[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 31 (Wednesday, March 12, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2206-S2216]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. DODD:

  S. 426. A bill to amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to adjust 
the needs analysis to protect more of a student's earnings; to the 
Committee on Labor and Human Resources.


       THE BETTER FINANCIAL AID FOR WORKING STUDENTS ACT OF 1997

  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise here this morning to introduce a 
piece of legislation which I have entitled the Better Financial Aid for 
Working Students Act of 1997. At the appropriate time here, Mr. 
President, I will send the bill to the desk and ask that it be referred 
to the appropriate committee. But let me take a few minutes, if I can, 
to explain what I am trying to do with this proposal.
  This legislation is designed, Mr. President, to assist America's 
working students to cope with the growing financial burdens of a 
college education. One hardly even needs to use the words ``growing 
financial burden.'' It is to state the obvious.
  There is not a family in America that does not have children in 
school or going on to college or who have already been there that does 
not appreciate what a significant burden the cost of a higher education 
is in our country.
  For the parents of college-aged children, of course, this is a trying 
time of year, not only for the parents, but for those who are 
anticipating going on to higher education. These parents and students 
are today anxiously awaiting the acceptance letters or rejection 
letters from our Nation's colleges and universities around the country.
  However, for the vast majority of families, beyond waiting for an 
acceptance or rejection letter in March and April from institutions 
they have applied to, the biggest concern is not whether they are going 
to get into college or into a community college or into a university; 
the biggest question, the biggest challenge facing these families is: 
How are we going to pay for this? If they get in, how are we possibly 
going to finance this incredible burden that we see increasing all the 
time?
  In fact, Mr. President, I think this week or maybe the past week one 
of our national magazines--I believe it was Time magazine--has a 
special issue out on the cost of higher education. It is their cover 
story. I commend them for it. I believe it was Time, I apologize if it 
was another periodical. But it is at an appropriate point with these 
acceptance and rejection letters coming to seniors in high school and 
others who have been out of school for some time but anxious to get 
back in.
  So I am stating again the obvious. This is a time of some anxiety. 
But I would argue, the greatest anxiety is not ``whether or not I'm 
going to be able to go on to a higher educational opportunity,'' but 
rather, ``How am I possibly going to afford this? How are we going to 
afford this so our children or myself will be able to acquire the 
skills and educational levels that are going to be necessary for us to 
succeed or for my children to succeed in the future?''
  That is why the letter they await, Mr. President, with the most 
anxiety, of course, is the financial aid letter. Working families 
understand as well as anyone that a college education has never been 
more important than it is today.
  Thirty years ago, Mr. President, a high school diploma could get you 
a

[[Page S2207]]

good job, not the best job, but you would get a good job. You could 
raise a family. You could buy a home. You could have a good life, 
retire with a decent level of financial security.
  I suspect that the Presiding Officer, his family, my family, 
certainly we saw that in case after case in our communities, whether it 
was Arkansas or Connecticut. Today, both of us understand that whether 
it is Arkansas or Connecticut, that is just not the case any longer.
  Even though you need a high school diploma today, you have to have 
even more education if you are going to fit into the economy of the 
21st century. Presently, the mean income of a high school graduate in 
the United States is $18,700 a year; that's the mean income. That would 
be barely enough to sustain a working family. In fact, if you have a 
family of four, $18,700 just doesn't do it today; I don't care where 
you live in the United States. But with a bachelor's degree, earnings 
nearly double, to $32,600 a year. So that additional 4 years can make a 
fantastic and huge difference in an individual's ability to provide for 
themselves and their families.
  As you might anticipate, Mr. President, the higher the education, the 
greater the financial benefits. On average, a holder of a professional 
degree earns more than $74,500 a year. But making the college 
opportunity a reality for our children, and for those adults who are 
going on to higher education, is important beyond simply individual 
earnings. That is obviously a benefit. But beyond the dollars and 
cents, beyond the ability of individuals to earn a higher salary, there 
are benefits to the economy as a whole. According to a new Wall Street 
Journal survey, Mr. President, two-thirds of academic economists agree 
that the right Government policies in education would provide a needed 
shot in the arm to the American economy. The fact is, in today's global 
economy, higher education is vital if we are to maintain our 
international competitiveness and to keep our economy strong.
  Since the passage of the GI bill, Mr. President--which millions of 
Americans are familiar with--there may be those who are retired today 
who remember, after coming out of World War II or the Korean conflict, 
what a difference the GI bill meant to them. There was a significant 
debate that many may recall about whether or not we could afford to pay 
for the GI bill.
  I think in today's dollars, Mr. President, the GI bill--if we tried 
to adopt something like it today, in 1997--would amount to about $9,000 
for every single student who took advantage of it. Obviously, the bulk 
of them took advantage of it in the late forties and fifties, the 
generation that came out of World War II and Korea. But can you imagine 
that, today, if you and I were to stand on the floor of the U.S. Senate 
and be advocates for something like $9,000 for every eligible person 
who wanted to go on to a higher education? There is no way in the world 
we could pass anything like that--not to mention finding the resources 
to pay for it.
  So it was a remarkable accomplishment, with all the debt we had at 
the end of World War II and Korea that hadn't been paid off at that 
particular time. There was a collective understanding of the value to 
the country beyond the individual benefit of having a generation that 
could never, ever have thought about affording a higher education. We, 
as a country, at the national level, said, let's see if we can't come 
up and find some resources to help these people who could not afford to 
go on to school, so they have the resources to do it. I think it is 
fascinating to note the analysis of how that has worked out. There was 
an analysis not long ago, Mr. President, that said that, for every 
dollar spent on the GI bill, the Nation reaped a benefit of $7 in 
additional revenues--a 7-to-1 ratio. So as expensive as it was, our 
country as a whole benefited tremendously beyond the obvious individual 
benefits that those men--primarily men, but men and women--who were 
recipients of the GI bill received. The country as a whole was a 
tremendous beneficiary of that program.
  At any rate, from this very first effort in higher education--on to 
policies today--the hallmark of the Federal Government's role in 
education is not to set aside the curricula in our higher education 
institutions, or be involved in the workings of these institutions; our 
role is to try and come up with creative ways to help students and 
families afford the financial burden of a higher education.

  Today, Mr. President, student assistance is determined by a 
complicated analysis of family and student assets and earnings. I am 
destined to make my colleagues' eyes glaze over if I try to explain it 
on the Senate floor, but suffice it to say, it is a rather significant 
morass of various loans, grants, and other forms of assistance. 
However, what must remain crystal clear is that, for millions of 
Americans, college is not simply a time of tranquil learning and 
weekend parties or weekend gatherings on campuses. For many college 
students today, Mr. President--if not most--full and part-time work is 
a fundamental part of their college education.
  This bill that I am introducing this morning would help protect these 
students and ensure that when considering students' financial needs, 
work is rewarding. Today, Mr. President, under current law, $1,750 of a 
student's earning from work is shielded when determining need for 
financial aid. Beyond that initial $1,750, students' earnings are 
assessed at a rate of 50 percent.
  The proposal I have for us to consider would double that amount, from 
$1,750 to $3,500, which we would shield, so those students would not 
have to allocate 50 percent of every dollar over $1,750 to their higher 
education. It would establish a graduated assessment, from $3,500 to 
$5,000, which would be assessed at 35 percent, and anything over $5,000 
in earnings would be assessed at the 50 percent that today is assessed 
at $1,750. I don't know exactly when, Mr. President, the $1,750 was set 
aside. It may have been when the number of students that were actually 
working to pay for their education was relatively small and that work 
may have been something that people did to acquire some independent 
financial means to take care of their daily needs.
  But as I would say again, no matter where you live in the country, 
most of our students today are on loans and are out working. College 
isn't a 4-year deal where you go straight through anymore. You have to 
have some work experience. This would allow them--since many are paying 
their own rent, buying their own food, paying for their own 
transportation--by raising the $1,750 to $3,500, graduated up to 
$5,000, this would allow them to retain more of that income that they 
need for their legitimate expenses, before assessing it at a high level 
that would deprive them of that ability.
  Again, this is not going to be a panacea for everything students 
need, but I think it is realistic. We are going to consider major 
reforms in the Higher Education Act. I anticipate and hope that this 
bill might be a part of that proposal. This legislation would ensure 
that the efforts of these families will be rewarded; work would be 
rewarded and encouraged. However, this effort should not stand alone, 
Mr. President. Clearly, there are other groups who may require changes, 
and other groups of legislation that may require changes. Specifically, 
I think we need to be sure that single students--particularly those 
with children--are not penalized because they are forced to work in 
order to pay for their education.
  The bill I am introducing today is, I think, an important first step. 
In my view, it will guarantee that low-income students receive the 
financial aid they so urgently need. I look forward to working on this 
legislation with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle here. I put 
it out for people's consideration. They may have some ideas to moderate 
it one way or another.
  Again, I think that given the common interest and common concern 
about higher education and how we can at least lighten the burdens of 
those out there trying to get that education and also holding down 
jobs, I encourage my colleagues' attention to this proposal.
  With that, I send the bill to the desk and ask that it be referred to 
the appropriate committee.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill will be referred to the appropriate 
committee.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. THOMAS (for himself and Mr. Shelby):

[[Page S2208]]

  S. 427. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to restore 
the deduction for lobbying expenses in connection with State 
legislation; to the Committee on Finance.


