[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 13 (Wednesday, January 31, 2001)]
[Senate]
[Pages S915-S928]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Ms. SNOWE:
  S. 222. A bill to provide tax incentives for the construction of 
seagoing cruise ships in United States shipyards, and to facilitate the 
development of a United States-flag, United States-built cruise 
industry, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.
  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation designed to 
promote growth in the domestic cruise ship industry and at the same 
time enable U.S. shipyards to compete for cruise ship orders. The 
legislation would provide tax incentives for U.S. cruise ship 
construction and operation.
  Current law prohibits non-U.S. vessels from carrying passengers 
between U.S. ports. As such, today's domestic cruise market is very 
limited. The cruise industry consists predominantly of foreign vessels 
which must sail to and from foreign ports. The vast majority of cruise 
passengers are Americans, but most of the revenues now go to foreign 
destinations. That is because the high cost of building and operating 
U.S.-flag cruise ships and competition from modern, foreign-flag cruise 
ships have deterred growth in the domestic cruise ship trade.
  By some estimates, a single port call by a cruise vessel generates 
between $300,000 and $500,000 in economic benefits. This is a very 
lucrative market, and I would like to see U.S. companies and American 
workers benefit from this untapped potential. However, domestic ship 
builders and cruise operations face a very difficult, up-hill battle 
against unfair competition from foreign cruise lines and foreign 
shipyards. Foreign cruise lines, for example, pay no corporate income 
tax. Nor are they held to the same demanding ship construction and 
operating standards imposed on U.S.-flag vessel operators. Foreign 
cruise lines are also free from the need to comply with many U.S. labor 
and environmental protection laws, and U.S. health, safety, and 
sanitation laws do not apply to the foreign ships.
  The legislation I am introducing today is designed to level the 
playing field between the U.S. cruise industry and the international 
cruise industry. For example, it provides that a shipyard will pay 
taxes on the construction or overhaul of a cruise ship of 20,000 gross 
tons or greater only after the delivery of the ship.
  Under my bill, a U.S. company operating a cruise ship of 20,000 grt 
and greater may depreciate that vessel over a five-year period rather 
than the current 10-year depreciation period. The bill would also 
repeal the $2,500 business tax deduction limit for a convention on a 
cruise ship to provide a tax deduction limit equal to that provided to 
conventions held at shore-side hotels. The measure would authorize a 20 
percent tax credit for fuel operating costs associated with 
environmentally clean gas turbine engines manufactured in the U.S., and 
also allows use of investment of Capital Construction Funds to include 
not only the non-contiguous trades, but also the domestic point-to-
point trades and ``cruises to nowhere''.
  Mr. President, I truly believe that this legislation would help 
jumpstart the domestic cruise trade, benefit U.S. workers and 
companies, and promote economic growth in our ports. I strongly urge my 
colleagues to join me in a strong show of support for this effort.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. DOMENICI:
  S. 223. A bill to terminate the effectiveness of certain drinking 
water regulations; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, ``Just as houses are made of stones, so 
is science made of facts; but a pile of stones is not a house and a 
collection of facts is not necessarily science.''
  For the past 8 years I have questioned numerous collections of facts 
put out by the Environmental Protection Agency in the name of science 
and I have found sound science has been left out of the regulation 
equation too often. A prime example is the new arsenic standards in 
drinking water proposed last week. This new standard dramatically 
reduces the arsenic level allowable in drinking water from 50 parts per 
billion (ppb) to 10 ppb, a reduction of 80 percent.
  I believe it is essential to protect and ensure the safety of our 
nation's water supply and to uphold the principles and goals set forth 
in the Safe Drinking Water Act, but these standards were not based on 
sound science and there is no proof that they will increase health 
benefits. They were put into effect because it was the politically 
expedient thing to do.
  That is why at this time I am introducing this bill which would 
terminate the effectiveness of these new drinking water standards.
  The amendments to the Safe Drinking Water Act required the standards 
for arsenic in drinking water be changed by January 1st of this year. 
Because the proposed rule was issued late, I cosponsored an amendment 
to the VA HUD appropriations bill giving EPA a 6-month extension. This 
amendment was later signed into law, but was ignored by the agency.
  There was much controversy and debate surrounding the appropriate 
level for the new standard. The EPA's Science Advisory Board expressed 
unanimous support for reducing the current standard, but varied 
considerably on the appropriate level. Both the EPA and the National 
Academy of Sciences National Research Council acknowledged more health 
studies were needed to evaluate what potential health benefits, if any, 
would likely result from this lower standard.
  Arsenic is naturally occurring in my home state. In fact, New Mexico 
has some of the highest levels of arsenic in the nation, yet has a 
lower than average incidence of the diseases associated with arsenic. I 
have not seen any reasonable data in support of increased health 
benefits from these lower standards. I have only seen a collection of 
facts from studies conducted outside of the United States.
  Under these new standards states such as New Mexico, are going to be 
required to revise water treatment facilities at a significant cost to 
the general public. Such costs should not be incurred unless sufficient 
scientific information exists in support of the new standard.
  The New Mexico Environment Department estimates this new standard 
will affect approximately 25 percent of New Mexico's water systems, 
with the price for compliance between $400,000,000 and $500,000,000 in 
initial

[[Page S916]]

capital expenditures. Annual operating costs will easily fall anywhere 
between $16,000,000 and $21,000,000. Additionally, large water system 
users will see an average water bill increase between $38 and $42 and 
small system users will see an average water bill increase of $91. The 
cost of complying with this new standard could well put small rural 
systems out of business, which is the exact opposite of what we should 
be trying to accomplish--providing a safe and reliable supply of 
drinking water to rural America.
  Again, I believe that science is made of facts and I don't believe we 
have enough facts here to determine if there will be increased health 
benefits from the change in these standards. I see unintended 
consequences resulting from well intentioned motives. We should study 
this issue here in the United States and then take our best data and 
formulate standards that are scientifically sound.
  I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 223

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

     SECTION 1. DRINKING WATER REGULATIONS.

