[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 52 (Thursday, April 15, 1999)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3784-S3790]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
The ``Caring for America's Children'' Act
Title I: Tax Benefits for Families with Children
Section 101: Increases the Dependent Care Tax Credit (DCTC)
by (a) increasing the amount of allowable expenses to $3,600
for one dependent; $6,000 for two or more; (b) increasing the
maximum percentage of the allowable expenses to 40 percent;
(c) increases the adjusted gross income level receiving the
maximum percentage to $50,000; (d) reduces the allowable
percentage by 1 percent for each $2,000 over $50,000, not
reduced below 10 percent; (d) permiting educational programs
and third party transportation costs to be counted as
allowable expenses.
Section 102: Increases the Child Tax Credit from $500 per
year to $900 per year.
Section 103: Makes changes in the Dependent Care Assistance
Program (DCAP) by (a) Increasing the dollar contribution
limit to $7,000 a year for two or more dependents; (b)
Permiting contributions to DCAP accounts during pregnancy,
usable for one year after the birth of a child; (c) permiting
DCAP funds to be used to pay a spouse or grandparent to care
for a pre-school aged child at home; and (d) establishing a
DCAP for federal employees.
Section 104: Permits parents to choose between the
Dependent Care Tax Credit, Child Tax Credit, and the
Dependent Care Assistance Program for each dependent child
(each tax benefit mutually exclusive for each child).
Section 105: Expands the Home Office tax deduction to
permit parents to care for a dependent child within the home
office space
[[Page S3785]]
and maintain the ``exclusive use'' designation for the home
office tax deduction.
Section 106: Requires states to include the cost of child
care in the calculation of child support orders.
Estimated cost of Title I is $35.1 billion over 5 years.
Title II: Activities to Improve the Quality of Child Care
Subtitle A--Encouraging Business Involvement in Child Care
Section 201: Creates a child care tax credit for employers
up to $150,000 a year ($250,000 a year with respect to three
or more company child care facilities in different locations)
in allowable employee-related child care expenses such as the
construction or renovation of facilities and employee
subsidies. CBO estimate $500 million over 5 years.
Section 202: Expands the business charitable tax deduction
to include the contribution of scientific and computer
equipment, transportation services, qualified employee
volunteer time, and the use of facilities and equipment to
public schools and child care providers.
Subtitle B--Child Care Quality Improvement Incentive
Program
Section 211: Definition Section
Section 212: Establishes a state grant program to fund
activities designed to improve the quality of child care.
Section 213: Allocates funds to the states based on the
Child Care and Development formula, with a small state
minimum.
Section 214: To receive grant funds, (a) states must
certify that the state has not reduced the scope of state
child care requirements since 1995, must be in compliance
with the provisions of the Child Care and Development Block
Grant, and has expended at least 80 percent of the funds
allocated to the state for TANF child care matching funds;
(b) there is a 10 percent state match requirement for the use
of the funds, such match funds can be state or local public
or private funds.
Section 215: Grant funds may be used for a variety of
activities designed to improve the quality of child care
within the state. This section identifies some of the
allowable activities including supplementing child care
provider salaries, assistance to small businesses desiring to
provide child care assistance to employees, expansion of
resource and referral services, educational and training
scholarship for child care providers, increasing subsidies
for recipients of Child Care and Development Block Grant
recipients, subsidizing child care for special needs
children, conducting background checks and increasing the
monitoring of child care providers; State grant program
authorized for $200 million a year.
Subtitle C--Increased Enforcement of State Health and
Safety Standards
Section 221: Amends the Child Care and Development Block
Grant (CCDBG) to encourage states to improve the enforcement
of existing state laws and regulations regarding the
inspection of child care facilities; provides a bonus for
states which effectively enforce existing state law and a
decrease in CCDBG administrative funds for states which do
not adequately enforce state child care inspection
requirements.
Subtitle D--Distribution of Information About Quality Child
Care
Section 231: Authorizes $15 million to the Department of
Health and Human Services to (a) provide technical assistance
and the disseminate information on high quality child care to
parents, local governments, child care organizations, and
child care providers; (b) conduct a public awareness campaign
promoting quality child care; (c) develop a mechanism for the
collection and dissemination of information on the supply and
demand for child care services; and (d) assist existing child
care credentialing and accreditation entities in improving
their procedures and methods.
Title III: Expanding Professional Development Opportunities
Section 301: Creates a child care training infrastructure
utilizing the Internet and existing distance learning
resources to provide high quality, interactive skills
training for child care providers.
Section 302: Sets aside at least 10 percent of the
authorized funds, within the child care training
infrastructure, to establish and operate a revolving loan
funds to enable child care providers to purchase computers
and other equipment to access the child care training
infrastructure through no-interest loans. Authorization for
Title III--$50 million a year.
Title IV: Expanding Youth Development Opportunities During
the Non-School Hours
Section 401: Establishes youth development focused programs
that provide care for school-aged children during the non-
school hours.
Section 402: Definition Section.
Section 403: Establishes a state grant program to expand
and create quality non-school hours programs for school-aged
children and youth which meet the child care needs of the
parents as well and the goals of positive youth development;
the federal share of this program is 80 percent, state and
local matching funds may be in cash or in-kind.
Section 404: Allocates funds to states based on the number
of youth aged 5 through 17 who reside in the state and the
number of children in the state qualifying for free or
reduced-price school lunches. There is a small state minimum
allocation of .5 percent of the total appropriated amount for
the program.