           LEGISLATION TO EXEMPT LOBBYING AT THE STATE LEVEL

 Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation, 
along with my colleague Senator Shelby, that exempts expenses incurred 
to address legislation at the State level from the current law 
provision that denies this deduction. This change would give lobbying 
at the State level the same tax deductible treatment currently given to 
expenses incurred to lobby at the local level.
  The provisions of this bill will allow businesses to once again 
deduct legitimate expenses they incur at the State level to respond to 
legislative proposals that can affect their livelihood and even their 
very existence. I ask my colleagues to join us in cosponsoring this 
important legislation.
  As part of the Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993, Congress approved a 
proposal recommended by President Clinton to deny the deductibility of 
expenses incurred to influence legislation. As passed, the bill creates 
a ``lobbying tax'' by denying a business tax deduction for legitimate 
expenses incurred to influence legislation at both the State and 
Federal level. In addition, expenses incurred to influence the official 
actions of certain Executive branch officials are not deductible. 
Expenses incurred to influence the legislative actions of local 
governments, however, are exempt from the lobbying tax.
  When the deductibility for lobbying expenses was partially repealed 
in 1993, the debate centered on lobbying at the Federal level. The fact 
that lobbying to influence legislative actions at the local level is 
exempt indicates that the 1993 change did not intend to cover all 
lobbying activities. Lobbying at the State level was not part of the 
debate, even though it was included in the final legislation that was 
approved by Congress.
  At the State level, there is more active business participation at 
all levels of the legislative process. This is partly because State 
legislatures have smaller staffs and meet less frequently than 
Congress. In most States, the job of State legislator is part time. 
Additionally, many Governors appoint ``blue ribbon commissions'' and 
other advisory groups to recommend legislative solutions to problems 
peculiar to a specific State. These advisory groups depend on input 
from members of the business, professional, and agricultural community 
knowledgeable about particular issues. The recordkeeping requirements 
and tax penalties associated with the lobbying tax discourages and 
penalizes this participation.
  The denial of a deduction for legitimate business expense incurred to 
lobby at the State level is an unwarranted intrusion of the Federal 
government on the activity of State governments. While many of the 
reasons to restore this deduction at the State level can also apply to 
lobbying at the Federal level, this additional intergovernmental 
argument emphasizes the need to extend the current exemption from the 
lobbying tax at the local level to lobbying at the State level.
  Perhaps one of the best reasons for restoring the deductibility of 
State lobbying expenses is the paperwork burden that this law has 
placed on many businesses and organizations. This is especially true 
for the many State trade associations, most of whom are small 
operations and not equipped to comply with the pages and pages of 
confusing Federal regulations implementing this law. Compliance is both 
time consuming and complicated, and detracts from the legitimate and 
necessary work and services they perform for their members, who are 
primarily small businesses and who depend on these associations to look 
after their interests.
  This bill is very simple. It restores the deductibility of business 
expenses incurred for activities to influence legislation at the State 
level, and gives them the same treatment that exists under current law 
for similar activities at the local level. It is good legislation, it 
deserves your support, and it should be enacted into law.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. KOHL (for himself, Mrs. Boxer, Mr. Durbin and Mr. Chaffe):
  S. 428. A bill to amend chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, 
to improve the safety of handguns; to the Committee on the Judiciary.


                   the CHILD SAFETY LOCK ACT OF 1997

 Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, today I introduce an important piece 
of legislation, The Child Safety Lock Act of 1997. Our measure will 
save thousands of children's lives by curtailing the senseless deaths 
that occur when improperly stored and unlocked handguns come within the 
reach of children. Let me tell you about the tragic death of 4 year-old 
Dylan Pierce of Eaton, WI, which illustrates why we need this law.
  Last August, Dylan and his 8-year-old brother Cody stumbled upon an 
unlocked cabinet while their parents were at work. The cabinet 
contained a .357-magnum handgun and several rifles. Although the boys' 
parents told them not to play with the guns, the children were 
naturally curious. The boys loaded the handgun with ammunition that was 
kept separate from the guns and began playing with the loaded handgun. 
While Dylan was handling the gun, it fired, shooting him in the head. 
Dylan was instantly killed by the bullet. Now, the lives of this family 
are forever changed, forever damaged.
  Unfortunately, statistics show that the Pierce family's tragedy 
represents part of an everincreasing trend in the United States. 
Currently, children in the United States are 12 times as likely to die 
because of a firearm than children in the other 25 largest 
industrialized countries. Even more startling, the Centers for Disease 
Control recently reported that nearly 1.2 million latch-key children 
alone have access to loaded firearms. These figures become even more 
disturbing when you account for the tragedies that could have been 
prevented by safety locks.
  And while most gun owners properly store their firearms, the sad fact 
is that a substantial number do not, leaving their guns loaded and 
within the reach of children.
  Mr. President, children's natural curiosity should not lead to their 
unnatural deaths. We need to ensure that young people who stumble upon 
handguns do not meet the same fate as Dylan Pierce or the many other 
children who have died or been injured in handgun accidents. This 
legislation is especially necessary as long as some adults continue to 
carelessly store their guns, and in places where children may reach 
them. Preventing these tragic accidents is the sole purpose of the 
Child Safety Lock Act.
  Our legislation is simple, effective and straightforward. First, it 
requires that whenever a handgun is sold, a child safety device--or 
trigger lock--is also sold. These devices vary in form, but the most 
common resemble a padlock that wraps around the gun trigger and 
immobilizes it. Trigger locks are already used by thousands of 
responsible gun owners to protect their firearms from unauthorized use, 
and they can be purchased in virtually any gun store for less than ten 
dollars.
  Second, the measure requires that a warning be enclosed with the 
purchase of every firearm. This warning serves as a wake up call to 
make gun owners aware of the risks associated with improper storage, 
and it also makes them aware of potential state civil and criminal 
penalties for failing to use child safety devices.
  Mr. President, this bill is not a panacea, but it will help prevent 
the tragic accidents and deaths associated with unauthorized, unlocked 
firearms. And it will help ensure that American children do not die as 
a result of adult carelessness. President Clinton challenged us to 
enact child safety lock legislation in his State of the Union Address: 
Today we respond to his challenge.
  Senators Boxer, Durbin, and Chafee join me as cosponsors of this 
bipartisan bill. We ask our other colleagues to join as well.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 428

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Child Safety Lock Act of 
     1997''.

[[Page S2209]]

     SEC. 2. HANDGUN SAFETY.

       (a) Definition of Locking Device.--Section 921(a) of title 
     18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(34) The term `locking device' means--
       ``(A) a device that, if installed on a firearm and secured 
     by means of a key or a mechanically-, electronically-, or 
     electromechanically-operated combination lock, prevents the 
     firearm from being discharged without first deactivating or 
     removing the device by means of a key or mechanically-, 
     electronically-, or electromechanically-operated combination 
     lock; or
       ``(B) a locking mechanism incorporated into the design of a 
     firearm that prevents discharge of the firearm by any person 
     who does not have access to the key or other device designed 
     to unlock the mechanism and thereby allow discharge of the 
     firearm.''.
       (b) Unlawful Acts.--Section 922 of title 18, United States 
     Code, is amended by inserting after subsection (x) the 
     following:
       ``(y) Locking Devices and Warnings.--
       ``(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), 
     beginning 90 days after the date of enactment of the Child 
     Safety Lock Act of 1997, it shall be unlawful for any 
     licensed manufacturer, licensed importer, or licensed dealer 
     to sell, deliver, or transfer any handgun--
       ``(A) to any person other than a licensed manufacturer, 
     licensed importer, or licensed dealer, unless the transferee 
     is provided with a locking device for that handgun; or
       ``(B) to any person, unless the handgun is accompanied by 
     the following warning, which shall appear in conspicuous and 
     legible type in capital letters, and which shall be printed 
     on a label affixed to the gun and on a separate sheet of 
     paper included within the packaging enclosing the handgun:

     `` `THE USE OF A LOCKING DEVICE OR SAFETY LOCK IS ONLY ONE 
     ASPECT OF RESPONSIBLE FIREARM STORAGE. FIREARMS SHOULD BE 
     STORED UNLOADED AND LOCKED IN A LOCATION THAT IS BOTH 
     SEPARATE FROM THEIR AMMUNITION AND INACCESSIBLE TO CHILDREN.
     `FAILURE TO PROPERLY LOCK AND STORE YOUR FIREARM MAY RESULT 
     IN CIVIL OR CRIMINAL LIABILITY UNDER STATE LAW. IN ADDITION, 
     FEDERAL LAW PROHIBITS THE POSSESSION OF A HANDGUN BY A MINOR 
     IN MOST CIRCUMSTANCES.'
       ``(2) Exceptions.--Paragraph (1) does not apply to--
       ``(A) the--
       ``(i) manufacture for, transfer to, or possession by, the 
     United States or a State or a department or agency of the 
     United States, or a State or a department, agency, or 
     political subdivision of a State, of a handgun; or
       ``(iii) the transfer to, or possession by, a law 
     enforcement officer employed by an entity referred to in 
     clause (i) of a handgun for law enforcement purposes (whether 
     on or off-duty); or
       ``(B) the transfer to, or possession by, a rail police 
     officer employed by a rail carrier and certified or 
     commissioned as a police officer under the laws of a State of 
     a handgun for purposes of law enforcement (whether on or off-
     duty).''.
       (c) Civil Penalties.--Section 924 of title 18, United 
     States Code, is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)(1), by striking ``or (f)'' and 
     inserting ``(f), or (p)''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(p) Penalties Relating to Locking Devices and Warnings.--
       ``(1) In general.--
       ``(A) Suspension or revocation of license; civil 
     penalties.--With respect to each violation of subparagraph 
     (A) or (B) of section 922(y)(1) by a licensee, the Secretary 
     may, after notice and opportunity for hearing--
       ``(i) suspend or revoke any license issued to the licensee 
     under this chapter; or
       ``(ii) subject the licensee to a civil penalty in an amount 
     equal to not more than $10,000.
       ``(B) Review.--An action of the Secretary under this 
     paragraph may be reviewed only as provided in section 923(f).
       ``(2) Administrative remedies.--The suspension or 
     revocation of a license or the imposition of a civil penalty 
     under paragraph (1) does not preclude any administrative 
     remedy that is otherwise available to the 
     Secretary.''.
      By Mr. GRASSLEY:

  S. 429. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow 
certain cash rent farm landlords to deduct soil and water conservation 
expenditures; to the Committee on Finance.


                            TAX LEGISLATION

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I introduce important tax legislation to 
improve our Nation's soil conservation and water quality. This measure 
will extend the conservation expense income tax deduction to farmers 
who improve soil and water conservation and need to rent that farmland 
to family members on a cash basis. This legislation builds upon an 
existing and successful income tax provision that applies to similar 
improvements on sharecrop rentals. I encourage my colleagues to 
cosponsor this legislation and thereby endorse an environmental tax 
policy that uniformly encourages conservation improvements on our 
Nation's farms.
  Across all of our Nation's farmland, 4 out of 5 acres rely on private 
landowners and tenants to care for the natural resources. Even though 
all farmers should be encouraged to become good stewards of the land, 
current tax policy does not provide incentives to encourage all private 
landowners and tenants to make conservation improvements that are 
consistent with good environmental policy. On the one hand, farm 
landlords operating on a sharecrop basis are rewarded with an income 
tax deduction for soil and water conservation improvements. However, 
cash rent landlords who make the same conservation improvements are 
denied a similar income tax deduction. My legislation will eliminate 
this inequality.

  Mr. President, 43 percent of our Nation's farmland is rented. Of that 
farmland, 35 percent is rented on a sharecrop basis, and 65 percent is 
rented on a cash basis. Sharecrop rentals are arrangements where 
landlords typically contribute the real estate and improvements, and 
tenants contribute the labor. Cash rentals are also arrangements where 
landlords usually contribute the real estate and improvements. However, 
the landlords also contribute labor since these agreements exist many 
times within a family farm environment.
  To further compare, sharecrop landlords may deduct certain costs paid 
or incurred for the treatment or moving of earth for soil and water 
conservation, including the leveling, conditioning, grading, and 
terracing of farmland. Likewise, sharecrop landlords may also deduct 
costs incurred to build and maintain drainage ditches and earthen dams. 
Cash rentals, however, are not provided a tax deduction even though 
they practice similar conservation methods. In other words, though the 
substance of these rentals is similar, the tax treatment of 
conservation expenses is vastly different.
  Mr. President, it may surprise you to know that many family farmers 
are cash rent landlords. The life cycle of a family farm is one where 
aging parents gradually pass the family farm to their sons or 
daughters. In many cases, because the children cannot initially afford 
to purchase the family farms from their parents, a parent-child 
business relationship often starts out as a rental. Sometimes it is a 
sharecrop rental, other times they agree to a cash rent relationship.
  Unfortunately, our tax and environmental policy toward these two 
relationships remains irrational. If a landlord sharecrops with a 
stranger, then that landlord can deduct conservation expenditures. 
However, if a widowed farm wife cash rents farmland to her daughter and 
watches over the grandchildren while the daughter works the crops in 
the field, the grandmother cannot deduct conservation expenditures. 
Similarly, a retired father who cash rents to his son and provides 
labor assistance during harvest is likewise denied a conservation tax 
deduction.
  I believe that our tax policy should encourage and reward sound soil 
conservation practices regardless of the situation of the farmers. At a 
minimum, our tax policy should reward family farmers who make long term 
soil conservation improvements to any of their farmland. In fact, these 
sound conservation practices have already aided many farmers in 
reducing our level of soil erosion. The USDA reported in its 1992 
Natural Resources Inventory that soil erosion has decreased by 1 
billion tons annually. The USDA attributes one half of that decrease to 
improved conservation efforts by farmers. Nonetheless, our Nation's tax 
policy requires that family farmers on a cash rent basis bear much of 
the expense of this successful environmental policy. My legislation 
fixes this problem. Surely, it will yield even further soil and water 
conservation of our nation's most valuable nonrenewable resource: 
farmland.
  I encourage all of my colleagues to cosponsor this important 
legislation.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. DOMENICI (for himself and Mr. Bingaman):
  S. 430. A bill to amend the act of June 20, 1910, to protect trust 
funds of the State of New Mexico from erosion due to inflation and 
modify the basis on which distributions are made from those funds; to 
the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.

[[Page S2210]]

      THE NEW MEXICO STATEHOOD AND ENABLING ACT AMENDMENTS OF 1997

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I introduce legislation to amend the New 
Mexico Enabling Act of 1910. I am pleased to have as a cosponsor, my 
colleague from New Mexico, Senator Bingaman. I am also very pleased 
that identical legislation is being introduced today in the House by 
New Mexico's Representatives Skeen and Schiff.
  Mr. President, the Enabling Act of 1910 provided the people of the 
New Mexico with the authority to convene a State constitutional 
convention and to organize a State government. As was the case with 
almost every State west of the Mississippi River, New Mexico was also 
granted certain public domain lands to be held in trust for the 
purposes of supporting the State's public educational institutions.
  The New Mexico State Land Commissioner's office has a proud history 
of producing sustained revenues from these State trust lands. These 
revenues have served the public schools of our State as they were 
intended, by providing for investments in a permanent fund. Mandates 
for managing the trust lands to sustain the permanent fund, as well as 
the control of and distributions from the fund are a part of our State 
constitution. In order to amend the constitutional mandates related to 
the State trust lands and the permanent fund, the Enabling Act requires 
that Congress give its consent to the amendments. Today, we begin the 
process of allowing New Mexico greater flexibility for investment, and 
protection of the permanent fund from the effects of inflation.
  In New Mexico, the State Investment Council is charged with managing 
our State's permanent fund. The council is currently constrained by 
constitutional mandate, and the Enabling Act, from making certain types 
of investments that would have provided millions of additional dollars 
for our State's educational institutions over the past 20 years. 
Additionally, they are currently required to distribute, on an annual 
basis, the dividends and income from the permanent fund, regardless of 
the impacts of inflation on the value of its assets. This requirement 
has also cost the beneficiaries through periodic market value erosion 
of the fund's assets.
  Mr. President, the voters of New Mexico have spoken. On November 5, 
1996, 67 percent approved amendments to our State constitution that 
will improve the situation. These amendments give the State Investment 
Council the necessary flexibility to prudently invest the assets of the 
permanent fund. Additionally, they restrict the distribution of 
revenues to a fixed percentage of a rolling 5-year average market value 
of those assets.

  This proposal has broad bipartisan support in our State legislature, 
and from our Governor, Gary Johnson. At this point, I ask unanimous 
consent to submit for the record a letter of support signed by Governor 
Johnson, and the bipartisan leadership of the New Mexico House of 
Representatives and Senate.
  Mr President, the bill I am introducing today does two things. First, 
it amends the enabling act of 1910, so that it will be consistent with 
the investment flexibility and permanent fund protection clauses of the 
amendments to our State constitution, already approved by the voters of 
New Mexico. Second, it provides the legal requirement of congressional 
consent to the amendments, so that they can be implemented by our State 
government. Combined with the State constitutional amendments approved 
this past November, this bill will provide our State Investment Council 
with the authority to greatly improve their investment strategies, 
bringing them to par with the vast majority of other public and private 
endowed fund management authorities.
  In closing, Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support this 
important legislation for the State of New Mexico, and I ask unanimous 
consent that the text of the bill be printed for the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                 S. 430

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. PERMANENT TRUST FUNDS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO.

