs under the Head Start Act, 21st Century Community Learning Centers, title I, and the Child Care and Development Block Grant Act of 1990; and
 (2)ensure that all materials acquired or produced by any eligible subgrantee are determined to be of sufficient age-appropriate aesthetic appeal and educational effectiveness to warrant national distribution and support in order to maximize the impact of televised materials and the use of digital content.
 2434.ApplicationTo be eligible to receive a grant under this subpart, an eligible entity shall submit to the Secretary an application at such time, in such manner, and containing such information as the Secretary may reasonably require.
						2435.Reports and evaluations
 (a)Annual report to the secretaryIn carrying out this subpart, an eligible entity shall prepare and submit to the Secretary an annual report that contains such information as the Secretary may require. At a minimum, the report shall describe the activities undertaken with funds received under the grant awarded to the eligible entity under this subpart, including each of the following:
 (1)Programming and related services; target populationThe innovative multiplatform educational programming and services developed, directly or indirectly, by the eligible entity, and the target population served by the programming and services.
 (2)Support or training and professional development materialsThe support or training and professional development materials developed to accompany the innovative multiplatform educational programming and services, and the method by which the materials were distributed to consumers and users of the innovative multiplatform educational programming and services.
 (3)Means of distributionThe means by which innovative multiplatform educational programming and services developed under this subpart were distributed, including the technologies that were used to make the innovative multiplatform educational programming and services available, and the geographic distribution achieved through such technologies.
 (4)InitiativesThe initiatives undertaken by the eligible entity to develop public-private partnerships to secure non-Federal support for the development, distribution, and broadcast of innovative multiplatform educational programming and services.
 (5)ImpactThe impact of the innovative multiplatform educational programming and services on teaching and learning, including the impact on improving school readiness skills, reading skills, mathematics skills, science skills, and skills in other developmentally appropriate content areas.
 (b)Report to CongressThe Secretary shall prepare and submit to the relevant committees of Congress an annual report that includes the following:
 (1)Activity summaryA summary of the activities assisted under section 2432. (2)Education, training, and professional development materialsA description of the education, training, and professional development materials described in section 2432(b)(2)(B) that are made available under this subpart, the manner in which outreach was conducted to inform parents and child care providers of the availability of such materials, and the manner in which such materials were distributed in accordance with section 2432.
 (c)Evaluation of outreach activitiesIn carrying out this subpart, an eligible entity shall require each eligible subgrantee that receives a subgrant or enters into a contract or cooperative agreement under this subpart to provide evaluation data that include descriptions of the impact of outreach activities carried out under this subpart, including—
 (1)the manner in which outreach was conducted to inform parents, educators, and child care providers of the availability of the innovative multiplatform educational programming and services produced under this subpart, including specific strategies used to reach a wide audience;
 (2)the extent to which the outreach programs included multiple outreach efforts with the same organizations or groups and resulted in lasting relationships with those organizations or groups and the members of those organizations or groups; and
 (3)the effectiveness of the outreach programs and services conducted and the number of children, families, educators, and child care providers that had access to and utilized the innovative multiplatform educational programming and services provided under this subpart to improve school readiness skills and school success.
 (d)Evaluation of impact on school readiness and successThe Secretary shall evaluate the impact of the outreach content and services provided under this subpart on improving school readiness skills and school success nationwide, particularly with respect to young children and youth in the most disadvantaged communities.
 2436.Administrative costsAn eligible subgrantee that receives a subgrant or enters into a contract or cooperative agreement under this subpart may use not more than 5 percent of the amount received under the subgrant, contract, or cooperative agreement, respectively, for the normal and customary expenses of administering the grant, contract, or cooperative agreement, respectively.
 2437.Continuation of awardsNotwithstanding any other provision of law, an eligible subgrantee that received a subgrant or enters into a contract or cooperative agreement under this subpart (as this subpart existed on the day before the date of enactment of the Ready-to-Learn Act) shall continue to receive funds in accordance with the terms of the subgrant, contract, or cooperative agreement, respectively, until the date on which the subgrant, contract, or cooperative agreement, respectively, terminates under such terms.
						2438.Authorization of appropriations
 (a)In generalThere are authorized to be appropriated to carry out this subpart $50,000,000 for fiscal year 2016 and such sums as may be necessary for each of the 5 succeeding fiscal years.
 (b)ReservationIn any fiscal year in which the amount appropriated is greater than $30,000,000, the Secretary shall reserve 50 percent of such excess for innovative multiplatform educational programming and services for youth.
 2439.DefinitionsIn this subpart— (a)the term eligible entity means a public telecommunications entity that is able to demonstrate—
 (1)a capacity for the development and national distribution of educational and instructional television programming of high quality that is accessible by a large majority of disadvantaged preschool and elementary school children;
 (2)a capacity to contract with the producers of children’s television programming for the purpose of developing educational television programming of high quality;
 (3)a capacity to integrate children’s television programming with innovative multiplatform educational programming and services;
 (4)a capacity, consistent with the entity’s mission and nonprofit nature, to negotiate such contracts in a manner that returns to the entity an appropriate share of any ancillary income from sales of any program-related products; and
 (5)a capacity to localize programming and materials to meet specific State and local needs and to provide educational outreach at the local level;
 (b)the term eligible subgrantee means— (1)a national nonprofit membership organization that acquires and distributes programming to noncommercial educational television broadcasters through the national public television interconnection system that the organization manages and operates;
 (2)a local or statewide public television station or system; or (3)a nonprofit producer of high-quality children’s educational television and other media programming;
 (c)the term innovative multiplatform educational programming and services means high-quality programming that is— (1)packaged for distribution over broadband, digital, and over-the-airwaves television;
 (2)packaged with companion content for distribution over the Internet, mobile devices, classroom devices, and any other technologies appropriate for the content;
 (3)aligned across all platforms to a central curriculum and story; (4)accessible to students in all regions, including rural areas via distance learning technologies;
 (5)designed to target the research-identified needs of young children or youth, or a subset thereof; and
 (6)designed to reach students in the targeted age range age-appropriately and via the media that reaches them most effectively;
 (d)the term school success means improved academic achievement or engagement in subject areas referenced in section 2432(b)(1);
 (e)the term young children means children ages 2–8; and (f)the term youth means children ages 9–13..
			IIREADY-TO-EARN GRANTS
 201.Ready-To-Earn GrantsChapter 4 of subtitle A of title II of the Workforce Investment Act of 1998 (20 U.S.C. 9251 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following:

					244.Television broadcast workforce training grant program
 (a)In generalThe Secretary is authorized to award grants, on a competitive basis, to an entity that owns and operates a television public broadcast station, as defined in section 397(6) of the Communications Act of 1934, or a partnership of such entities, for the purpose of developing, disseminating, and providing online and on-air education and training services for adults, including adult education, adult literacy, high school equivalency test preparation, workforce training, and related outreach services that are priorities for the community.
 (b)Eligible entitiesTo be eligible to receive a grant under this section, an entity shall— (1)own or operate a local television public broadcast station, as defined in section 397(6) of the Communications Act of 1934, that is able to demonstrate a capacity for the development and distribution of high-quality educational digital content and services in the areas of adult education, adult literacy, high school equivalency test preparation, workforce training, and related outreach services;
 (2)partner with an eligible agency as defined in section 203(4) or a State Board as described in section 111 or institutions of higher education in order to implement a high-quality program in accordance with this section; and
 (3)conduct a needs assessment of the proposed community to be served through online and on-air education and training services.
 (c)ApplicationTo be eligible to receive a grant under this section, an eligible entity, or partnership of eligible entities, shall submit an application to the Secretary. Each application shall—
 (1)describe the innovative, high-quality training, tools, products, and educational digital content and services that will be developed and used to improve the quality and delivery of adult education, adult literacy, high school equivalency test preparation, workforce training, and related outreach services;
 (2)describe the partnership and the roles of the partners in implementing a high-quality program in accordance with this section;
 (3)describe how the eligible entity or entities will address the needs of adults who are non-English speakers;
 (4)describe how the comprehensive program described in this section will meet the needs of that community and include partnerships with community-based organizations that serve adults in need of such services;
 (5)describe the research-based practices and advanced technologies that the program funded under this section will use to carry out the purposes of this section;
 (6)describe the rigorous evaluation the eligible entity or entities will use to support continuous improvement of the program and services, including the report described under subsection (g); and
 (7)contain such additional assurances as the Secretary may reasonably require. (d)Required uses of fundsGrant funds provided under this section shall be used for—
 (1)the development, training and use of innovative, high-quality tools, products, and educational digital content and services for—
 (A)adult education, adult literacy, high school equivalency test preparation, workforce training, and related outreach services;
 (B)professional development; and (C)community and family outreach;
 (2)professional development and training of staff; (3)evaluation as described in subsection (g);
 (4)outreach activities to engage adult learners and community organizations; (5)English language education and services for non-English speakers; and
 (6)other activities as needed to meet the purposes of this section. (e)DurationA grant under this section shall be awarded for a period of 5 years.
 (f)Administrative costsAn entity that receives a grant under this section may not use more than 5 percent of the amount received under the grant for administrative costs.
 (g)Reports and evaluationAn entity receiving a grant under this section shall prepare and submit to the Secretary an annual report that contains such information as the Secretary may require. At a minimum, such report shall describe the program activities undertaken with funds received under the grant, including—
 (1)the success in engaging families and the number of such families; (2)the impact of professional development and training for staff on the acquisition of training and job skills;
 (3)the effectiveness of the specific, innovative, high-quality training, tools, products, and educational digital content and services developed and used to improve the quality and delivery of adult education, adult literacy, high school equivalency test preparation, workforce training, and related outreach services; and
 (4)the impact of the program on adult literacy and English language skills, workforce skills, job placements, and high school equivalency test passage rates.
 (h)Authorization of appropriationsThere are authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section $10,000,000 for fiscal year 2016 and such sums as may be necessary for each of the 5 succeeding fiscal years.
 (i)DefinitionIn this section, the term institution of higher education has the meaning given such term in section 101 of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1001)..
 202.Conforming amendmentsThe Workforce Investment Act of 1998 is amended— (1)in section 111(b)(1)(C)(vii), by inserting , and public broadcasting entities after juvenile justice programs;
 (2)in section 117(b)(2)(B), by inserting including public broadcasting entities after entities; (3)in section 122(a)(2)(C), by inserting , including a public broadcasting entity after training services;
 (4)in section 129(c)(2)(A), by inserting , including educational digital content and services after instruction; (5)in section 203(5)(H), by inserting including a public broadcasting entity after institution; and
 (6)in section 231(e)(6), by inserting and educational digital content and services after computers.