Section 405: States submit an application to the Secretary
of HHS in order to receive funds and designate the
administrative regions or political subdivisions which will
be used in the distribution of the funds in the state.
Section 406: The state will allocate funds to
administrative regions or political subdivisions within the
state based on the number of 5 to 17 year olds and the number
of children qualifying for free or reduced-price school
lunches in the region or subdivision; the state will award
grants on a competitive basis to entities within each region
or subdivision up to the amount of the regional allocation;
preference for grants will be given to activities which
remove barriers to the availability of non-school hours child
care and coordinate public and private resources.
Section 407: Entities desiring to receive grant funds will
submit an application to the state.
Section 408: Grant funds will be used for activities that
meet the child care needs of working parents during the non-
school hours including before- and after-school, weekends,
school holidays, vacation periods and other non-school hours;
activities will promote at least two youth development
competencies (social, physical, emotional, moral or
cognitive) and be designed to increase youth protective
factors and reduce risk factors; a broad range of activities
can be funded including leadership development, delinquency
prevention, sports and recreation, arts and cultural
activities, character development, tutoring and academic
enrichment, mentoring, and other locally determined programs;
and at least 50 percent of the funds made available to an
entity must be used to subsidize the cost of participation in
the non-school hours program for low-income youth.
Section 409: The Assistant Secretary for HHS establishes
mechanisms for monitoring and evaluating the effectiveness of
funded activities; coordinates the grant program with similar
activities in other federal agencies; provides appropriate
training and technical assistance to states and local
entities; and can terminate funding for States or entities
which fail to comply with the requirements of the Act.
Section 410: The Governor of each State designates an
entity to administer the grant activities, including
monitoring compliance with rules and regulations, providing
technical assistance, and providing information on grant
activities to HHS.
Section 411: Ensures that activities funded under this
Title will be coordinated, at the local level, with
activities receiving funds from the Safe and Drug-Free
Schools and Communities Act and the 21st Century Community
Learning Centers Act.
Section 412: Authorizes the grant program for: $500 million
for FY 00, $600 million for FY 01, $700 million for FY 02,
$800 million for FY 03, and $1 billion for FY 04.
Title V: Child Care in Federal Facilities
Section 501: Short title, ``Federal Employees Child Care
Act''.
Section 502: Definition section.
Section 503: Child care centers located in federal
executive and judicial facilities have to meet a standard no
less stringent than those required of other child care
facilities in the same geographical area within six months
and within three years meet the standards established by a
child care accreditation entity; establishes procedures to be
followed if the child care center is not in compliance with
these rules including plans to correct deficiencies, closing
the affected portion of a child care center if a situation is
life threatening or poses a risk of serious bodily harm and
is not corrected within two business days, and the disclosure
of violations to parents and facility employees; legislative
facilities have to obtain and maintain accreditation from a
child care accreditation entity within one year or the
appropriate congressional administrative entity will issue
regulations to ensure the safety and quality of care for
children in the legislative facility; the Administrator of
GAO may provide technical assistance to other agencies and
conduct studies and reviews at the request of federal
agencies; and an interagency council is established to
facilitate cooperation and coordinate policies; authorizes
$900,000 for General Services Administration to carry out
this Title.
Section 504: Authorizes an evaluation of federal child care
services.
Section 506: Authorizes federal agencies to utilize
appropriated funds to subsidize or otherwise assist lower
income federal employees meet the costs of child care
provided through contract or on-site.
Section 507: Re-authorizes the Trible Amendment which
permits federal facilities to provide on-site child care
services; authorizes federal agencies to conduct pilot
projects on innovative approaches to providing employee child
care services; and requires criminal background checks for
employees of child care facilities located in federal
facilities.
Title VI: Expanding Child Care Subsidy for Low-Income
Families
Section 601: Changes the authorization for the Child Care
and Development Block Grant Act (CCDBG) from $1 billion to $2
billion.
Section 602: Changes the CCDBG Act a) assuring that the use
of automated payment systems will not limit parental choice
and
[[Page S3786]]
will facilitate the prompt, accurate payment of child care
providers; changing to 70 percent (from ``a substantial
portion'') the use of CCDBG funds for low-income families who
are not TANF qualified recipients of child care subsidies;
requiring states to better support parental choice of child
care providers by establishing separate subsidy rates
dependent upon the age of the child, the setting of the child
care services (home, center, group), special needs, and
geographic location; and applying any required parental co-
payment to be reduced by the amount of the difference between
the child care subsidy provided and 85 percent of the state
established market rate for that child.
Title VII: Construction and Renovation of Child Care
Facilities
Subtitle A--Community Development Block Grants
Section 701: Permits use of Community Development Block
Grant funds to renovate or construct child care facilities.
(No cost)
Subtitle B--Mortgage Insurance For Child Care Facilities
Section 711: Amends Title II of the National Housing Act to
provide insurance for mortgages on new and rehabilitated
child care facilities.
Section 712: Amends the National Housing Act to provide
mortgage insurance for the purchase or refinancing of
existing child care facilities; Authorized for $30 million
for FY 01, to remain available until expended.
Section 713: Authorizes the Secretary of the Treasury to
conduct a study of the secondary mortgage markets to
determine whether markets exist for purchase of mortgages
eligible for insurance under the National Housing Act,
whether the market will affect the availability of credit for
development of child care facilities and the extent to which
the market will provide credit enhancement for loans for
child care facilities.