       (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``New Mexico 
     Statehood and Enabling Act Amendments of 1997''.
       (b) Investment of and Distributions From Permanent Trust 
     Funds.--The Act of June 20, 1910 (36 Stat. 557, chapter 310), 
     is amended--
       (1) in the proviso in the second paragraph of section 7, by 
     striking ``the income therefrom only to be used'' and 
     inserting ``distributions from which shall be made in 
     accordance with the first paragraph of section 10 and shall 
     be used'';
       (2) in section 9, by striking ``the interest of which only 
     shall be expended'' and inserting ``distributions from which 
     shall be made in accordance with the first paragraph of 
     section 10 and shall be expended''; and
       (3) in the first paragraph of section 10, by adding at the 
     end the following: ``The trust funds, including all interest, 
     dividends, other income, and appreciation in the market value 
     of assets of the funds shall be prudently invested on a total 
     rate of return basis. Distributions from the trust funds 
     shall be made as provided in Article 12, Section 7 of the 
     Constitution of the State of New Mexico.''.
       (c) Consent of Congress.--Congress consents to the 
     amendments to the Constitution of the State of New Mexico 
     proposed by Senate Joint Resolution 2 of the 42nd Legislature 
     of the State of New Mexico, Second Session, 1996, entitled 
     ``A Joint Resolution proposing amendments to Article 8, 
     Section 10 and Article 12, Sections 2, 4 and 7 of the 
     Constitution of New Mexico to protect the State's permanent 
     funds against inflation by limiting distributions to a 
     percentage of each fund's market value and by modifying 
     certain investment restrictions to allow optimal 
     diversification of investments'', approved by the voters of 
     the State of New Mexico on November 5, 1996.
                                                                    ____

                                           Office of the Governor,


                                                State Capitol,

                                  Santa Fe, NM, February 24, 1997.
     U.S. Senator Pete V. Domenici,
     Federal Place,
     Santa Fe, NM.
       Dear Senator Domenici: We hereby respectfully request the 
     U.S. Congress amend the Enabling Act for New Mexico. This 
     Amendment is necessary to protect the fund from inflation and 
     to reduce risk by diversifying investments and establishing a 
     distribution formula similar to that used by most other 
     endowments. The Legislature and 67% of the voters from New 
     Mexico voted in favor of amending Article 12, Sections 2, 4 
     and 7 of the New Mexico Constitution to accomplish these 
     objectives. Since these funds are derived from Federal land 
     granted to the State under the Enabling Act of 1910, it is 
     necessary to obtain the consent of the U.S. Congress before 
     the Amendment can be implemented. The Amendment can be 
     implemented without any cost to the Federal Government.
       The Amendment changes the method of making distributions to 
     the institutional beneficiaries (primarily public schools, 
     universities and other public institutions) to one based on a 
     fixed percentage (4.7%) of the five-year average market value 
     of the funds, instead of one based solely on interest and 
     dividend income. This method of making distributions should 
     ensure that the fund will grow with inflation, therefore 
     protecting the fund for future generations.
       Anything you can do to expedite the process of amending the 
     Enabling Act so that we can invest the State's Permanent 
     Funds more professionally and implement the new distribution 
     formula will be sincerely appreciated.
       Thank you for your help and support of this request.
           Very truly yours,
     Gary E. Johnson,
                                                         Governor.
     Raymond G. Sanchez,
                          Speaker of the House of Representatives.
     Kip W. Nicely,
              Minority Leader of the House of     Representatives.
     Manny M. Aragon,
                                       Pro Tempore, of the Senate.
     Raymond Kysar,
                                    Minority Leader of the Senate.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. MURKOWSKI (for himself, Mr. Stevens, Mr. Gorton, Mr. 
        Burns, Mr. Craig, Mr. Kempthorne, and Mr. Smith of Oregon):
  S. 431. A bill to amend title 28, United States Code, to divide the 
ninth judicial circuit of the United States into two circuits, and for 
other purposes; to the Committee on the Judiciary.


     the ninth circuit court of appeals reorganization act of 1997

  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, today I am pleased to be joined by my 
colleagues, Senators Stevens, Gorton, Burns, Craig, Kempthorne, and 
Senator Smith of Oregon, in introducing the Ninth Circuit Court of 
Appeals Reorganization Act of 1997.
  Our legislation will create a new twelfth circuit comprised of 
Alaska, Washington, Oregon, Idaho, and Montana. This legislation will 
ease the current burdens of the ninth circuit, as well as effectively 
create a new northwest circuit that is historically, economically, 
culturally, and philosophically united.

[[Page S2211]]

  Mr. President, one look at the contours of the ninth circuit reveals 
the need for this reorganization. Stretching from the Arctic Circle to 
the Mexican border, past the tropics of Hawaii and across the 
international dateline to Guam and the Marianna Islands, by any means 
of measurement, the ninth circuit is the largest of all U.S. circuit 
courts of appeal.
  There is also no denying the ninth circuit's mammoth caseload. It 
serves a population of more than 45 million people, well over one-third 
more than the next largest circuit.
  Last year, the ninth circuit had an astounding 7,146 new filings.
  By 2010, the Census Bureau estimates that the ninth circuit's 
population will be more than 63 million--a 40-percent increase in just 
13 years, which inevitably will create an even more daunting caseload.
  We believe that this legislation is long overdue. Because of its 
size, the entire appellate process in the ninth circuit is the second 
slowest in the Nation. As former Chief Judge Wallace of the ninth 
circuit stated: ``It takes about 4 months longer to complete an appeal 
in our court as compared to the national median time.'' Mr. President, 
what this means is that while the national median time for filing a 
notice of appeal to final disposition is 315 days, the ninth circuit 
median time is 1 year and 2 months.
  Furthermore, the massive size of the ninth circuit often results in a 
decrease in the ability to keep abreast of legal developments within 
its own jurisdiction. This unwieldy caseload creates an inconsistency 
in constitutional interpretation. In fact, ninth circuit cases have an 
extraordinarily high reversal rate by the Supreme Court. During the 
Supreme Court's 1994-95 session, the Supreme Court overturned 82 
percent of the ninth circuit cases heard by the Court. This lack of 
constitutional consistency discourages settlements and leads to 
unnecessary litigation.
  Mr. President, the legislation I am introducing is not novel. Since 
the day the circuit was founded, over a century ago, there were 
discussions of a split. Nearly a quarter century ago, in 1973, the 
Congressional Commission on the Revision of the Federal Court of 
Appellate System recommended that the ninth circuit be divided.
  Additionally, the American Bar Association has adopted a resolution 
expressing the benefits of dividing the ninth district.
  Since 1983, Senator Gorton and many others in this Chamber have 
initiated legislation to split the circuit.
  There have been Senate hearings. In December 1995, Senator Hatch 
stated in a committee report that:

       The legislative history, in conjunction with available 
     statistics and research concerning the Ninth Circuit, 
     provides an ample record for an informed decision at this 
     point as to whether to divide the Ninth Circuit . . . Upon 
     careful consideration the time has indeed come.

  Furthermore, splitting a circuit to respond to caseload and 
population growth is by no means unprecedented. Congress divided the 
original eighth circuit to create the tenth circuit in 1929, and 
divided the former fifth circuit to create the 11th circuit in 1980.
  The legislation that I and my colleagues introduce today is the 
sensible reorganization of the ninth circuit. The new ninth circuit 
would embrace California, Nevada, Arizona, Hawaii, and the U.S. 
territories. And the new 12th circuit would be comprised solely of 
States in the Northwest region. Most importantly, this split would 
respect the economic, historical, cultural, and legal ties which exist 
between the States involved.
  Mr. President, no one court can effectively exercise its power in an 
area that extends from the Arctic Circle to the tropics. The 
legislation introduction today will create a regional commonality which 
will lead to greater consistency and dependency in legal decisions.
  Mr. President, we have waited long enough. The 45 million residents 
of the ninth circuit are the persons that suffer. Many wait years 
before cases are heard and decided, prompting many to forego the entire 
appellate process. In brief, the ninth circuit has become a circuit 
where justice is not swift and not always served.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 431

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Ninth Circuit Court of 
     Appeals Reorganization Act of 1997''.

     SEC. 2. NUMBER AND COMPOSITION OF CIRCUITS.

       Section 41 of title 28, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) in the matter before the table, by striking 
     ``thirteen'' and inserting ``fourteen'';
       (2) in the table, by striking the item relating to the 
     ninth circuit and inserting the following new item:

Arizona, California, Hawaii, Nevada, Guam, Northern Mariana Islands.'';
       and
       (3) between the last 2 items of the table, by inserting the 
     following new item:

Alaska, Idaho, Montana, Oregon, Washington.''..........................