       On and after the date of enactment of this Act--
       (1) the amendments to parts 9, 141, and 142 of title 40, 
     Code of Federal Regulations, made by the final rule 
     promulgated by the Administrator of the Environmental 
     Protection Agency entitled ``Arsenic and Clarifications to 
     Compliance and New Source Contaminants Monitoring'' (66 Fed. 
     Reg. 6976 (January 22, 2001)) are void; and
       (2) those parts shall be in effect as if those amendments 
     had not been made.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. McCAIN:
  S. 224. A bill to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to set 
aside up to $2 per person from park entrance fees or assess up to $2 
per person visiting the Grand Canyon or other national parks to secure 
bonds for capital improvements to those parks, and for other purposes; 
to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I am renewing my efforts to provide 
innovative solutions to address urgently needed repairs and 
enhancements at our nation's parks. The legislation I am introducing 
today is identical to the bill I sponsored in prior congresses, which 
received substantial support from many of the organizations supporting 
the National Parks system. I thank my colleague, Representative Kolbe, 
for introducing companion legislation in the House of Representatives.
  The National Parks Capital Improvements Act of 2001 would help secure 
taxable revenue bonding authority for National Parks. This legislation 
would allow private fundraising organizations to enter into agreements 
with the Secretary of Interior to issue taxable capital development 
bonds. Bond revenues would then be used to finance park improvement 
projects. The bonds would be secured by an entrance fee surcharge of up 
to $2 per visitor at participating parks, or a set-aside of up to $2 
per visitor from current entrance fees.
  Our national park system has enormous capital needs--which by last 
estimate ranges from $3 to 5 billion--for high-priority projects such 
as improved transportation systems, trail repairs, visitor facilities, 
historic preservation, and the list goes on and on. The unfortunate 
reality is that even under the rosiest budget scenarios, our growing 
park needs far outstrip the resources currently available. Parks are 
still struggling to address enormous resource and infrastructure needs 
while seeking to improve the park experience to accommodate the 
increasing numbers of visitors to recreation sites.
  Revenue bonding would take us a long way toward meeting our needs 
within the national park system. For example, based on current 
visitation rates at the Grand Canyon, a $2 surcharge would enable us to 
raise $100 million from a bond issue amortized over 20 years. That is a 
significant amount of money which we could use to accomplish many 
critical park projects.
  Let me emphasize, however, the Grand Canyon National Park would not 
be the only park eligible to benefit from this legislation. Any park 
unit with capital needs in excess of $5 million is eligible to 
participate. Among eligible parks, the Secretary of Interior will 
determine which may take part in the program. I also want to stress 
that only projects approved as part of a park's general management plan 
can be funded through bond revenue. This proviso eliminates any concern 
that the revenue could be used for projects of questionable value to 
the park.
  In addition, only organizations under agreement with the Secretary of 
Interior will be authorized to administer the bonding, so the Secretary 
can establish any rules or policies determined necessary and 
appropriate.
  Under no circumstances, however, would investors be able to attach 
liens against Federal property in the very unlikely event of default. 
The bonds will be secured only by the surcharge revenues.
  Finally, the bill specifies that all professional standards apply and 
that the issues are subject to the same laws, rules, and regulatory 
enforcement procedures as any other bond issue.
  The most obvious question raised by this legislation is: Will the 
bond markets support park improvement issues, guaranteed by an entrance 
surcharge? The answer is an emphatic yes. Bonding is a well-tested tool 
for the private sector. Additionally, Americans are eager to invest in 
our Nation's natural heritage, and with park visitation growing 
stronger, the risks appear minimal.
  Are park visitors willing to pay a little more at the entrance gate 
if the money is used for park improvements? Again, I believe the answer 
is yes. Time and time again, visitors have expressed their support for 
increased fees provided that the revenue is used where collected and 
not diverted for some other purpose devised by Congress. In recent 
surveys by the National Park Service, nearly 83 percent of 
participating respondents were comfortable in paying such fees for park 
purposes and other respondents thought the fees too low.
  With the recreational fee program currently being implemented at 
parks around the Nation, an additional $2 surcharge may not be 
necessary or appropriate at certain parks. Under the bill, those parks 
could choose to dedicate $2 per park visitor from current entrance fees 
toward a bond issue. This legislation can easily compliment the 
recreational fee program to increase benefits to support our parks and 
increase the quality of America's park experience well into the future.
  I look forward to working with my colleagues and National Parks 
supporters to ensure passage of 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:

                                 S. 224

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

       (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``National 
     Parks Capital Improvements Act of 2001''.
       (b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents of this Act 
     is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
Sec. 2. Definitions.
Sec. 3. Fundraising organization.
Sec. 4. Memorandum of agreement.
Sec. 5. National park surcharge or set-aside.
Sec. 6. Use of bond proceeds.
Sec. 7. Administration.

     SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act:
       (1) Fundraising organization.--The term ``fundraising 
     organization'' means an entity authorized to act as a 
     fundraising organization under section 3(a).
       (2) Memorandum of agreement.--The term ``memorandum of 
     agreement'' means a memorandum of agreement entered into by 
     the Secretary under section 3(a) that contains the terms 
     specified in section 4.
       (3) National park foundation.--The term ``National Park 
     Foundation'' means the foundation established under the Act 
     entitled ``An Act to establish the National Park 
     Foundation'', approved December 18, 1967 (16 U.S.C. 19e et 
     seq.).
       (4) National park.--The term ``national park'' means--
       (A) the Grand Canyon National Park; and
       (B) any other unit of the National Park System designated 
     by the Secretary that has an approved general management plan 
     with capital needs in excess of $5,000,000.
       (5) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
     of the Interior.

     SEC. 3. FUNDRAISING ORGANIZATION.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary may enter into a memorandum 
     of agreement under section 4 with an entity to act as an 
     authorized

[[Page S917]]

     fundraising organization for the benefit of a national park.
       (b) Bonds.--The fundraising organization for a national 
     park shall issue taxable bonds in return for the surcharge or 
     set-aside for that national park collected under section 5.
       (c) Professional Standards.--The fundraising organization 
     shall abide by all relevant professional standards regarding 
     the issuance of securities and shall comply with all 
     applicable Federal and State law.
       (d) Audit.--The fundraising organization shall be subject 
     to an audit by the Secretary.
       (e) No Liability for Bonds.--The United States shall not be 
     liable for the security of any bonds issued by the 
     fundraising organization.