Section 714: Establishes a competitive grant program to
provide technical and financial assistance to child care
providers for the renovation, construction, and purchase of
child care facilities; Authorized for $10 million a year for
FY00-04.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, today Senator Jeffords, Senator Dodd,
Senator Landrieu, and I are proposing legislation to expand and improve
quality child care across the country. The provisions are intended to
support the full range of child care choices that parents make,
including the decision to provide stay-at-home care.
Child care is one of the most pressing challenges facing the nation.
The need to improve the affordability, accessibility, and quality of
child care is indisputable. Across the country, 13 million children
under age 6 spend all or part of their day in child care.
Every child deserves high quality care. We know that child
development, especially in the early years, is dependent on safe,
reliable care that offers stable relationships and intellectually
stimulating activities. Child care that fulfills these goals can make
all the difference in enabling children to learn, grow, and reach their
full potential. This bill will help improve the quality and safety of
care by establishing a competitive grant program to help states improve
the quality of their care.
The bill also gives new incentives to businesses to assist in the
care of their employees' children and to strengthen the quality of
care. Businesses will be permitted a tax deduction for donations of
equipment, materials, transportation services, facilities, and staff
time to public schools and care providers. Employers who contribute to
the child care arrangements of their employees will receive a tax
credit of 50 percent of their expenses up to $150,000 a year ($250,000
a year with respect to three or more facilities in different locations)
in allowable employee-related child care expenses such as the
construction or renovation of facilities and employee subsidies.
The quality of care can also be improved by giving the public more
information about the caliber of the programs in their community.
Working parents deserve to know that their children are not just safe,
but well cared for. Our bill will provide that reassurance by improving
parents' access to the information they need to make informed decisions
about the selection of child care. Establishing a more effective system
for distributing public information will make it easier for parents to
select care with confidence, and will also encourage care providers to
improve their services.
Raising children is expensive, in and of itself, and families who
place their children in out-of-home care face the additional burden of
obtaining quality child care. Millions of families cannot afford the
child care they need in order to raise, protect, and teach their
children. Full-day care can easily cost up to $10,000 per year--often
as much as college tuition for an older child. Too often, the high cost
of quality care puts it out of reach for many working families,
particularly those earning low wages. These parents--working parents--
constantly must choose between paying the rent or mortgage, buying
food, and providing the quality care their child needs.
Our bill provides support to all families with children, whether they
rely on out-of-home care or not. It increases the Dependent Care Tax
Credit (DCTC) by raising the amount of allowable expenses to $3,600 for
one dependent and $6,000 for two or more, and by permitting educational
programs and third party transportation to count as allowable expenses.
Affordable child care is in particularly short supply for young
children and for children who need care during nontraditional hours,
such as during the late afternoon and evening. As more and more parents
leave welfare for work, the demand for this type of care will continue
to increase. The General Accounting Office estimates that under the
welfare reform rules requiring more parents to work, the supply of
child care will meet only 25 percent of the demand in many urban areas.
We must ensure that the necessary support systems, such as child care
and health care, are in place so that low-income parents can
successfully move from welfare to self-sufficiency.
Our bill addresses these concerns by increasing the authorization of
the Child Care and Development Block Grant (CCDBG) Act from $1 billion
to $2 billion a year. It requires states to improve the way in which
subsidy rates are determined. Parents will have a choice of child care
providers, not just the least expensive care. Seventy percent of the
CCDBG funds are set aside for non-welfare-related low-income working
parents. The bill also contains a new state grant program to encourage
the development of quality child care programs during non-school hours.
It is long past time for Congress to give child care the high
priority it deserves. This bipartisan bill addresses the serious
challenges confronting millions of families with children, and I urge
my colleagues to join us in supporting this significant initiative.
Mr. President, an excellent column in yesterday's Washington Post by
Judy Mann eloquently analyzed the hardships facing families seeking
adequate child care. I believe her analysis will be of interest to all
of us concerned about the issue, and I ask unanimous consent that it be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
[From The Washington Post, April 14, 1999]
The Slow Evolution of Child Care
(By Judy Mann)
I first started worrying about child care more than 30
years ago when I became a single working parent with a 1-year
old child. We didn't call it child care back then, because it
didn't really exist.
We called baby-sitting.
Some women took children into their homes and baby-sat them
all day. They were a godsend to that first cohort of women
who--out of choice or necessity--went into the paid
workforce. But out of these homes also came some horror
stories of crowding, of children stuck in front of TV sets
all day, of germs being passed around with such alacrity that
mothers lost jobs because they missed so many workdays having
to care for sick children.
So how far have we come in 30 years? It's not overly harsh
to say; not that far. We have licensed family day-care
centers, school-based child care, child care centers in
office parks and churches, and we have corporations that run
child care centers across the country. The federal government
subsidizes child care with vouchers for some low-income
families and by allowing people to shelter some money spent
on child care from income tax.
But for most working parents, child care remains an
enormous source of financial stress and emotional anxiety.
Even people who can afford live-in nannies aren't spared that
bad apple who abuses children or disappears without warning.
At best, we have a patchwork of child care that is woven
together by a common thread: The people who take care of our
children are woefully underpaid and under-trained. Turnover
ranges from 25 percent to 50 percent as they succumb to the
lure of better-paying jobs. The median income for child care
providers is $6.12 an hour; for parking lot attendants, it is
$6.38. We pay $6.90 an hour to people who walk our dogs. What
do we value most--our kids, our cars, our pets?
We are the most prosperous nation on earth, with an economy
that is booming like
[[Page S3787]]
the end of the ``1812 Overture.'' We are also the only modern
industrial nation that does not have an organized,
affordable, reliable system of child care for the people
creating those economic success.