     SEC. 3. NUMBER OF CIRCUIT JUDGES.

       The table in section 44(a) of title 28, United States Code, 
     is amended--
       (1) by striking the item relating to the ninth circuit and 
     inserting the following new item:

``Ninth...........................................................19'';

       and
       (2) by inserting between the last 2 items at the end 
     thereof the following new item:

``Twelfth..........................................................7''.

     SEC. 4. PLACES OF CIRCUIT COURT.

       The table in section 48 of title 28, United States Code, is 
     amended--
       (1) by striking the item relating to the ninth circuit and 
     inserting the following new item:

San Francisco, Los Angeles.'';.........................................
       and
       (2) by inserting between the last 2 items at the end 
     thereof the following new item:

Portland, Seattle.''...................................................

     SEC. 5. ASSIGNMENT OF CIRCUIT JUDGES.

       Each circuit judge in regular active service of the former 
     ninth circuit whose official station on the day before the 
     effective date of this Act--
       (1) is in Arizona, California, Hawaii, Nevada, Guam, or the 
     Northern Mariana Islands is assigned as a circuit judge of 
     the new ninth circuit; and
       (2) is in Alaska, Idaho, Montana, Oregon, or Washington is 
     assigned as a circuit judge of the twelfth circuit.

     SEC. 6. ELECTION OF ASSIGNMENT BY SENIOR JUDGES.

       Each judge who is a senior judge of the former ninth 
     circuit on the day before the effective date of this Act may 
     elect to be assigned to the new ninth circuit or to the 
     twelfth circuit and shall notify the Director of the 
     Administrative Office of the United States Courts of such 
     election.

     SEC. 7. SENIORITY OF JUDGES.

       The seniority of each judge--
       (1) who is assigned under section 5 of this Act; or
       (2) who elects to be assigned under section 6 of this Act;

     shall run from the date of commission of such judge as a 
     judge of the former ninth circuit.

     SEC. 8. APPLICATION TO CASES.

       The provisions of the following paragraphs of this section 
     apply to any case in which, on the day before the effective 
     date of this Act, an appeal or other proceeding has been 
     filed with the former ninth circuit:
       (1) If the matter has been submitted for decision, further 
     proceedings in respect of the matter shall be had in the same 
     manner and with the same effect as if this Act had not been 
     enacted.
       (2) If the matter has not been submitted for decision, the 
     appeal or proceeding, together with the original papers, 
     printed records, and record entries duly certified, shall, by 
     appropriate orders, be transferred to the court to which it 
     would have gone had this Act been in full force and effect at 
     the time such appeal was taken or other proceeding commenced, 
     and further proceedings in respect of the case shall be had 
     in the same manner and with the same effect as if the appeal 
     or other proceeding had been filed in such court.
       (3) A petition for rehearing or a petition for rehearing en 
     banc in a matter decided before the effective date of this 
     Act, or submitted before the effective date of this Act and 
     decided on or after the effective date as provided in 
     paragraph (1) of this section, shall be treated in the same 
     manner and with the same effect as though this Act had not 
     been enacted. If a petition for rehearing en banc is granted, 
     the matter shall be reheard by a court comprised as though 
     this Act had not been enacted.

     SEC. 9. DEFINITIONS.

       For purposes of this Act, the term--
       (1) ``former ninth circuit'' means the ninth judicial 
     circuit of the United States as in existence on the day 
     before the effective date of this Act;
       (2) ``new ninth circuit'' means the ninth judicial circuit 
     of the United States established by the amendment made by 
     section 2(2) of this Act; and
       (3) ``twelfth circuit'' means the twelfth judicial circuit 
     of the United States established by the amendment made by 
     section 2(3) of this Act.

[[Page S2212]]

     SEC. 10. ADMINISTRATION.

       The court of appeals for the ninth circuit as constituted 
     on the day before the effective date of this Act may take 
     such administrative action as may be required to carry out 
     this Act. Such court shall cease to exist for administrative 
     purposes on July 1, 1999.

     SEC. 11. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       This Act and the amendments made by this Act shall become 
     effective on October 1, 1997.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. ABRAHAM (for himself, Mr. Lieberman, Mr. DeWine, Mr. 
        Hutchinson, and Mr. Coats):
  S. 432. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow 
the designation of renewal communities, and for other purposes; to the 
Committee on Finance.


               the american community renewal act of 1997

 Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, today, I am proud to join 
colleagues on both sides of the Capitol and both sides of the aisle in 
introducing the American Community Renewal Act of 1997. This 
legislation addresses the social and economic pathologies currently 
besetting this country. It helps bring back economic growth and the 
sense of community we need to maintain safe streets, strong families, 
and vibrant neighborhoods. And it does so be bridging the gap between 
tax policies designed to stimulate economic growth and social policies 
designed to strengthen our moral fabric.
  This bipartisan, bicameral bill has the support of members from 
diverse States and diverse political perspectives. Here in the Senate, 
I am joined by Senators Lieberman, DeWine, Hutchinson of Arkansas, and 
Coats. Meanwhile, Congressmen Watts, Flake, and Talent are introducing 
a similar bill in the House of Representatives.
  Mr. President, the tragedy of broken homes, drugs, violence, and 
welfare dependency is so prevalent that some Americans accept it as 
normal. But broken families are not normal, and neither is the 
hopelessness that lies at the root of community decay. We can and must 
work to renew our distressed communities, both for the sake of the 
people living there and for all Americans.
  We spent $5.4 trillion on the War on Poverty, yet today's poverty 
rate is essentially the same as it was in 1966. The problem was not our 
good intentions. Nor was it that community decay is an unbeatable 
adversary. Rather, the problem with the war on poverty was that it 
looked toward Washington rather than to the communities themselves.
  Mr. President, the Washington knows best approach is a recipe for 
disaster. Washington can neither end poverty nor give people the habits 
of hard work, civility, and personal responsibility necessary for 
community renewal. But Washington can do something. It can remove 
barriers and free entrepreneurs and community leaders to reconstruct 
the fundamental institutions, beliefs, and practices upon which any 
health community must rely.
  Which leaders are we talking about? People like Indianapolis Mayor 
Steve Goldsmith, who is working with local groups like the Indianapolis 
Housing Project and Westside Cooperative Organization. Together they 
are cutting redtape and encouraging community development. They are 
revitalizing neighborhoods that previously had been written off.
  In Detroit, Mayor Archer's clean sweep program last year brought 
together over 20,000 volunteers in and around that city, along with 
dozens of local community organizations. Their efforts resulted in the 
removal of over 300,000 bags of trash from our city. Community pride 
was harnessed, and developed, in this worthwhile endeavor.
  These are the kinds of cooperative efforts that can revitalize our 
distressed communities. Such efforts lie behind the American Community 
Renewal Act of 1997. By replacing barriers with incentives, this 
legislation aims to increase private investment, strengthen family 
ties, and effectively fight drugs abuse by reintegrating faith-based 
institutions into the public life of our distressed areas. Building on 
the pioneering legislation sponsored by then-Congressman Jack Kemp in 
the 1970's, it will create 100 community renewal zones with targeted, 
pro-growth tax and regulatory relief, housing assistance and provisions 
encouraging savings, education and investment.
  A community must meet several criteria to qualify. First, its 
residents must have incomes well below the average while at least a 
fifth fall below the poverty line. Other measures such as unemployment 
levels and eligibility for certain Federal assistance programs are also 
considered.
  Second, the community must bring to the table its own package of 
incentives including lower taxes, increased local services, a crime 
reduction strategy, and fewer economic regulations. Mr. President, part 
of rejecting the Washington knows best philosophy is acknowledging that 
not all barriers to economic and social growth come from the Federal 
Government.
  This legislation calls on local governments to do their part. In 
return for these concessions, Mr. President, the community will receive 
a number of powerful benefits designed to encourage new businesses, job 
creation, and economic growth.
  First, we eliminate the capital gains tax for the sale of any renewal 
property or business held for at lest 5 years, we increase the 
expensing allowance for small businesses for those who locate in the 
zone, and we target low-income workers with a 20-percent wage credit if 
they are hired by a renewal community business.