     SEC. 4. MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT.

       The fundraising organization shall enter into a memorandum 
     of agreement that specifies--
       (1) the amount of the bond issue;
       (2) the maturity of the bonds, not to exceed 20 years;
       (3) the per capita amount required to amortize the bond 
     issue, provide for the reasonable costs of administration, 
     and maintain a sufficient reserve consistent with industry 
     standards;
       (4) the project or projects at the national park that will 
     be funded with the bond proceeds and the specific 
     responsibilities of the Secretary and the fundraising 
     organization with respect to each project; and
       (5) procedures for modifications of the agreement with the 
     consent of both parties based on changes in circumstances, 
     including modifications relating to project priorities.

     SEC. 5. NATIONAL PARK SURCHARGE OR SET-ASIDE.

       (a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law, the Secretary may authorize the Superintendent of a 
     national park for which a memorandum of agreement is in 
     effect--
       (1) to charge and collect a surcharge in an amount not to 
     exceed $2 for each individual otherwise subject to an 
     entrance fee for admission to the national park; or
       (2) to set aside not more than $2 for each individual 
     charged the entrance fee.
       (b) Surcharge in Addition to Entrance Fees.--A national 
     park surcharge under subsection (a) shall be in addition to 
     any entrance fee collected under--
       (1) section 4 of the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act 
     of 1965 (16 U.S.C. 460l-6a);
       (2) the recreational fee demonstration program authorized 
     by section 315 of the Department of the Interior and Related 
     Agencies Appropriations Act, 1996 (as contained in Public Law 
     104-134; 110 Stat. 1321-156; 1321-200; 16 U.S.C. 460l-6a 
     note); or
       (3) the national park passport program established under 
     title VI of the National Parks Omnibus Management Act of 1998 
     (Public Law 105-391; 112 Stat. 3518; 16 U.S.C. 5991 et seq.).
       (c) Limitation.--The total amount charged or set aside 
     under subsection (a) may not exceed $2 for each individual 
     charged an entrance fee.
       (d) Use.--A surcharge or set-aside under subsection (a) 
     shall be used by the fundraising organization to--
       (1) amortize the bond issue;
       (2) provide for the reasonable costs of administration; and
       (3) maintain a sufficient reserve consistent with industry 
     standards, as determined by the bond underwriter.
       (e) Excess Funds.--Any funds collected in excess of the 
     amount necessary to fund the uses in subsection (d) shall be 
     remitted to the National Park Foundation to be used for the 
     benefit of all units of the National Park System.

     SEC. 6. USE OF BOND PROCEEDS.

       (a) Eligible Projects.--
       (1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), bond proceeds 
     under this Act may be used for a project for the design, 
     construction, operation, maintenance, repair, or replacement 
     of a facility in the national park for which the bond was 
     issued.
       (2) Project limitations.--A project referred to in 
     paragraph (1) shall be consistent with--
       (A) the laws governing the National Park System;
       (B) any law governing the national park in which the 
     project is to be completed; and
       (C) the general management plan for the national park.
       (3) Prohibition on use for administration.--Other than 
     interest as provided in subsection (b), no part of the bond 
     proceeds may be used to defray administrative expenses.
       (b) Interest on Bond Proceeds.--
       (1) Authorized uses.--Any interest earned on bond proceeds 
     may be used by the fundraising organization to--
       (A) meet reserve requirements; and
       (B) defray reasonable administrative expenses incurred in 
     connection with the management and sale of the bonds.
       (2) Excess interest.--All interest on bond proceeds not 
     used for purposes of paragraph (1) shall be remitted to the 
     National Park Foundation for the benefit of all units of the 
     National Park System.

     SEC. 7. ADMINISTRATION.

       The Secretary, in consultation with the Secretary of 
     Treasury, shall promulgate regulations to carry out this Act.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. WARNER:
  S. 225. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide 
incentives to public elementary and secondary school teachers by 
providing a tax credit for teaching expenses, professional development 
expenses, and student education loans; to the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce, ``The Teacher 
Tax Credit Act.''
  All of us know that individuals do not pursue a career in the 
teaching profession for the money. People go into the teaching 
profession for grander reasons--to educate our youth, to make a lasting 
influence.
  Simply put, to teach is to touch a life forever.
  How true that is. I venture to say that every one of us can remember 
at least one teacher and the special influence he or she had on our 
lives.
  Despite the fact that teachers play such an important role, 
elementary and secondary education teachers are underpaid, overworked, 
and, unfortunately, all too often, under-appreciated.
  I was astounded to learn that teachers expend significant money out 
of their own pocket to better the education of our children. Most 
typically, our teachers are spending money out of their own pocket on 
three types of expenses:

       (1) education expenses brought into the classroom--such as 
     books, supplies, pens, paper, and computer equipment;
       (2) professional development expenses--such as tuition, 
     fees, books, and supplies associated with courses that help 
     our teachers become even better instructors; and
       (3) interest paid by the teacher for previously incurred 
     higher education loans.