Child care advocates have been working for more than 20
years to try to get this country to understand that child
care isn't just about baby-sitting. It's about giving
youngsters a good start in life and reducing stress on
working parents. We have lacked the national will to make
good child care one of our central responses to the changes
in family life for one simple reason: Working parents are so
busy trying to survive day-to-day that they have no time or
energy for political action.
This may be changing, thanks in part to a ``Caring for
Kids'' public affairs campaign that Lifetime Television has
undertaken with the National Council of Women's
Organizations. Begun in March of last year, the campaign
now involves about 150 nonprofit organizations. The
coalition is targeting April as ``Childcare Month,'' and
about 1,500 community campaigns are going to be held to
support its central message: Make child care a priority in
the 2000 election.
Putting technology to good use, the campaign has collected
more than 2,000 personal child care stories from families
across the country who have faxed, phoned or visited the
campaign's Web site at www.lifetimetv.com. These stories have
been delivered to Congress, and some have been used in a
documentary produced by Lee Grant that will premiere on
Lifetime on April 20. ``Confronting the Crisis: Childcare in
America'' is the most powerful hour of film on the nation's
child care problem that I have ever seen.
One of its great sources of strength is in showing that
child care is no longer a woman's problem: It now involves
fathers as well, and fathers play a starring role in the
documentary. We meet Jeff, a widower, and one of 2 million
single fathers, who quit a well-paid night job because there
was no nighttime child care available. He now works days, and
he and his sister share child care responsibilities.
``Everything's rushed,'' he said--as apt a description of the
working parent culture as you could find.
We meet women in the welfare-to-work programs that 10,000
companies are participating in, Chicora is up at 4 a.m. to
get her child to day care so she can go to work. Her mother
died, so she is raising her 15-year-old sister as well. She
earns $9.50 an hour and is able to make it because she gets a
child care voucher. When that runs out, she will face child
care costs of about $6,000 a year. ``Education's first,'' she
says, and she holds all the hope in the world for her child.
She doesn't need a miracle to make it: That she is still in
the game is the miracle. What she needs is for that voucher
to continue until she can get on her feet financially.
We go to France, where child care is ``part of the
culture,'' in Grant's words. And we meet Sheriff Pat
Sullivan, of Arapahoe County, Colo., a leader of ``Fight
Crime: Invest in Kids,'' an organization of law enforcement
officials who believe before-school and after-school programs
are critical to preventing youth violence. Sullivan is a
conservative Republican. The question, he says, is where to
put tax dollars. The answer is not in more jails, he says,
but in child care, and that includes programs that keep
adolescents busy. Idle minds are the devil's playground.
Voices from across the political spectrum, from law
enforcement to social workers, from brain researchers to
pediatricians, are calling for a vastly improved system of
child care. Neglect, whether in infancy or adolescence, is
the breeding ground of despair, and that, in turn, is the
breeding ground for antisocial behavior. The hope here is
that the ``Caring for Kids'' campaign and Lifetime's
documentary can help galvanize the nation into action.
Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I rise today with my distinguished
colleague from Vermont and other members of this body in strong support
of legislation that takes a much needed step on behalf of our Nation's
children. I am very sad to say, however, that Louisiana ranks among the
worst when it comes to providing for its children. By providing access
to quality child care that is both safe and affordable the Caring for
America's Children Act will improve the lives of children in Louisiana
and across the Nation.
As a professional with two young children, I am well aware of the
challenges that face working parents as they balance their children's
needs with the demands of their careers. I also know first hand how
expensive quality child care is, costing anywhere from over $3,000 per
year to over $10,000 per year, depending upon where a family resides.
For the parents of some 800,000 children in Louisiana who spend most of
their day outside their parent's care, these costs are prohibitive. It
is especially difficult for over 50 percent of Louisiana families who
need child care, but whose incomes fall below the Federal poverty
level.
To address this dilemma, this legislation would increase the child
care and development block grant (CCDBG) from $1 billion to $2 billion.
By doubling the funding level for CCDBG, twice as many poor children
will receive quality child care. Presently, however, only eight percent
of Louisiana's poor children are being assisted through this program.
With this increase another 40,000 children will receive needed help.
Nevertheless, the demand for assistance will far outweigh funding, so
thousands of parents and their children will continue to go unserved.
In addition to the shortage of funding for low-income children,
Louisiana, like many other states, must confront two other critical
issues dealing with child care. First, facilities must be improved and
expanded. Secondly, minimum quality standards must be set at the state
and local levels for child care providers. This like other educational
improvements will only occur when we expect more, provide more, and pay
more for quality care. If we do not, the status quo will remain the
same. For example, the average wage of a child care worker in Louisiana
in 1997 was only $10,760, barely above what a minimum wage job would
pay annually. Worse yet, the ratio of children to care givers in
Louisiana far exceeded the recommended ratios.
On a national level, safety in child care facilities is another
critical issue. Earlier this week the Consumer Product Safety
Commission announced that it had examined 220 licensed child care
settings. They found that most contained at least one safety violation,
such as crib bedding that could suffocate babies or loops on window
blind cords that could cause strangulation. Moreover, the agency found
that 31,000 children, age 4 and younger, were treated in 1997 in
hospital emergency rooms for injuries they received in child care and
school settings. Additionally, at least 56 children have died in child
care facilities since 1990.
To provide states with additional resources for the purpose of
improving the quality of their day care facilities, this bill
establishes a quality improvement incentive program. States would
receive funds based on the CCDBG formula, which could be used for a
variety of activities designed to improve the quality of child care
within each state. Additionally, the bill also provides greater
professional development opportunities for child care workers through a
new distance learning program and interactive computer applications.