  Next, we target additional capital at renewal communities by allowing 
banks to receive Community Reinvestment Act credit for investments in, 
or loans to, community groups within the zone. The idea is that these 
groups would then provide loans to local small businesses and 
residents.
  Finally, we target environmental blight by providing tax incentives 
for cleaning up of old commercial and industrial properties located 
within the renewal communities. There are tens of thousands of these 
so-called brownfields across the country, Mr. President, and in many 
communities they represent the No. 1 obstacle to redevelopment and 
economic growth. Providing these tax breaks eliminates a barrier to 
investment in our renewal communities as it helps preserve undeveloped 
lands inside and outside these communities. For every brownfield that 
gets cleaned and reused, a greenfield is preserved.
  Important as they are, however, investment and job creation 
incentives are not enough. That is why the Community Renewal Act also 
targets families and organizations. For families living within renewal 
communities, the bill provides new opportunities for saving, owning a 
home, and sending their children to the school of their choice.
  The bill provides renewal zone residents with family development 
accounts. These super-IRA's will encourage low-income families to save 
part of their income by making the deposits--up to $2,000 per year--
deductible and the withdrawals tax free if used for purposes like 
buying a house or meeting educational expenses.
  The bill also provides for the sale of unoccupied or substandard 
local HUD homes and housing projects to community development 
corporations. This provision increases housing opportunities for low-
income families, helping them stay together, invest in their homes, and 
care for their neighborhoods by making them stakeholders in renewal 
communities.
  Finally, there is an opportunity scholarship program. This means-
tested program allows low-income parents to send their children to the 
school they think best.
  Our bill also targets community organizations for assistance. As has 
been noted previously, for every social problem we face, there is an 
organization out there that is addressing that problem. This 
legislation's goal is to stimulate and encourage those organizations in 
their work.
  In San Antonio, Pastor Freddie Garcia runs Victory Fellowship. This 
faith based drug rehabilitation program has saved thousands of addicts 
in some of the city's toughest neighborhoods. Victory Fellowship offers 
addicts a safe haven, a chance to recover, job training, and a chance 
for addicts to provide for themselves and their families and 13,000 
people have been helped there, with a success rate of over 80 percent. 
But, because Victory Fellowship is faith based, it has not received any 
Federal help. Also because it is faith based, no one receiving Federal 
assistance is allowed to go there.

[[Page S2213]]

  Mr. President, the American Community Renewal Act would allow local, 
faith based substance abuse treatment centers like Pastor Garica's to 
receive Federal assistance. It does so without endangering the 
independence of the Victory Fellowship and other centers doing similar 
work, and it does so without forcing religious doctrine upon those who 
seek assistance.
  And, finally, this legislation stimulates charitable giving in all 
American communities by creating a new charity tax credit for private 
donations to qualified charities. Mr. President, back in 1986, Congress 
eliminated the charitable deduction for families who do not itemize. 
This change in the Tax Code hurt the ability of charities to attract 
private support. To correct this problem, this new credit would be 
available to all families, even those who do not itemize. To keep the 
cost reasonable, we have capped qualified donations for taxpayers who 
must also personally volunteer at the recipient charity. Nevertheless, 
we believe this provision will provide taxpayers with a powerful 
incentive to add their hard-earned money to the war on poverty and 
drugs.
  Mr. President, the American Community Renewal Act places its faith in 
individuals, organizations, and communities all across America to 
address our social and economic ills. It does so by bridging the gap 
between economic and social policy, and the gap between traditionally 
Republican and Democratic solutions. I am glad to have joined hands 
with my colleagues to move this initiative forward, and I look forward 
to seeing this legislation enacted into law this Congress.
  Mr. president, I ask unanimous consent that a detailed summary of the 
American Community Renewal Act be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the item was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

          The American Community Renewal Act of 1997--Outline

       This legislation focuses on three broad themes: moral and 
     family renewal, personal economic empowerment, and fostering 
     private charity. Our bill allows for up to 100 ``Renewal 
     Communities'' to be established on a competitive basis in 
     both urban and rural areas. To be designated a Renewal 
     Community, state and local governments would have to work 
     together with neighborhood groups to relax zoning, housing, 
     tax, and business rules and regulations.


       Title 1: Designation and Evaluation of Renewal Communities

       Establish up to 100 Renewal Communities along the following 
     guidelines:
       (1) The Secretary of Housing and Urban Development has the 
     authority to designate these ``renewal communities,'' 25 
     percent of which must be in rural areas. Designations would 
     be effective for seven years.
       (2) Areas nominated would have to meet certain criteria and 
     would be ranked on the degree to which they exceeded these 
     criteria. The criteria are as follows: (a) have an 
     unemployment rate of at least 1\1/2\ times the national rate; 
     (b) have a poverty rate of at least 20 percent; and (c) at 
     least 70 percent of the households in the area have incomes 
     below 80 percent of the median income of households in the 
     metropolitan statistical area.
       Nominated areas also would have to meet certain population 
     criteria. These requirements are: (1) the areas must be 
     within the jurisdiction of local governments; (2) the 
     boundary must be continuous; and (3) if it is in a 
     metropolitan statistical area, the population, based on the 
     most recent census data, must be at least 4,000 (1,000 in the 
     case of rural areas) or be entirely within an Indian 
     reservation.
       (3) Within four months of enactment, the Secretary of 
     Housing and Urban Development would be required to issue 
     regulations to: (1) establish the procedures for nominating 
     areas; (2) determine the parameters relating to the size and 
     population characteristics of ``renewal communities;'' and 
     (3) the manner in which nominated areas will be evaluated 
     based on the eligibility criteria.
       (4) The Secretary of Housing and Urban Development could 
     not designate an area a ``renewal community'' unless: (1) the 
     local governments and the state have the authority to 
     nominate an area; (2) agree to the requirements on state and 
     local governments (described below); and (3) provide 
     assurances that these commitments will be fulfilled; and (4) 
     the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development determines 
     that the information furnished is reasonably accurate.
       (5) Before being considered for ``renewal community'' 
     status, state and local governments must enter into a written 
     contract with neighborhoods organizations to do at least five 
     of the following: (1) reduce taxrates and fees within the 
     ``renewal community;'' (2) increase the level of efficiency 
     of local services within the renewal community; (3) crime 
     reduction strategies; (4) actions to reduce, remove, 
     simplify, or streamline governmental requirements applying 
     within the renewal community; (5) involve private entities in 
     providing social services; (6) allow for state and local 
     income tax benefits for fees paid or accrued for services 
     performed by a nongovernmental entity but which formerly had 
     been performed by government; and (7) allow the gift (or sale 
     at below fair market value) of surplus realty (land, homes, 
     commercial or industrial structures) in the ``renewal 
     community'' to neighborhoods organizations, community 
     development corporations, or private companies.
       Communities would receive credit for past activities with 
     respect to these activities.
       (6) In addition, before being considered for ``renewal 
     community'' status, state and local governments must agree to 
     suspend or otherwise not enforce the following types of 
     restrictions on entry into business or occupations: (1) 
     licensing requirements for occupations that do not ordinarily 
     require a professional degree; (2) zoning restrictions on 
     home-based businesses that do not create a public nuisance; 
     (3). permit requirements for street vendors that do not 
     create a public nuisance; (4). zoning or other 
     restrictions that impeded the formation of schools or 
     child care centers; or (5). franchises or other 
     restrictions on competition for businesses providing 
     public services, including but not limited to taxicabs, 
     jitneys, cable television, or trash hauling. State and 
     local authorities may apply such regulations of businesses 
     and occupations within the ``renewal communities'' as are 
     necessary and well-tailored to protect public health, 
     safety, or order.
       (7) State and local governments must agree to participate 
     in the low-income scholarship program provided for in Title 
     IV of this bill.
       (8) With respect to existing Empowerment Zones and 
     Enterprise Communities, the first 50 designations of Renewal 
     Communities will be offered to existing zones on a first 
     come, first serve basis.


           TITLE II: ECONOMIC EMPOWERMENT AND TAX ADVANTAGES

       The tax benefits for Renewal Communities are substantial. 
     The tax incentives are as follows:
       (1) A 100 percent exclusion from capital gains for certain 
     qualified Renewal Community assets held for more than five 
     years;
       (2) An additional $35,000 of expensing under IRS Code 
     Section 179 for qualified Renewal Community enterprises;
       (3) A work opportunity tax credit to offset the cost of 
     hiring individuals who are either on Temporary Assistance for 
     Needy Families (TANF), are considered high-risk youth, or are 
     in need of some type of vocational rehabilitation. The 
     maximum credit can be up to $3,000 of first-year wages. The 
     credit only applies to businesses located within the Renewal 
     Community over a seven year period.
       (4) A commercial revitalization tax credit for the 
     renovation and rehabilitation of qualified, non-residential 
     buildings located within a Renewal Community. The credit is 
     worth up to 20% of the cost of renovation of 5% a year for 
     ten years;
       (5) Permits taxpayers to expense costs incurred in the 
     abatement of environmental contaminants located within a 
     Renewal Community.
       Provides Family Development Accounts for the working poor 
     residing in ``renewal communities'' along the following 
     guidelines:
       (1) As an incentive for low-income working families to 
     save, EITC recipients would be able to put a portion of their 
     credit into a savings account and be rewarded with a federal 
     match. The intent of this section is to provide low-income 
     working families an incentive to accumulate assets and help 
     achieve economic self-sufficiency. Withdrawals from these 
     accounts, known as Family Development Accounts, would be tax-
     free for the purchase of a home, post-secondary education, 
     emergency healthcare costs or the creation of a small 
     business. Contributions to the account would be limited to 
     $2,000 in unmatched income for a one year period.
       (2) These FDA accounts may be matched by public and private 
     funds to help low-income families build family assets and 
     become independent from government programs. Matches could be 
     provided by local churches, service organizations, 
     corporations, foundations, and state or local governments. A 
     federal match of this money would also be deposited into the 
     Family Development Account in at least 25 ``renewal 
     communities.'' The funds for these demonstration programs 
     will come from the $1 billion extra Social Service Block 
     Grant program created in the 1993 enterprise zone bill.
       Provide a new tax credit for charitable giving to private 
     organizations which aid the poor along the following 
     guidelines:
       (1) The credit would equal 75 percent of the value of 
     donations to qualified charities. The maximum gift for which 
     such credit would be claimed would be $100 for a single filer 
     ($200 for a joint-filing household). This credit would only 
     be active for a three year period. In order to be eligible 
     for the credit, the filer must have completed at least 10 
     hours of volunteer service for the designated organization 
     over a one year period.
       (2) In order for the credit to be claimed, the charity 
     which receives the gift: (a). must be predominately involved 
     in the provision of services to persons whose annual incomes 
     do not exceed 185 percent of poverty; (b). must allocate at 
     least 70 percent of its total expenditures to direct services 
     to low-income persons.