 HR 1075 ENR: To designate the United States Customs and Border Protection Port of Entry located at First Street and Pan American Avenue in Douglas, Arizona, as the “Raul Hector Castro Port of Entry”.
U.S. House of Representatives

text/xml
EN
Pursuant to Title 17 Section 105 of the United States Code, this file is not subject to copyright protection and is in the public domain.

I
One Hundred Fourteenth Congress of the United States of America At the First SessionBegun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday, the sixth day of January, two thousand and fifteen
H. R. 1075

AN ACT
To designate the United States Customs and Border Protection Port of Entry located at First Street and Pan American Avenue in Douglas, Arizona, as the Raul Hector Castro Port of Entry.

1.Raul Hector Castro Port of Entry
(a)DesignationThe United States Customs and Border Protection Port of Entry located at First Street and Pan American Avenue in Douglas, Arizona, shall be known and designated as the Raul Hector Castro Port of Entry.  (b)ReferencesAny reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, or other record of the United States to the port of entry referred to in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the Raul Hector Castro Port of Entry.
 Speaker of the House of Representatives.Vice President of the United States and President of the Senate.


		I
		112th CONGRESS
		1st Session
		H. R. 2364
		IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

			June 24, 2011
			Mrs. Maloney (for
			 herself, Mr. Polis,
			 Mr. Towns,
			 Mr. George Miller of California,
			 Mr. Stark,
			 Mr. Frank of Massachusetts,
			 Ms. Norton,
			 Mrs. Davis of California,
			 Mr. Connolly of Virginia,
			 Mr. Israel,
			 Ms. Wilson of Florida,
			 Mr. Olver,
			 Mr. Sherman,
			 Mrs. Capps,
			 Mr. Serrano,
			 Mr. Nadler,
			 Mr. Engel,
			 Ms. Moore,
			 Ms. Lee of California,
			 Ms. Chu, and
			 Mr. Jackson of Illinois) introduced
			 the following bill; which was referred to the
			 Committee on Education and the
			 Workforce, and in addition to the Committees on
			 House Administration and
			 Oversight and Government
			 Reform, for a period to be subsequently determined by the
			 Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the
			 jurisdiction of the committee concerned

		A BILL
		To amend the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 and
		  title 5, United States Code, to permit leave to care for a domestic partner,
		  parent-in-law, adult child, sibling, grandchild, or grandparent who has a
		  serious health condition, and for other purposes.