  This is the essence of volunteerism in the United States--teachers 
spending their own money to better our childrens' education. Why do 
they do this? Simply because school budgets are not adequate to meet 
the costs of education.
  These out-of-pocket costs placed on the backs of our teachers are but 
one reason our teachers are leaving the profession.
  Numerous reports exist detailing the teacher shortage. According to 
the National Education Association, ``America will need two million new 
teachers in the next decade, and experts predict that half the teachers 
who will be in the public school classrooms 10 years from now have not 
yet been hired.''
  In addition, it is estimated that twenty percent of all new hires 
leave the teaching profession within three years.
  Certainly, a pay raise for teachers is needed and would be a strong 
showing of recognition and appreciation towards the profession. 
However, whether or not to provide teachers a pay raise is a local 
issue and not one that the federal government ought to be involved in.
  Nevertheless, there is something we can do. On a federal level, we 
can encourage individuals to enter the teaching profession and remain 
in the teaching profession by reimbursing them for the costs that 
teachers voluntarily incur as part of the profession. Second, we can 
help our local school districts with the costs associated with 
education. And, finally, third, we can specifically help financially 
strapped urban and rural school systems recruit new teachers and keep 
those teachers that are currently in the system.
  With these premises in mind, I introduce, ``The Teacher Tax Credit.'' 
This legislation creates a $1,000 tax credit for eligible teachers for 
qualified education expenses, qualified professional development 
expenses and interest paid by the teacher during the taxable year on 
any qualified education loan.
  Every one of these expenses benefit the student in the classroom 
either through better classroom materials or through increased 
knowledge on the part of the teacher. Even so, the current tax code 
provides little, if any, recognition of the importance of these 
expenses.
  Under the current tax structure, each of these expenses are 
deductible. However, in order to deduct these classroom expenses under 
the current tax code, our teachers must meet 4 requirements:

       (1) Teachers must itemize their deductions to receive any 
     tax benefit for the unreimbursed money they spend on 
     education expenses or professional development expenses. Most 
     taxpayers in this country do not itemize;
       (2) In the event teachers do itemize, in order to receive a 
     deduction under the current tax code for education expenses 
     or professional development costs, teachers' deductions would 
     have to exceed two percent of their adjusted gross income;

[[Page S918]]

       (3) With respect to qualified education loans, under the 
     current tax law, the interest on these loans is deductible, 
     but that deduction is limited to the first sixty months after 
     graduation. A teacher with the standard ten year repayment 
     loans who has been teaching for more than five years receives 
     no benefit; and
       (4) Under the current tax code, the student loan interest 
     deduction is phased out based on income level. Thus, some 
     teachers, although not rich by any means, could be phased out 
     of the deduction.

  As a result of these four prerequisites, most teachers today receive 
little, if any, tax benefit for their out of pocket expenses to improve 
our childrens' education.
  Our teachers deserve better.
  When our teachers spend their own money on education expenses that go 
into the classroom to help students learn, they ought to receive a real 
tax benefit.
  When our teachers spend their own money on professional development 
courses to enhance their knowledge in a subject in which they are 
instructing, our teachers deserve a real tax benefit.
  When our recent college graduates make the honorable and tough choice 
of training today's youth and tomorrow's leaders, with little 
expectation of financial riches, such a choice should be encouraged and 
our teachers' choices should be recognized.
  In my view, the most important factor in ensuring a quality education 
is having a quality teacher in the classroom.
  The $1,000 Teacher Tax Credit recognizes the hard work our teachers 
have committed themselves to and helps improve education.
  Under my legislation, teachers could receive up to a $1,000 tax 
credit for qualified education expenses, qualified professional 
development courses, and interest on student loans. Qualifying teachers 
would not have to itemize their deductions to receive the credit, and 
they would not have to exceed the two percent floor. Teachers would not 
be phased out of the student loan interest benefit based on income 
level, and there would be no 60 month limitation.
  Mr. President, we all agree that our education system must ensure 
that no child is left behind. As we move towards education reforms to 
achieve this goal, we must keep in mind the other component in our 
education system--the teachers.
  We must ensure that qualified teachers are not forgotten.
  Quality, caring teachers, along with quality caring parents, play the 
predominant roles in ensuring that no child is left behind. Passage of 
The Teacher Tax Credit will help our school systems retain the good 
teachers they now have and recruit the good teachers they need for the 
future.
  Mr. President, some of my colleagues in the Senate have recognized 
that we can and must do more for our teachers in this country. Senators 
Collins and Kyl have worked on similar legislation, and I commend them 
for their efforts. I look forward working with them and my other 
colleagues on this important matter. I urge my colleagues to support 
this legislation.
  I ask unanimous consent that letters from the National Education 
Association and the Virginia Education Association indicating their 
support for this legislation and the bill be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                 S. 225

       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 TEACHER Tax Credit Act''.

     SEC. 2. CREDIT FOR TEACHING EXPENSES, PROFESSIONAL 
                   DEVELOPMENT EXPENSES, AND INTEREST ON HIGHER 
                   EDUCATION LOANS OF PUBLIC ELEMENTARY AND 
                   SECONDARY SCHOOL TEACHERS.

       (a) In General.--Subpart A of part IV of subchapter A of 
     chapter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to 
     nonrefundable personal credits) is amended by inserting after 
     section 25A the following new section:

     ``SEC. 25B. TEACHING EXPENSES, PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT 
                   EXPENSES, AND INTEREST ON HIGHER EDUCATION 
                   LOANS OF PUBLIC ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY SCHOOL 
                   TEACHERS.