The legislation will also provide states with greater flexibility, so
that they can use their community development block grant funds for the
construction and/or renovation of child care facilities.
Finally, important tax provisions are included in this legislation
for both parents who work or stay home. Toward this end, the bill would
increase:
the child tax credit from $500 to $900 per year;
the dependent care tax credit (DCTC) to $3,600 for one dependent and
$6,000 for two or more dependents; and
expand the home office tax deduction so that parents who work out of
their home will not be penalized.
By providing parents with these additional benefits, families will have
greater options in ensuring their children receive the most appropriate
care depending on individual family circumstances.
I am also very pleased that appropriate modifications to our Federal
child care system are included in this legislation. Most importantly,
this bill would allow Federal agencies to use appropriated funds for
the purpose of making child care more affordable to low-income Federal
workers. Additionally, within six months of the passage of this
legislation every Federal child care facility will have to be licensed.
Within three years, they must also meet standards established by a
child care accreditation entity. The Federal facilities title also
reauthorizes the Trible amendment that allows Federal facilities to
provide on-site care and innovative approaches to expand child care
services on a contractual basis.
Before the Congress enacts legislation to enhance child care at the
state level, it is essential that the Federal Government first address
the deficiencies and inadequacies within its own system. While the
Federal Government has made significant improvements, we must ensure
that Federal Government leads by example.
Mr. President, improving the availability of quality and affordable
child
[[Page S3788]]
care should not be a partisan issue. A recent Carnegie study found that
children in poor quality child care are delayed in language and reading
skills, and display more aggression toward other children and adults.
We should not delay one more year while thousands of children are held
back because of our inaction in the Congress.
I thank Senator Jeffords for his leadership on this issue.
______
Mr. ROTH (for himself, Mr. Jeffords, Mr. Coverdell, Mr. Helms,
Mr. Robb, Ms. Mikulski, Mr. Biden, Mr. Sessions, Mr.
Hutchinson, Mr. Sarbanes, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Grams, Mr. Shelby, Mr.
McConnell, and Mr. Harkin):
S. 815. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend
the credit for producing electricity from certain renewable resources;
to the Committee on Finance.
poultry electric energy power (peep) act
Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I rise today to reintroduce legislation that
would amend section 45 of the Internal Revenue Code to provide a tax
credit to biomass energy facilities that use poultry litter as a fuel
for generating electricity.
I am pleased to report that my bill has received even more cosponsors
than when it was introduced in the 105th Congress. Fourteen of my
colleagues are joining me as original cosponsors. They include Senators
Jeffords, Coverdell, Helms, Robb, Mikulski, Biden, Sessions,
Hutchinson, Sarbanes, Leahy, Grams, Shelby, McConnell, and Harkin.
Mr. President, I am bullish on poultry's future in America. It is
hard not to be with worldwide poultry consumption growing at double-
digit rates.
In the United States, poultry production has tripled since 1975. We
now produce almost 8 billion chickens a year to feed the growing
worldwide demand.
In particular, Delaware, Maryland, and Virginia produce some of the
world's finest poultry. Just last year Delmarva poultry farmers
produced over 600 million chickens. Our poultry farmers are among the
most productive and efficient in the world.
As the amount of chickens we produce as a nation has grown, so too
has the need to find creative means for disposing of poultry manure.
Due to environmental pressures, spreading manure on land is no longer
an option in some areas for our rapidly growing poultry industry. In
those areas, the nutrient runoff from the manure has been identified as
a contributing factor in surface and groundwater pollution.
Addressing these water quality problems will require a range of
innovative approaches. One part of the solution may be to use poultry
manure to generate electricity.
The United Kingdom has two utility plants that use poultry manure to
generate electricity. These two poultry power plants will, when
combined with a third scheduled to open soon, burn 50 percent of the
UK's total volume of chicken manure.
The electricity generated by these plants will supply enough power
for 37,000 homes. These plants have the support of both the poultry
industry and the international environmental community.
The way this system works is simple.
Power stations buy poultry manure from surrounding poultry farmers
and transport it to the power station. At the station the manure is
burned in a furnace at high temperatures, heating water in a boiler to
produce steam which drives a turbine linked to a generator. The
electricity is then transferred to the local electricity grid for use
by commercial and residential customers.
There are no waste products created through this process. Instead, a
valuable by-product emerges in the form of a nitrogen-free ash, which
is marketed as an environmentally friendly fertilizer.
The legislation I am introducing today will provide a tax credit to
energy facilities that use poultry manure as a fuel to generate
electricity.
It will build on concepts in the Tax Code that provide incentives for
innovative alternative energy production.
This legislation will provide incentives for electricity generation
that will not only help dispose of poultry manure, but will also supply
our Nation's farmers with a clean fertilizer free of nitrates.
I urge my colleagues to join me in cosponsoring my bill, the Poultry
Electric Energy Power Act. It is important for future generations that
we continue to explore innovative alternative technologies that will
help protect our environment.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy 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. 815
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 ``Poultry Electric Energy
Power (PEEP) Act''.
SEC. 2. EXTENSION OF CREDIT FOR PRODUCING ELECTRICITY FROM
CERTAIN RENEWABLE RESOURCES.
(a) Credit for Producing Electricity From Poultry Waste.--
Section 45(c)(1) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986
(defining qualified energy resources) is amended by striking
``and'' at the end of subparagraph (A), by striking the
period at the end of subparagraph (B) and inserting ``,
and'', and by adding at the end the following:
``(C) poultry waste.''