		1.Short titleThis Act may be cited as the
			 Family and Medical Leave Inclusion
			 Act.
		2.Leave to care for
			 a domestic partner, parent-in-law, adult child, sibling, or
			 grandparent
			(a)Definitions
				(1)Inclusion of
			 grandparents, grandchildren, parents-in-law, siblings, and domestic
			 partnersSection 101 of such Act is further amended by adding at
			 the end the following:

						(20)Domestic
				partnerThe term
				domestic partner means—
							(A)the person recognized as the domestic
				partner of the employee under any domestic partner registry or civil union laws
				of the State or political subdivision of a State where the employee resides, or
				who is lawfully married to the employee under the laws of the State where the
				employee resides; or
							(B)in the case of an
				unmarried employee who lives in a State where a person cannot marry a person of
				the same sex under the laws of the State, an unmarried adult person of the same
				sex as the employee who is in a committed, personal relationship with the
				employee, is not a domestic partner to any other person, and who is designated
				to the employer by such employee as that employee’s domestic partner.
							(21)GrandchildThe
				term grandchild means the son or daughter of an employee’s son or
				daughter.
						(22)GrandparentThe
				term grandparent means a parent of a parent of an employee.
						(23)Parent-in-lawThe
				term parent-in-law means a parent of the spouse or domestic
				partner of an employee.
						(24)SiblingThe term sibling means any
				person who is a son or daughter of an employee’s parent.
						(25)Son-in-law and
				daughter-in-lawThe terms
				son-in-law and daughter-in-law, used with respect to
				an employee, means any person who is a spouse or domestic partner of a son or
				daughter of the
				employee.
						.
				(2)Inclusion of
			 adult children and children of a domestic partnerSection 101(12) of such Act (29 U.S.C.
			 2611(12)) is amended—
					(A)by inserting
			 a child of an individual’s domestic partner, after a
			 legal ward,; and
					(B)by striking
			 who is— and all that follows and inserting and includes
			 an adult child.
					(b)Leave
			 RequirementSection 102 of the Family and Medical Leave Act of
			 1993 (29 U.S.C. 2612) is amended—
				(1)in subsection
			 (a)(1)(C), by striking spouse, or a son, daughter, or parent of the
			 employee, if such spouse, son, daughter, or parent and inserting
			 spouse or domestic partner, or a son, daughter, parent, parent-in-law,
			 grandparent, grandchild, or sibling, of the employee if such spouse, domestic
			 partner, son, daughter, parent, parent-in-law, grandparent, grandchild, or
			 sibling;
				(2)in subsection (a)(1)(E), by striking
			 spouse, or a son, daughter, or parent and inserting
			 spouse or domestic partner, or a son, daughter, parent, parent-in-law,
			 grandchild, or sibling;
				(3)in subsection
			 (a)(3), by striking spouse, son, daughter, parent, and inserting
			 spouse or domestic partner, son, daughter, son-in-law, daughter-in-law,
			 parent, parent-in-law, grandparent, or sibling,;
				(4)in subsection (e)(2)(A), by striking
			 spouse, parent, and inserting spouse or domestic partner,
			 parent, parent-in-law, grandparent, grandchild, sibling,;
				(5)in subsection (e)(3), by striking
			 spouse, or a son, daughter, or parent, and inserting
			 spouse or domestic partner, or a son, daughter, parent, parent-in-law,
			 grandchild, or sibling,; and
				(6)in subsection
			 (f)—
					(A)in the matter
			 preceding subparagraph (A), by inserting or domestic partners
			 after husband and wife; and
					(B)in subparagraph
			 (B), by inserting or parent-in-law after parent.
					(c)CertificationSection
			 103 of the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 (29 U.S.C. 2613) is
			 amended—
				(1)in subsection (a),
			 by striking spouse, or parent and inserting spouse or
			 domestic partner, parent, parent-in-law, grandparent, grandchild, or
			 sibling;
				(2)in subsection
			 (b)(4)(A), by striking spouse, or parent and an estimate of the amount
			 of time that such employee is needed to care for the son, daughter, spouse, or
			 parent and inserting spouse or domestic partner, parent,
			 parent-in-law, grandparent, grandchild, or sibling and an estimate of the
			 amount of time that such employee is needed to care for such son, daughter,
			 spouse or domestic partner, parent, parent-in-law, grandparent, or
			 sibling; and
				(3)in subsection (b)(7), by striking
			 parent, or spouse and inserting spouse or domestic
			 partner, parent, parent-in-law, grandparent, or sibling.
				(d)Employment and
			 Benefits ProtectionSection 104(c)(3) of the Family and Medical
			 Leave Act of 1993 (29 U.S.C. 2614(c)(3)) is amended—
				(1)in subparagraph
			 (A)(i), by striking spouse, or parent and inserting
			 spouse or domestic partner, parent, parent-in-law, grandparent, or
			 sibling; and
				(2)in subparagraph (C)(ii), by striking
			 spouse, or parent and inserting spouse or domestic
			 partner, parent, parent-in-law, grandparent, or sibling.
				3.Federal
			 employees
			(a)Definitions
				(1)Inclusion of
			 grandparents, parents-in-law, siblings, and domestic partnersSection 6381 of title 5, United States
			 Code, is amended—
					(A)in paragraph (11)
			 by striking ; and and inserting a semicolon;
					(B)in paragraph (12),
			 by striking the period and inserting a semicolon; and
					(C)by adding at the
			 end the following:

							(13)the term domestic partner
				means—
								(A)the person recognized as the domestic
				partner of the employee under any domestic partner registry or civil union laws
				of the State or political subdivision of a State where the employee resides, or
				who is lawfully married to the employee under the laws of the State where the
				employee resides; or
								(B)in the case of an
				unmarried employee who lives in a State where a person cannot marry a person of
				the same sex under the laws of the State, an unmarried adult person of the same
				sex as the employee who is in a committed, personal relationship with the
				employee, is not a domestic partner to any other person, and who is designated
				to the employing agency by such employee as that employee’s domestic
				partner;
								(14)the term
				parent-in-law means a parent of the spouse or domestic partner of
				an employee;
							(15)the term
				grandchild means the son or daughter of an employee’s son or
				daughter;
							(16)the term
				grandparent means a parent of a parent of an employee;
							(17)the term
				sibling means any person who is a son or daughter of an employee’s
				parent; and
							(18)the terms son-in-law and
				daughter-in-law, used with respect to an employee, means any person who
				is a spouse or domestic partner of a son or daughter of the
				employee.
							.
					(2)Inclusion of
			 adult children and children of a domestic partnerSection 6381(6) of such title is
			 amended—
					(A)by inserting
			 a child of an individual’s domestic partner, after a
			 legal ward,; and
					(B)by striking
			 who is— and all that follows and inserting and includes
			 an adult child.
					(b)Leave
			 RequirementSection 6382 of title 5, United States Code, is
			 amended—
				(1)in subsection (a)(1)(C), by striking
			 spouse, or a son, daughter, or parent of the employee, if such spouse,
			 son, daughter, or parent and inserting spouse or domestic
			 partner, or a son, daughter, parent, parent-in-law, grandparent, grandchild, or
			 sibling, of the employee if such spouse, domestic partner, son, daughter,
			 parent, parent-in-law, grandparent, grandchild, or sibling;
				(2)in subsection (a)(1)(E), by striking
			 spouse, or a son, daughter, or parent and inserting
			 spouse or domestic partner, or a son, daughter, parent, parent-in-law,
			 grandchild, or sibling;
				(3)in subsection (a)(3), by striking
			 spouse, son, daughter, parent, and inserting spouse or
			 domestic partner, son, daughter, son-in-law, daughter-in-law, parent,
			 parent-in-law, grandparent, sibling,;
				(4)in subsection (e)(2)(A), by striking
			 spouse, parent, and inserting spouse or domestic partner,
			 parent, parent-in-law, grandparent, grandchild, sibling,; and
				(5)in subsection (e)(3), by striking
			 spouse, or a son, daughter, or parent, and inserting
			 spouse or domestic partner, or a son, daughter, parent, parent-in-law,
			 grandchild, or sibling,.
				(c)CertificationSection
			 6383 of title 5, United States Code, is amended—
				(1)in subsection (a), by striking
			 spouse, or parent and inserting spouse or domestic
			 partner, parent, parent-in-law, grandparent, grandchild, or sibling;
			 and
				(2)in subsection (b)(4)(A), by striking
			 spouse, or parent, and an estimate of the amount of time that such
			 employee is needed to care for such son, daughter, spouse, or parent
			 and inserting spouse or domestic partner, parent, parent-in-law,
			 grandparent, grandchild, or sibling and an estimate of the amount of time that
			 such employee is needed to care for such son, daughter, spouse or domestic
			 partner, parent, parent-in-law, grandparent, grandchild, or
			 sibling.