[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.
____________________