(b) Extension of Placed in Service Date.--Section 45(c)(3)
of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (defining qualified
facility) is amended by striking ``1999'' and inserting
``2005''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to facilities placed in service after the date of
the enactment of this Act.
Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I am proud to join Senator Roth as an
original co-sponsor of legislation to amend Section 45 of the tax code
for the production of electricity from environmentally-friendly
methods, including poultry litter, the Poultry Electric Power Act.
Mr. President, our nation's poultry consumption continues to grow in
rapid numbers. We now produce almost 8 billion chickens a year in the
United States. My home State of Minnesota is now the nation's largest
producer of turkeys, with an estimated 44 million produced last year
alone. According to the Minnesota Turkey Growers Association, Minnesota
turkey producers and processors earned 1997 incomes of $180 million and
spinoff industries earned $374 million in 1996. In Minnesota, the
turkey industry includes 2,810 jobs in production and 4,552 jobs in
processing. So, Mr. President, you can see that the poultry industry is
extremely important to rural Minnesota.
I continue to believe that we must explore a wide variety of
alternative energy sources that provide a number of benefits for our
nation. First, this bill will provide another market and revenue source
for our farmers who so badly need diversified sources of income.
Second, the bill will assist our nation in increasing our energy
security. Third, this bill will help to improve the environment not
only by providing a clean energy source, but by assisting in the
disposal of poultry manure in an environmentally friendly way. Fourth,
this bill will help create spin-off jobs for our nation's rural
communities--jobs many rural communities badly need.
I hope my colleagues will support this legislation and I want to
thank Senator Roth for leading this important effort in the Senate.
______
By Mr. DORGAN:
S. 816. A bill to amend section 3681 of title 18, United States Code,
relating to the special forfeiture of collateral profits of a crime; to
the Committee on the Judiciary.
FEDERAL SON OF SAM LEGISLATION
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, last year, I introduced a bill to correct
problems with the Federal ``Son of Sam'' law, as those problems were
perceived by the U.S. Supreme Court. Today, I am reintroducing this
legislation, which deals with a continuing problem. The New York
statute analyzed by the Supreme Court, as well as the Federal statute
which I seek to amend, forfeited the proceeds from any expressive work
of a criminal, and dedicated those proceeds to the victims of the
perpetrator's crime. Because of constitutional deficiencies cited by
the Court, the Federal statute has never been applied, and without
changes, it is highly unlikely that it ever will be. Without this bill,
criminals can become wealthy from the fruits of their
[[Page S3789]]
crimes, while victims and families are exploited.
The bill I now introduce attempts to correct constitutional
deficiencies cited by the Supreme Court in striking down New York's Son
of Sam law. In its decision striking down New York's law, the Court
found the state to be both over inclusive and under inclusive: Over
inclusive because the statute included all expressive works, no matter
how tangentially related to the crime; under inclusive because the
statute included only expressive works, not other forms of property.
To correct the deficiencies perceived by the Court, this bill changes
significantly the concepts of the Federal statute. Because the Court
criticized the statute for singling out speech, this bill is all-
encompassing: It includes various types of property related to the
crime from which a criminal might profit. Because the Court criticized
the statute for being over inclusive, including the proceeds from all
works, no matter how remotely connected to the crime, this bill limits
the property to be forfeited to the enhanced value of property
attributable to the offense. Because the Court found fault with the
statute for not requiring a conviction, this bill requires a
conviction.
The bill also attempts to take advantage of the long legal history of
forfeiture. Pirate ships and their contents were once forfeited to the
government. More recent case law addresses the concept of forfeiting
any property used in the commission of drug related crimes, or proceeds
from those crimes. I hope that courts interpreting this statute will
look to this legal history and find it binding or persuasive.
The bill utilizes the Commerce Clause authority of Congress to
forfeit property associated with State crimes. This means that if funds
are transferred through banking channels, if UPS or FedEx are used, if
the airwaves are utilized, or if the telephone is used to transfer the
property, to transfer funds, or to make a profit, the property can be
forfeited. In State cases, this bill allows the State Attorney General
to proceed first. We do not seek to preempt State law, only to see that
there is a law in place which will ensure that criminals do not profit
at the expense of their victims and the families of victims.
One last improvement which this bill makes over the former statutes:
The old statute included only crime which resulted in physical harm to
another; this bill includes other crimes. Examples of crimes probably
not included under the old statute, but included here are terrorizing,
kidnaping, bank robbery, and embezzlement.
Mr. President, our Federal statute, enacted to ensure that criminals
not profit at the expense of their victims and victim's families, is
not used today because it is perceived to be unconstitutional. I
believe victims of crime deserve quick action on this bill, drafted to
ensure that they are not the source of profits to those who committed
crimes against them. I asked for your support.
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. 816
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SPECIAL FORFEITURE OF COLLATERAL PROFITS OF CRIME.
Section 3681 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by
striking subsection (a) and inserting the following:
``(a) In General.--
``(1) Forfeiture of proceeds.--Upon the motion of the
United States attorney made at any time after conviction of a
defendant for an offense described in paragraph (2), and
after notice to any interested party, the court shall order
the defendant to forfeit all or any part of proceeds received
or to be received by the defendant, or a transferee of the
defendant, from a contract relating to the transfer of a
right or interest of the defendant in any property described
in paragraph (3), if the court determines that--
``(A) the interests of justice or an order of restitution
under this title so require;
``(B) the proceeds (or part thereof) to be forfeited
reflect the enhanced value of the property attributable to
the offense; and
``(C) with respect to a defendant convicted of an offense
against a State--
``(i) the property at issue, or the proceeds to be
forfeited, have travelled in interstate or foreign commerce
or were derived through the use of an instrumentality of
interstate or foreign commerce; and
``(ii) the attorney general of the State has declined to
initiate a forfeiture action with respect to the proceeds to
be forfeited.