[[Page S2214]]

   Title III: Low-Income Educational Opportunity Scholarship Program

       Establish an educational choice scholarship program in each 
     ``renewal community'' along the following guidelines:
       (1) Parents of children who receive assistance under this 
     program will be free to choose the school which their 
     children will attend from a wide range of types of schools, 
     including: alternative public schools, charter schools, 
     private schools, and private religious schools.
       (2) Funds under the program may be used (a). to cover the 
     reasonable cost of transportation to alternative public 
     schools or (b). to provide scholarships to pay for tuition 
     and reasonable transportation costs to private, and private 
     religious schools.
       (3) Each locality will determine the value of scholarships 
     for children in their locality. The maximum value of the 
     scholarship shall not exceed the per capita cost of educating 
     children in a public school in the locality. The scholarship 
     shall have a minimum value which shall not fall below the 
     lesser of: (a). 66 percent of the per capita costs of 
     educating children in the public schools in the locality; or 
     (b). the normal tuition charged by the private school.
       (4) A parent shall be able to redeem a scholarship at any 
     private or private religious school within the locality which 
     meets the health and educational standards for private 
     schools within the locality which existed as of January 1, 
     1996. All schools which receive these scholarships shall 
     comply with the antidiscrimination provision of Section 601 
     of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and may not 
     discriminate on the basis of race.
       (5) The locality may not prohibit parents from using 
     scholarships to pay for tuition in religious schools and may 
     not discriminate in any way against parents who choose to 
     place their child in a religious school. The Senate version 
     of the bill ensures that state and local funds are not used 
     for scholarships where it is prohibited by state law or state 
     constitution.
       (6) Education funds under this act shall be provided into 
     two tiers: Tier I funds shall be based on the number of 
     school-age children with family incomes below 185 percent of 
     poverty; Tier II funds shall be based on the level of private 
     and public contribution to scholarships in the locality.
       The level of Tier I funds, which each community shall 
     receive, shall be pro-rated based on the number of school-age 
     children in families residing in the community with incomes 
     below 185 percent of poverty relative to the total number of 
     such children in all localities eligible for funding. 80 
     percent of the funds shall be dedicated to Tier I.
       Tier II funds shall equal 20 percent of all education funds 
     under this Act and shall be proportional to the level of 
     contribution to scholarships from non-federal funds (public 
     or private) within the locality.
       (7) No individual shall be entitled to scholarships. A 
     locality shall allocate scholarships and transportation aid 
     to eligible parents who apply for aid on a first-come, first-
     served basis or through another mechanism of selection 
     determined by the locality which does not discriminate on the 
     basis of the type of school selected by the parent.
       (8) If the funds allocated to a locality under this act 
     exceed the total expenditures on transportation aid and 
     scholarships in a locality in a given year, the locality may 
     use the surplus funds to provide for the education of low-
     income children within the public school system.


  Title IV: Faith-based Service Provider Empowerment and Homeownership

       The act would empower neighbhorhood groups, including 
     religious institutions, who want to provide drug treatment 
     and drug counseling activities in the following manner:
       (1) Modifies existing drug counseling and drug 
     rehabilitation programs. A state may provide drug counseling 
     and drug rehabilitation services through contracts with 
     religious organizations or other private organizations; or 
     may provide beneficiaries with vouchers or certificates which 
     are redeemable for services provided by such organizations.
       (2) Funds may be used for drug counseling and 
     rehabilitation programs which have a religious content and 
     character, as long as the beneficiary is able to choose among 
     a range of service providers, including those which are 
     religious in character. Such use of funds shall conform to 
     the Supreme Courts interpretation of the Establishment Clause 
     as provided in Mueller v. Allen and Witters v. Department of 
     Services for the Blind.
       (3) No beneficiary shall be required to participate in a 
     service or program which is religious in character. In all 
     cases beneficiaries shall be given the option of selecting 
     services from a non-religious provider.
       (4) Except as provided in #3 above, neither the federal 
     government nor a state receiving funds may discriminate 
     against an organization which seeks to provide services or be 
     a contractor on the basis that the organization has a 
     religious character.
       (5) States would be required to undertake a review of 
     credentialing requirements for drug rehabilitation programs. 
     The goal of this review would be to improve efficiency and 
     effectiveness of programs by reducing credentialing 
     requirements.
       More low-income families will have the opportunity to buy 
     their first home through the Renewal Community home-ownership 
     provisions. These measures provide for the sale of unoccupied 
     or substandard homes and housing projects located within 
     Renewal Communities and owned by HUD to community development 
     corporations.
       Finally, the bill would encourage bank lending within 
     ``renewal communities.'' The bill amends section 804 of the 
     Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 and allows financial 
     institutions to receive CRA credit for investments in, loans 
     to, or other ventures with community development financial 
     institutions as defined by the Bank Enterprise Act of 1991 
     and which are located within ``renewal communities.''
 Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, from the time I came to the 
Senate in 1989, I have been proud to advocate enterprise zones for 
America's troubled neighborhoods. I think this issue is at the heart of 
the whole question of what America must do to redeem the promise of 
economic opportunity for all Americans. I was pleased to work with Jack 
Kemp on this issue when he was Secretary of HUD, for the past 2 years 
with Senator Abraham, and now with Representatives Watts, Flake, and 
Talent.
  We all believe that not enough is being done to empower those people 
who live, work, and want to start businesses in our poorest urban and 
rural areas of the country. Any response to the economic distress in 
urban and rural areas which does not include a mechanism to attract 
businesses and jobs back to these areas is a response that is destined 
to fail.
  We took a step toward empowering poor Americans and identifying and 
helping impoverished communities by passing 1993 legislation creating 
empowerment zones and enterprise communities in more than 100 
neighborhoods across the country. With the passage of that legislation, 
Congress recognized something that our States have acknowledged for 
many years: Government loses the war on poverty when it fights alone. 
What we really need to do is figure out a way to pull the people and 
the places with little or no stake in our economic system, into our 
system. We need to answer ``yes'' to the question posed by Paul Pryde, 
coauthor of ``Black Entrepreneurship in America.'' That question is, 
``Can we make the market work for the discouraged, isolated and 
frequently embittered underclass?''
  We can, and need, to answer, ``yes.'' The 1993 legislation marked a 
fundamental change in urban policy, by recognizing that American 
business can and must play a role in revitalizing poor neighborhoods. 
Indeed, American business involvement is essential if we are to break 
the cycle of poverty and the related ills confronting too many cities 
and rural areas today--crime, drug abuse, illiteracy, and unemployment.
  The 1993 breakthrough was a good start, but we did not go far enough. 
That's why I am pleased to join with my colleague, Senator Spencer 
Abraham, on a bipartisan basis, in announcing the American Community 
Renewal Act of 1997. We want to help economically distressed urban and 
rural areas by creating 100 community renewal zones, including current 
empowerment zones and enterprise communities created by OBRA 1993, and 
additional communities meeting poverty and local commitment criteria. 
Specifically, these zones must have a 20 percent or more poverty rate, 
unemployment of at least 15 percent the national rate, and at least 70 
percent of households with incomes below 80 percent median household 
income. Renewal communities will commit to reducing barriers to 
business, such as reductions in local taxes and fees, elimination of 
State and local sales tax, and waiver of local and State occupational 
licensing regulations except for those specifically needed to protect 
health and safety.
  This legislation will offer targeted, pro-growth tax and regulatory 
relief to encourage private sector job creation and economic activity 
in impoverished areas. To enhance business and community partnerships, 
we have included provisions to facilitate additional housing 
opportunities, encourage savings, and offer additional education and 
investment opportunities. The CRA credit will facilitate additional 
investment and lending to community development financial institutions, 
and family development accounts will encourage low-income families to 
save part of their income or EITC refund. Family development account 
funds will be deductible for tax purposes and can be withdrawn tax-free 
if used for qualified purposes. Family and community