       ``(a) Allowance of Credit.--In the case of an eligible 
     teacher, there shall be allowed as a credit against the tax 
     imposed by this chapter for the taxable year an amount equal 
     to the sum of--
       ``(1) the qualified education expenses paid or incurred by 
     the taxpayer during the taxable year,
       ``(2) the qualified professional development expenses paid 
     or incurred by the taxpayer during the taxable year, and
       ``(3) interest paid by the taxpayer during the taxable year 
     on any qualified education loan.
       ``(b) Maximum Credit.--The credit allowed by subsection (a) 
     for the taxable year shall not exceed $1,000.
       ``(c) Definitions.--For purposes of this section--
       ``(1) Eligible teacher.--The term `eligible teacher' means 
     an individual who is a kindergarten through grade 12 
     classroom teacher, instructor, counselor, aide, or principal 
     in a public elementary or secondary school on a full-time 
     basis for an academic year ending during a taxable year.
       ``(2) Elementary and secondary schools.--The terms 
     `elementary school' and `secondary school' have the 
     respective meanings given such terms by section 14101 of the 
     Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as in effect 
     of the date of enactment of this section.
       ``(3) Qualified education expenses.--The term `qualified 
     education expenses' means expenses for books, supplies (other 
     than nonathletic supplies for courses of instruction in 
     health or physical education), computer equipment (including 
     related software and services) and other equipment, and 
     supplementary materials used by an eligible teacher in the 
     classroom.
       ``(4) Qualified professional development expenses.--
       ``(A) In general.--The term `qualified professional 
     development expenses' means expenses--
       ``(i) for tuition, fees, books, supplies, and equipment 
     required for the enrollment or attendance of an individual in 
     a qualified course of instruction, and
       ``(ii) with respect to which a deduction is allowable under 
     section 162 (determined without regard to this section).
       ``(B) Qualified course of instruction.--The term `qualified 
     course of instruction' means a course of instruction which--
       ``(i) directly relates to the curriculum and academic 
     subjects in which an eligible teacher provides instruction,
       ``(ii) is designed to enhance the ability of an eligible 
     teacher to understand and use State standards for the 
     academic subjects in which such teacher provides instruction,
       ``(iii) provides instruction in how to teach children with 
     different learning styles, particularly children with 
     disabilities and children with special learning needs 
     (including children who are gifted and talented),
       ``(iv) provides instruction in how best to discipline 
     children in the classroom and identify early and appropriate 
     interventions to help children described clause (iii) learn, 
     or
       ``(v) is tied to strategies and programs that demonstrate 
     effectiveness in increasing student academic achievement and 
     student performance, or substantially increasing the 
     knowledge and teaching skills of the eligible teacher.
       ``(5) Qualified education loan.--The term `qualified 
     education loan' has the meaning given such term by section 
     221(e)(1), but only with respect to qualified higher 
     education expenses of the taxpayer.
       ``(d) Denial of Double Benefit.--
       ``(1) In general.--No deduction or other credit shall be 
     allowed under this chapter for any amount taken into account 
     for which credit is allowed under this section.
       ``(2) Coordination with exclusions.--A credit shall be 
     allowed under subsection (a) for qualified professional 
     development expenses only to the extent the amount of such 
     expenses exceeds the amount excludable under section 135, 
     529(c)(1), or 530(d)(2) for the taxable year.
       ``(e) Election To Have Credit Not Apply.--A taxpayer may 
     elect to have this section not apply for any taxable year.
       ``(f) Regulations.--The Secretary shall prescribe such 
     regulations as may be necessary to carry out the provisions 
     of this section.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--The table of sections for 
     subpart A of part IV of subchapter A of chapter 1 of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by inserting after 
     the item relating to section 25A the following new item:

``Sec. 25B. Teaching expenses, professional development expenses, and 
              interest on higher education loans of public elementary 
              and secondary school teachers.''.
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 
     2001.
                                  ____



                               National Education Association,

                                 Washington, DC, January 25, 2001.
     Senator John Warner,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Warner: On behalf of the National Education 
     Association's (NEA) 2.6 million members, we would like to 
     express our support for the Educator and Classroom Help 
     Education Resources (TEACHER) Tax Credit Act.
       As you know, teacher quality is the single most critical 
     factor in maximizing student achievement. Ongoing 
     professional development is essential to ensure that teachers 
     stay up-to-date on the skills and knowledge necessary to 
     prepare students for the challenges of the 21st century. The 
     TEACHER

[[Page S919]]

     Act tax credit for professional development expenses will 
     make a critical difference in helping teachers access quality 
     training.
       In addition, the TEACHER Act will help encourage talented 
     students to pursue a career in teaching by providing a tax 
     credit for interest paid on higher education loans. Such a 
     tax credit is particularly critical given the projected need 
     to recruit two million qualified teachers nationwide over the 
     next decade.
       Finally, we are pleased that your legislation would provide 
     a tax credit for teachers who reach into their own pockets to 
     pay for necessary classroom materials, including books, 
     pencils, paper, and art supplies. A 1996 NEA study found that 
     the average K-12 teacher spent over $400 a year out of 
     personal funds for classroom supplies. For teachers earning 
     modest salaries, the purchase of classroom supplies 
     represents a considerable expense for which they often must 
     sacrifice other personal needs.
       We than you for your leadership in introducing this 
     important legislation and look forward to working with you to 
     support our nation's teachers.
           Sincerely,
                                           Mary Elizabeth Teasley,
     Director of Government Relations.
                                  ____