``(2) Offenses described.--An offense is described in this
paragraph if it is--
``(A) an offense under section 794 of this title;
``(B) a felony offense against the United States or any
State; or
``(C) a misdemeanor offense against the United States or
any State resulting in physical harm to any individual.
``(3) Property described.--Property is described in this
paragraph if it is any property, tangible or intangible,
including any--
``(A) evidence of the offense;
``(B) instrument of the offense, including any vehicle used
in the commission of the offense;
``(C) real estate where the offense was committed;
``(D) document relating to the offense;
``(E) photograph or audio or video recording relating to
the offense;
``(F) clothing, jewelry, furniture, or other personal
property relating to the offense;
``(G) movie, book, newspaper, magazine, radio or television
production, or live entertainment of any kind depicting the
offense or otherwise relating to the offense;
``(H) expression of the thoughts, opinions, or emotions of
the defendant regarding the offense; or
``(I) other property relating to the offense.''.
______
By Mrs. BOXER:
S. 817. A bill to improve academic and social outcomes for students
and reduce both juvenile crime and the risk that youth will become
victims of crime by providing productive activities during after school
hours; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
after school and anti-crime act of 1999
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, every day, millions of working parents are
faced with the dilemma of finding constructive activities for their
school-aged children to become involved in during the after school
hours. These parents know that, when unsupervised, the likelihood of
their child becoming involved with drugs, alcohol or criminal activity
is increased. In fact, juvenile crime peaks during the hours of 3 p.m.
and 6 p.m.--after school.
That is why I am introducing a bill to help assuage the concerns of
parents, law enforcement and communities to help develop edifying
activities for youth during the after school hours. The After School
Education and Anti-Crime Act of 1999 will help give our children safe,
productive places to go after the school bell rings, which is what
ninety-two percent of all Americans have indicated they strongly
support.
Not only do after school programs provide children with activities
and parents with relief, they also help law enforcement officials
connect with their communities and help them reduce incidences of
juvenile crime. Several law enforcement organizations have expressed
their support of my proposal and for after school programs, including
the National Association of Police Athletic and Activity Leagues
(PALS), Fight Crime Invest in Kids, National Sheriffs Association,
Major Cities' Police Chiefs and other law enforcement representing
California, Illinois, Texas, Arizona, Maine and Rhode Island.
This legislation would authorize $600 million in funding for after-
school programs. These programs, as developed by communities, will
offer positive alternatives in the after school hours, such as
mentoring, academic assistance, recreation, technology and job skills
training, and drug, alcohol, and gang prevention programs.
If passed, the funding in this bill would enable an estimated 1.1
million children each year to participate in after school programs. The
demand for after school programs is very high. Last year alone, nearly
2,000 school districts applied for after school federal assistance--of
that, only 287 grants were awarded.
We have the opportunity in the 106th Congress to answer the call of
communities all across America that understand the importance of--and
need for--after school programs for kindergarten, elementary and
secondary school students. After school programs are anti-crime, pro-
education, pro-community, and make common sense.
I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. 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:
[[Page S3790]]
S. 817
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 ``After School Education and
Anti-Crime Act of 1999''.
SEC. 2. PURPOSE.
The purpose of this Act is to improve academic and social
outcomes for students and reduce both juvenile crime and the
risk that youth will become victims of crime by providing
productive activities during after school hours.
SEC. 3. FINDINGS.
Congress makes the following findings:
(1) Today's youth face far greater social risks than did
their parents and grandparents.
(2) Students spend more of their waking hours alone,
without supervision, companionship, or activity, than the
students spend in school.
(3) Law enforcement statistics show that youth who are ages
12 through 17 are most at risk of committing violent acts and
being victims of violent acts between 3 p.m. and 6 p.m.
(4) The consequences of academic failure are more dire in
1999 than ever before.
(5) After school programs have been shown in many States to
help address social problems facing our Nation's youth, such
as drugs, alcohol, tobacco, and gang involvement.
(6) Many of our Nation's governors endorse increasing the
number of after school programs through a Federal/State
partnership.
(7) Over 450 of the Nation's leading police chiefs,
sheriffs, and prosecutors, along with presidents of the
Fraternal Order of Police and the International Union of
Police Associations, which together represent 360,000 police
officers, have called upon public officials to provide after
school programs that offer recreation, academic support, and
community service experience, for school-age children and
teens in the United States.
(8) One of the most important investments that we can make
in our children is to ensure that they have safe and positive
learning environments in the after school hours.
SEC. 4. GOALS.
The goals of this Act are as follows:
(1) To increase the academic success of students.
(2) To promote safe and productive environments for
students in the after school hours.
(3) To provide alternatives to drug, alcohol, tobacco, and
gang activity.
(4) To reduce juvenile crime and the risk that youth will
become victims of crime during after school hours.
SEC. 5. PROGRAM AUTHORIZATION.