[[Page S2215]]

ties will be strengthened through new private investment opportunities 
and expanded access to drug treatment in these communities.
  We cannot give up on our inner cities and impoverished areas. 
Government, itself, cannot revitalize these areas. Communities must be 
strengthened through expanded economic opportunities, jobs, and private 
sector development in people's own local neighborhoods. Only then, can 
our communities save themselves from the vicious cycle of poverty and 
prepare our children for the future. Local partnerships and the 
commitment of business and communities to improving the economy of our 
poorest areas will provide the cornerstone of the future.
  Through limited government involvement, enhanced personal 
responsibility, and the economic freedom of business to grow and 
develop, poor communities can become players in our Nation's economy. 
The American Community Renewal Act helps poor Americans of all 
backgrounds pursue happiness, and escape from the trap of poverty that 
defines too many of their lives today.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. BROWNBACK (for himself, Mr. Kyl, Mr. Allard, Mr. Coats, 
        Mr. Enzi, Mr. Hagel, and Mr. Sessions):
  S. 433. A bill to require Congress and the President to fulfill their 
Constitutional duty to take personal responsibility for Federal laws; 
to the Committee on Governmental Affairs.


              the congressional responsibility act of 1997

 Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I introduce a piece of 
legislation that is being cosponsored by five of my colleagues. This 
legislation is the Congressional Responsibility Act of 1997.
  But first of all I would like to recognize the tremendous work of 
Congressman J.D. Hayworth in pushing this legislation during the last 
Congress. As leader of the Constitutional Caucus J.D. has worked hard 
to return to Congress its constitutionally granted authority over the 
lawmaking process, and it is a privilege to be able to work with him on 
this legislation during the 105th. Congressman J.D. Hayworth will 
introduce the Congressional Responsibility Act of 1997 along with 30 of 
his House colleagues in the U.S. House of Representatives later today.
  I believe the Congressional Responsibility Act of 1997 will provide a 
powerful tool in returning to Congress the constitutional 
responsibility it has abdicated for much of this century to 
unaccountable executive branch bureaucrats.
  Ultimately this bill is about returning the constitutional 
responsibility of Congress back to the Congress.
  Article I, section 1 of the Constitution states, ``All legislative 
powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress.''
  I believe that for too long Congress has ignored this provision by 
purposely writing excessively broad laws that are left not to Congress 
for interpretation but instead to unaccountable bureaucrats. As it 
stands now; Congress writes a law, an executive branch agency then 
interprets the law and promulgates regulations, and then the agency 
enforces the regulation. The agency in effect becomes both the maker 
and the enforcer of law.
  This is wrong.
  I agree with Madison, who wrote in the Federalist Papers that the 
consolidation of power into one branch of government is tyrannical.
  This type of consolidation separates the American people from the 
process of lawmaking by separating the Congress from the promulgation 
of rules and regulations.
  Taxation without representation was the charge levied at the British 
Government at the birth of our country. I believe a new charge levied 
at our own Government is regulation without representation. I believe 
it is a charge that we must answer.
  The American people have a right to be heard in the lawmaking 
process; and we have a constitutional responsibility to make the law. 
Congress cannot and must not continue to carelessly delegate its 
authority away to executive branch agencies. In fact, it must take back 
that which it has already given away.
  We must be responsible.
  My bill will make us responsible. The Congressional Responsibility 
Act of 1997 will force Congress to vote on the rules and regulations 
promulgated by executive branch agencies before the rules and 
regulations can take effect.
  Some will argue that this process will place an increased burden on 
the Congress who, they argue, already has little enough time to 
consider all the issues that come before it. This is an understandable 
concern.
  The obvious answer is that regardless of the time burden it is still 
our constitutional responsibility to oversee the lawmaking process.
  But our bill does address some of these concerns. For example, our 
bill will require Congress to vote on every proposed rule or regulation 
in an expedited manner, unless a majority of Members vote to send it 
through the normal legislative process. Under the expedited procedure 
the majority leader of both Houses, by request, must submit a bill 
comprised of the text of the regulation for consideration. The bill 
must then come before the respective Chamber for a vote within 60 days 
with debate limited to 1 hour and not amendable. If the bill is sent 
through the normal legislative process it is amendable. If the bill is 
not introduced the regulation is effectively killed. Congress must act 
for the regulation to take effect.
  It is our responsibility to represent our constituents, to create a 
better Government, and to ensure the integrity of our democracy by 
always striving to give those who don't have a voice, a voice. It is 
our duty--it is what we were sent here to do.
  Constitutional experts from across the country have expressed their 
strong support for this legislation.
  Judge Robert Bork and Stephen Breyer have both expressed support for 
this issue. As well Professor David Schoenbrod at New York Law School 
and Professor Marci Hamilton at Cardozo have written letters strongly 
recommending that we adopt this bill and reassert our constitutional 
responsibility over the creation of laws. KU law professors Henry 
Butler and Steve McCallister have signed on as well. Professor John 
Hart Eli of the University of Miami has endorsed this bill as well.
  This is a bipartisan concept that has, in the past, enjoyed the 
support of people like Senator Bill Bradley, and Nadine Strossen, 
president of the ACLU. Judge Robert Bork has expressed his support for 
this concept as well.
  It is my sincere hope that Congress will act as it ought to act and 
in so doing pass the Congressional Responsibility Act of 1997 and once 
and for all return to Congress the authority it should have never given 
away.
  I urge speedy consideration of this timely and vitally important 
piece of legislation.
 Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I rise today as an original 
cosponsor of the Congressional Responsibility Act. I commend my 
distinguished colleague from Kansas, Senator Brownback, for his 
leadership on this matter.
  This legislation is an important step toward restoring the intent of 
our Constitution's framers that Congress--not the executive branch--
makes the law. For too long, unelected bureaucrats in Federal 
departments and agencies have issued rules and regulations that have 
the force of law but that have never been deliberated by the people's 
elected representatives in Congress. That's not democracy. That's not 
accountability. America is not supposed to work that way.
  We all know stories of Federal regulations run amok. We know of rules 
that make no sense, of regulations whose costs far outweigh their 
benefits, of rules that either don't solve the problem or prove worse 
than doing nothing at all.
  Time and again, these senseless regulations hurt real people--people 
who expect accountability from their Government. Regulations have 
become one of the largest burdens on America's small businesses, 
farmers, ranchers, and private property owners. If Americans are to 
maintain faith in our democracy, the onslaught of regulation must be 
stopped.
  Of course, Congress is not perfect either--but at least we are 
accountable to the people. That is why the Framers intended that 
Congress would make laws, and the executive branch would only carry 
them out. Regulatory agencies should interpret the laws passed by 
Congress--not make laws of their

[[Page S2216]]

own. That is why we need to restore the Constitution's intended 
separation of powers.
  This legislation would do just that. It would prevent any Federal 
regulation from taking effect until Congress votes on it. In essence, 
it transforms the Federal regulators into Federal advisors--suggesting 
regulations that Congress may or may not approve.
  Last year, Congress enacted the Congressional Review Act, which 
permitted Congress to review major Federal regulations. That was an 
important first step. This legislation we are introducing today goes a 
step beyond that--it requires Congress to approve all federal 
regulations. If Congress does not approve, the regulators cannot 
regulate.
  Mr. President, this bill is an important tool to return 
accountability to the regulatory process. This is about cutting 
Government and renewing the basic principle of our democracy--that the 
people, through their elected representatives, control the Government, 
and not the other way around.
  I am proud to be an original cosponsor of this legislation, and I 
urge all of my colleagues to support it.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. MOYNIHAN (for himself and Mr. Byrd):
  S. 434. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to correct 
the treatment of tax-exempt financing of professional sports 
facilities; to the Committee on Finance.


              the stop tax-exempt arena debt issuance act

 Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, today I am introducing 
legislation to prohibit the use of tax-exempt financing for 
professional sports stadiums, the Stop Tax-exempt Arena Debt Issuance 
Act [STADIA], with one modification.
  The bill I introduce today is identical to S. 122, the previously 
introduced version of the STADIA bill, in all respects save one. The 
new version, rather than generally applying to bonds issued on or after 
the date of first committee action, as specified in S. 122, will be 
effective generally for bonds issued on or after the date of enactment.
  On February 27, during the floor debate regarding the reinstatement 
of the airport and airway trust fund taxes, the senior Senator from 
Pennsylvania, Senator Specter, raised an objection to the majority 
leader's request that the aviation tax bill be taken up and passed. 
Senator Specter's objection was based on his concerns about the 
effective date of S. 122. In view of the importance of the aviation tax 
legislation, which is critical to the funding of air safety measures, I 
agreed to revised the effective date of my bill. Senator Specter then 
withdrew his objection to passage of the aviation tax legislation, 
which the Senate proceeded to pass by unanimous consent.

                          ____________________