                               Virginia Education Association,

                                   Richmond, VA, January 24, 2001.
     Hon. John W. Warner,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Warner: On behalf of all 56,000 members of VEA 
     we congratulate you on your appointment to the Education 
     Committee, and we look forward to working with you.
       Christopher Yianilos reviewed ``The Educator and Classroom 
     Help Education Resources (TEACHER) Tax Credit Act'' with Rob 
     Jones and me on January 19th. We appreciated this opportunity 
     to evaluate the bill and to receive a thorough briefing from 
     Mr. Yianilos.
       We both appreciate and support your efforts to provide a 
     tax credit for teaching expenses, professional development 
     expenses, and student education loans. Please call on VEA if 
     we can be of assistance in gaining passage of this worthy 
     bill.
       In addition, please call on us if we can ever be of 
     assistance to you in your new position as a member of the 
     Education Committee.
           Sincerely,
                                                   Jean H. Bankos,
                                                        President.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Ms. SNOWE (for herself, Mr. Jeffords, and Mr. Voinovich):
  S. 226. A bill to establish a Northern Border States-Canada Trade 
Council, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.
  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, today I am reintroducing legislation that 
would establish a Northern Border States Council on United States-
Canada trade.
  The purpose of this Council is to oversee cross-border trade with our 
Nation's largest trading partner--an action that I believe is long 
overdue and should be considered. The Council will serve as an early 
warning system to alert State and Federal trade officials to problems 
in cross-border traffic and trade from the very people who are dealing 
with trade problems. The Council will enable the United States to more 
effectively administer the trade policy with Canada by applying the 
wealth of insight, knowledge and expertise of people who reside not 
only in my State of Maine, but also in the other northern border 
States, on this critical policy issue.
  Within the U.S. Government we already have the Department of Commerce 
and a U.S. Trade Representative, both Federal entities, responsible for 
our larger, national U.S. trade interests. But the fact is that too 
often such entities fail to give full consideration to the interests of 
the northern States that share a border with Canada, the longest 
demilitarized border between two nations anywhere in the world. The 
Northern Border States Council will provide State trade officials with 
a mechanism to share information about cross-border traffic and trade. 
The Council will also advise the Congress, the President, the U.S. 
Trade Representative, the Secretary of Commerce, and other Federal and 
State trade officials on United States-Canada trade policies, 
practices, and problems.
  Canada is our largest and most important trading partner. It is by 
far the top purchaser of U.S. export goods and services, as it is the 
largest source of U.S. imports. In 1999, total two-way merchandise 
commerce was $365 billion--that's $1 billion a day. With an economy 
one-tenth the size of our own, Canada's economic health depends on 
maintaining close trade ties with the United States. While Canada 
accounts for about one-fifth of U.S. exports and imports, the United 
States is the source of two-thirds of Canada's imports and provides the 
market with fully three-quarters of all of Canada's exports.
  The United States and Canada have the largest bilateral trade 
relationship in the world, a relationship that is remarkable not only 
for its strength and general health, but also for the intensity of the 
trade and border problems that do frequently develop--as we have seen 
in recent years with actual farmer border blockades in some border 
states because of the unfairness of agricultural trade policies.
  Over the last decade, Canada and the United States have signed two 
major trade agreements--the United States-Canada Free Trade Agreement 
in 1989, and the North American Free Trade Agreement, or NAFTA, in 
1993. They also negotiated the 1996 US-Canada Softwood Lumber 
Agreement, which will expire two months from now, on March 31. Even 
though some of us in Congress urged the last Administration on more 
than one occasion to negotiate a process with Canadian officials to 
work for a fairer alternative, nothing was attempted on a government to 
government basis.
  Notwithstanding these trade accords, numerous disagreements have 
caused trade negotiators to shuttle back and forth between Washington 
and Ottawa for solutions to problems for grain trade, wheat imports, 
animal trade, and joint cooperation on Biotechnology.
  Most of the more well-known trade disputes with Canada have involved 
agricultural commodities such as durum wheat, peanut butter, dairy 
products, and poultry products, and these disputes, of course, have 
impacted more than just the northern border States. Each and every day, 
an enormous quantity of trade and traffic crosses the United States-
Canada border. There are literally thousands of businesses, large and 
small, that rely on this cross-border traffic and trade for their 
livelihood.
  My own State of Maine has had a long-running dispute with Canada over 
that nation's unfair policies in support of its potato industry. 
Specifically, Canada protects its domestic potato growers from United 
States competition through a system of nontariff trade barriers, such 
as setting container size limitations and a prohibition on bulk 
shipments from the United States. I might add that there has still not 
been any movement towards solutions for these problems, even though I 
have been given promises every year that trade problems with Canada 
would be a top priority for discussion.

  This bulk import prohibition effectively blocks United States potato 
imports into Canada and was one topic of discussion during a 1997 
International Trade Commission investigations hearing, where I 
testified on behalf of the Maine potato growers. The ITC followed up 
with a report stating that Canadian regulations do restrict imports of 
bulk shipments of fresh potatoes for processing or repacking, and that 
the U.S. maintains no such restrictions. These bulk shipment 
restrictions continue, and, at the same time, Canada also artificially 
enhances the competitiveness of its product through domestic subsidies 
for its potato growers.
  Another trade dispute with Canada, specifically with the province of 
New Brunswick, originally served as the inspiration for this 
legislation. In July 1993, Canadian federal customs officials began 
stopping Canadians returning from Maine and collecting from them the 
11-percent New Brunswick Provincial Sales Tax, [PST] on goods purchased 
in Maine. Canadian Customs Officers had already been collecting the 
Canadian federal sales tax all across the United States-Canada border. 
The collection of the New Brunswick PST was specifically targeted 
against goods purchased in Maine--not on goods purchased in any of the 
other provinces bordering New Brunswick.
  After months of imploring the U.S. Trade Representative to do 
something about the imposition of the unfairly administered tax, then 
Ambassador Kantor agreed that the New Brunswick PST was a violation of 
NAFTA, and that the United States would include the PST issue in the 
NAFTA dispute settlement process. But despite this explicit assurance, 
the issue was not, in fact, brought before NAFTA's dispute settlement 
process, prompting Congress in 1996, to include an amendment

[[Page S920]]

I offered to immigration reform legislation calling for the U.S. Trade 
Representative to take this action without further delay. But, it took 
three years for a resolution, and even then, the resolution was not 
crafted by the USTR.
  Throughout the early months of the PST dispute, we in the state of 
Maine had enormous difficulty convincing our Federal trade officials 
that the PST was in fact an international trade dispute that warranted 
their attention and action. We had no way of knowing whether problems 
similar to the PST dispute existed elsewhere along the United States-
Canada border, or whether it was a more localized problem. If a body 
like the Northern Border States Council had existed when the collection 
of the PST began, it could have immediately started investigating the 
issue to determine its impact and would have made recommendations as to 
how to deal with it.
  The long-standing pattern of unsuccessful negotiations is alarming. 
In short, the Northern Border States Council will serve as the eyes and 
ears of our States that share a border with Canada, and who are most 
vulnerable to fluctuations in cross-border trade and traffic. The 
Council will be a tool for Federal and State trade officials to use in 
monitoring cross-border trade. It will help ensure that national trade 
policy regarding America's largest trading partner will be developed 
and implemented with an eye towards the unique opportunities and 
burdens present to the northern border states.
  The Northern Border States Council will be an advisory body, not a 
regulatory one. Its fundamental purpose will be to determine the nature 
and cause of cross-border trade issues or disputes, and to recommend 
how to resolve them.
  The duties and responsibilities of the Council will include, but not 
be limited to, providing advice and policy recommendations on such 
matters as taxation and the regulation of cross-border wholesale and 
retail trade in goods and services; taxation, regulation and 
subsidization of food, agricultural, energy, and forest-products 
commodities; and the potential for Federal and State/provincial laws 
and regulations, including customs and immigration regulations, to act 
as nontariff barriers to trade.
  As an advisory body, the Council will review and comment on all 
Federal and/or State reports, studies, and practices concerning United 
States-Canada trade, with particular emphasis on all reports from the 
dispute settlement panels established under NAFTA. These Council 
reviews will be conducted upon the request of the United States Trade 
Representative, the Secretary of Commerce, a Member of Congress from 
any Council State, or the Governor of a Council State.
  If the Council determines that the origin of a cross-border trade 
dispute resides with Canada, the Council would determine, to the best 
of its ability, if the source of the dispute is the Canadian Federal 
Government or a Canadian Provincial government.
  The goal of this legislation is not to create another Federal trade 
bureaucracy. The Council will be made up of individuals nominated by 
the Governors and approved by the Secretary of Commerce. Each northern 
border State will have two members on the Council. The Council members 
will be unpaid, and serve a 2-year term.
  The Northern Border States Council on United States-Canada Trade will 
not solve all of our trade problems with Canada. But it will ensure 
that the voices and views of our northern border States are heard in 
Washington by our Federal trade officials. For too long their voices 
have been ignored, and the northern border States have had to suffer 
severe economic consequences at various times because of it. This 
legislation will bring our States into their rightful position as full 
partners for issues that affect cross-border trade and traffic with our 
country's largest trading partner. I urge my colleagues to join me in 
supporting this important 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:

                                 S. 226

       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 ``Northern Border States 
     Council Act''.

     SEC. 2. ESTABLISHMENT OF COUNCIL.

       (a) Establishment.--There is established a council to be 
     known as the Northern Border States-Canada Trade Council (in 
     this Act referred to as the ``Council'').
       (b) Membership.--
       (1) Composition.--The Council shall be composed of 24 
     members consisting of 2 members from each of the following 
     States:
       (A) Maine.
       (B) New Hampshire.
       (C) Vermont.
       (D) New York.
       (E) Michigan.
       (F) Minnesota.
       (G) Wisconsin.
       (H) North Dakota.
       (I) Montana.
       (J) Idaho.
       (K) Washington.
       (L) Alaska.
       (2) Appointment by state governors.--Not later than 6 
     months after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary 
     of Commerce (in this Act referred to as the ``Secretary'') 
     shall appoint two members from each of the States described 
     in paragraph (1) to serve on the Council. The appointments 
     shall be made from a list of nominees submitted by the 
     Governor of each such State.
       (c) Period of Appointment; Vacancies.--Members shall be 
     appointed for terms that are coterminous with the term of the 
     Governor of the State who nominated the member. Any vacancy 
     in the Council shall not affect its powers, but shall be 
     filled in the same manner as the original appointment.
       (d) Initial Meeting.--Not later than 30 days after the date 
     on which all members of the Council have been appointed, the 
     Council shall hold its first meeting.
       (e) Meetings.--The Council shall meet at the call of the 
     Chairperson.
       (f) Quorum.--A majority of the members of the Council shall 
     constitute a quorum, but a lesser number of members may hold 
     hearings.
       (g) Chairperson and Vice Chairperson.--The Council shall 
     select a Chairperson and Vice Chairperson from among its 
     members. The Chairperson and Vice Chairperson shall each 
     serve in their respective positions for a period of 2 years, 
     unless such member's term is terminated before the end of the 
     2-year period.

     SEC. 3. DUTIES OF THE COUNCIL.

       (a) In General.--The duties and responsibilities of the 
     Council shall include--
       (1) advising the President, the Congress, the United States 
     Trade Representative, the Secretary, and other appropriate 
     Federal and State officials, with respect to--
       (A) the development and administration of United States-
     Canada trade policies, practices, and relations,
       (B) taxation and regulation of cross-border wholesale and 
     retail trade in goods and services between the United States 
     and Canada,
       (C) taxation, regulation, and subsidization of agricultural 
     products, energy products, and forest products, and
       (D) the potential for any United States or Canadian customs 
     or immigration law or policy to result in a barrier to trade 
     between the United States and Canada;
       (2) monitoring the nature and cause of trade issues and 
     disputes that involve one of the Council-member States and 
     either the Canadian Government or one of the provincial 
     governments of Canada; and
       (3) if the Council determines that a Council-member State 
     is involved in a trade issue or dispute with the Government 
     of Canada or one of the provincial governments of Canada, 
     making recommendations to the President, the Congress, the 
     United States Trade Representative, and the Secretary 
     concerning how to resolve the issue or dispute.
       (b) Response to Requests by Certain People.--
       (1) In general.--Upon the request of the United States 
     Trade Representative, the Secretary, a Member of Congress who 
     represents a Council-member State, or the Governor of a 
     Council-member State, the Council shall review and comment 
     on--
       (A) reports of the Federal Government and reports of a 
     Council-member State government concerning United States-
     Canada trade;
       (B) reports of a binational panel or review established 
     pursuant to chapter 19 of the North American Free Trade 
     Agreement concerning the settlement of a dispute between the 
     United States and Canada;
       (C) reports of an arbitral panel established pursuant to 
     chapter 20 of the North American Free Trade Agreement 
     concerning the settlement of a dispute between the United 
     States and Canada; and
       (D) reports of a panel or Appellate Body established 
     pursuant to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 
     concerning the settlement of a dispute between the United 
     States and Canada.
       (2) Determination of scope.--Among other issues, the 
     Council shall determine whether a trade dispute between the 
     United States and Canada is the result of action or inaction 
     on the part of the Federal Government of Canada or a 
     provincial government of Canada.
       (c) Council-Member State.--For purposes of this section, 
     the term ``Council-member State'' means a State described in 
     section 2(b)(1) which is represented on the Council 
     established under section 2(a).

[[Page S921]]

     SEC. 4. REPORT TO CONGRESS.

       Not later than 2 years after the date of enactment of this 
     Act and at the end of each 2-year period thereafter, the 
     Council shall submit a report to the President and the 
     Congress which contains a detailed statement of the findings, 
     conclusions, and recommendations of the Council.

     SEC. 5. POWERS OF THE COUNCIL.