Section 10903 of the 21st Century Community Learning
Centers Act (20 U.S.C. 8243) is amended--
(1) in subsection (a)--
(A) in the subsection heading, by inserting ``to Local
Educational Agencies for Schools'' after ``Secretary''; and
(B) by striking ``rural and inner-city public'' and all
that follows through ``or to'' and inserting ``local
educational agencies for the support of public elementary
schools or secondary schools, including middle schools, that
serve communities with substantial needs for expanded
learning opportunities for children and youth in the
communities, to enable the schools to establish or''; and
(C) by striking ``a rural or inner-city community'' and
inserting ``the communities'';
(2) in subsection (b)--
(A) by striking ``States, among'' and inserting ``States
and among''; and
(B) by striking ``United States,'' and all that follows
through ``a State'' and inserting ``United States''; and
(3) in subsection (c), by striking ``3'' and inserting
``5''.
SEC. 6. APPLICATIONS.
Section 10904 of the 21st Century Community Learning
Centers Act (20 U.S.C. 8244) is amended--
(1) by redesignating subsection (b) as subsection (c);
(2) in subsection (a)--
(A) in the matter preceding paragraph (1)--
(i) in the first sentence, by striking ``an elementary or
secondary school or consortium'' and inserting ``a local
educational agency''; and
(ii) in the second sentence, by striking ``Each such'' and
inserting the following:
``(b) Contents.--Each such''; and
(3) in subsection (b) (as so redesignated)--
(A) in paragraph (1), by striking ``or consortium'';
(B) in paragraph (2), by striking ``and'' after the
semicolon; and
(C) in paragraph (3)--
(i) in subparagraph (B), by inserting ``, including
programs under the Child Care and Development Block Grant Act
of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 9858 et seq.)'' after ``maximized'';
(ii) in subparagraph (C), by inserting ``students, parents,
teachers, school administrators, local government, including
law enforcement organizations such as Police Athletic and
Activity Leagues,'' after ``agencies,'';
(iii) in subparagraph (D), by striking ``or consortium'';
and
(iv) in subparagraph (E)--
(I) in the matter preceding clause (i), by striking ``or
consortium''; and
(II) in clause (ii), by striking the period and inserting a
semicolon; and
(E) by adding at the end the following:
``(4) information demonstrating that the local educational
agency will--
``(A) provide not less than 35 percent of the annual cost
of the activities assisted under the project from sources
other than funds provided under this part, which contribution
may be provided in cash or in kind, fairly evaluated; and
``(B) provide not more than 25 percent of the annual cost
of the activities assisted under the project from funds
provided by the Secretary under other Federal programs that
permit the use of those other funds for activities assisted
under the project; and
``(5) an assurance that the local educational agency, in
each year of the project, will maintain the agency's fiscal
effort, from non-Federal sources, from the preceding fiscal
year for the activities the local educational agency provides
with funds provided under this part.''.
SEC. 7. USES OF FUNDS.
Section 10905 of the 21st Century Community Learning
Centers Act (20 U.S.C. 8245) is amended--
(1) by striking the matter preceding paragraph (1) and
inserting:
``(a) In General.--Grants awarded under this part may be
used to establish or expand community learning centers. The
centers may provide 1 or more of the following activities:'';
(2) in subsection (a)(11) (as redesignated by paragraph
(1)), by inserting ``, and job skills preparation'' after
``placement''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(14) After school programs, that--
``(A) shall include at least 2 of the following--
``(i) mentoring programs;
``(ii) academic assistance;
``(iii) recreational activities; or
``(iv) technology training; and
``(B) may include--
``(i) drug, alcohol, and gang prevention activities;
``(ii) health and nutrition counseling; and
``(iii) job skills preparation activities.
``(b) Limitation.--Not less than \2/3\ of the amount
appropriated under section 10907 for each fiscal year shall
be used for after school programs, as described in paragraph
(14). Such programs may also include activities described in
paragraphs (1) through (13) that offer expanded opportunities
for children or youth.''.
SEC. 8. ADMINISTRATION.
Section 10905 of the 21st Century Community Learning
Centers Act (20 U.S.C. 8245) is amended by adding at the end
the following:
``(c) Administration.--In carrying out the activities
described in subsection (a), a local educational agency or
school shall, to the greatest extent practicable--
``(1) request volunteers from business and academic
communities, and law enforcement organizations, such as
Police Athletic and Activity Leagues, to serve as mentors or
to assist in other ways;
``(2) ensure that youth in the local community participate
in designing the after school activities;
``(3) develop creative methods of conducting outreach to
youth in the community;
``(4) request donations of computer equipment and other
materials and equipment; and
``(5) work with State and local park and recreation
agencies so that activities carried out by the agencies prior
to the date of enactment of this subsection are not
duplicated by activities assisted under this part.''.
SEC. 9. COMMUNITY LEARNING CENTER DEFINED.
Section 10906 of the 21st Century Community Learning
Centers Act (20 U.S.C. 8246) is amended in paragraph (2) by
inserting ``, including law enforcement organizations such as
the Police Athletic and Activity League'' after
``governmental agencies''.
SEC. 10. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
Section 10907 of the 21st Century Community Learning
Centers Act (20 U.S.C. 8247) is amended by striking
``$20,000,000 for fiscal year 1995'' and all that follows and
inserting ``$600,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2000
through 2004, to carry out this part.''.
SEC. 11. EFFECTIVE DATE.
This Act, and the amendments made by this Act, take effect
on October 1, 1999.
______
By Mr. DeWINE (for himself and Mr. Reid):
S. 818. A bill to require the Secretary of Health and Human Services
to conduct a study of the mortality and adverse outcome rates of
Medicare patients related to the provision of anesthesia services; to
the Committee on Finance.
____________________