       (a) Hearings.--The Council may hold such hearings, sit and 
     act at such times and places, take such testimony, and 
     receive such evidence as the Council considers advisable to 
     carry out the provisions of this Act. Notice of Council 
     hearings shall be published in the Federal Register in a 
     timely manner.
       (b) Information From Federal Agencies.--The Council may 
     secure directly from any Federal department or agency such 
     information as the Council considers necessary to carry out 
     the provisions of this Act. Upon the request of the 
     Chairperson of the Council, the head of such department or 
     agency shall furnish such information to the Council.
       (c) Postal Services.--The Council may use the United States 
     mails in the same manner and under the same conditions as 
     other departments and agencies of the Federal Government.
       (d) Gifts.--The Council may accept, use, and dispose of 
     gifts or donations of services or property.

     SEC. 6. COUNCIL PERSONNEL MATTERS.

       (a) Members To Serve Without Compensation.--Except as 
     provided in subsection (b), members of the Council shall 
     receive no compensation, allowances, or benefits by reason of 
     service to the Council.
       (b) Travel Expenses.--The members of the Council shall be 
     allowed travel expenses, including per diem in lieu of 
     subsistence, at rates authorized for employees of agencies 
     under subchapter I of chapter 57 of title 5, United States 
     Code, while away from their homes or regular places of 
     business in the performance of services for the Council.
       (c) Staff.--
       (1) In general.--The Chairperson of the Council may, 
     without regard to the civil service laws, appoint and 
     terminate an executive director and such other additional 
     personnel as may be necessary to enable the Council to 
     perform its duties. The employment of an executive director 
     shall be subject to confirmation by the Council and the 
     Secretary.
       (2) Compensation.--The Chairperson of the Council may fix 
     the compensation of the executive director and other 
     personnel without regard to the provisions of chapter 51 and 
     subchapter III of chapter 53 of title 5, United States Code, 
     relating to classification of positions and General Schedule 
     pay rates, except that the rate of pay for the executive 
     director and other personnel may not exceed the rate payable 
     for level V of the Executive Schedule under section 5316 of 
     such title.
       (d) Detail of Government Employees.--Any Federal Government 
     employee may be detailed to the Council without 
     reimbursement, and such detail shall be without interruption 
     or loss of civil service status or privilege.
       (e) Procurement of Temporary and Intermittent Services.--
     The Chairperson of the Council may procure temporary and 
     intermittent services under section 3109(b) of title 5, 
     United States Code, at rates for individuals which do not 
     exceed the daily equivalent of the annual rate of basic pay 
     prescribed for level V of the Executive Schedule under 
     section 5316 of such title.
       (f) Office Space.--The Secretary shall provide office space 
     for Council activities and for Council personnel.

     SEC. 7. TERMINATION OF THE COUNCIL.

       The Council shall terminate on the date that is 54 months 
     after the date of enactment of this Act and shall submit a 
     final report to the President and the Congress under section 
     4 at least 90 days before such termination.

     SEC. 8. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       (a) In General.--There are authorized to be appropriated an 
     amount not to exceed $250,000 for fiscal year 2002 and for 
     each fiscal year thereafter to the Council to carry out the 
     provisions of this Act.
       (b) Availability.--Any sums appropriated pursuant to this 
     section shall remain available, without fiscal year 
     limitation, until expended.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. AKAKA:
  S. 228. A bill to amend title 38, United States Code, to make 
permanent the Native American veterans housing loan program, and for 
other purposes; to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs.
  Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise to introduce a bill which 
permanently authorizes the Native American Veteran Housing Loan 
Program.
  In 1992, I authored a bill that established a pilot program to assist 
Native American veterans who reside on trust lands. This pilot program, 
administered by the Department of Veterans Affairs, VA, provides direct 
loans to Native American veterans to build or purchase homes on trust 
lands. Previously, Native American veterans who resided on trust lands 
were unable to qualify for VA home loan benefits. This disgraceful 
treatment of Native American veterans was finally corrected when 
Congress established the Native American Direct Home Loan Program.
  Despite the challenges of creating a program that addresses the needs 
of hundreds of different tribal entities, VA has successfully entered 
into agreements to provide direct VA loans to members of 59 tribes and 
Pacific Island groups, and negotiations continue with other tribes. 
Since the program's inception, 233 Native American veterans have been 
able to achieve home ownership, and none of the loans approved by the 
VA have been foreclosed.
  Unfortunately, the authority to issue new loans under this successful 
program will end on December 31, 2001. This would be devastating to a 
number of Native American veterans who would like to participate in 
this program. Native American veterans who reside on trust lands should 
be afforded the same benefits available to other veterans. Without this 
program, it would be incredibly difficult for Native Americans living 
on trust lands to obtain home loan financing.
  Permanent authorization of this program will ensure that Native 
American veterans are provided equal access to services and benefits 
available to other veterans. I urge my colleagues to support this 
important legislation.
  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. 228

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

     SECTION 1. PERMANENT AUTHORITY FOR NATIVE AMERICAN VETERANS 
                   HOUSING LOAN PROGRAM.

       (a) Permanent Authority.--Section 3761 of title 38, United 
     States Code, is amended by striking subsection (c).
       (b) Reporting Requirements.--Subsection (j) of section 3762 
     of that title is amended--
       (1) in the matter preceding paragraph (1), by striking 
     ``through 2002''; and
       (2) by striking ``pilot'' each place it appears.
       (c) Conforming Amendments.--(1) Section 3761 of that title 
     is further amended--
       (A) in subsection (a)--
       (i) in the first sentence, by striking ``establish and 
     implement a pilot program'' and inserting ``carry out a 
     program''; and
       (ii) in the second sentence, by striking ``establish and 
     implement the pilot program'' and inserting ``carry out the 
     program''; and
       (B) in subsection (b), by striking ``pilot''.
       (2) Section 3762 of that title is further amended--
       (A) in subsection (b)(1)(E), by striking ``pilot program 
     established under this subchapter is implemented'' and 
     inserting ``program under this subchapter is carried out'';
       (B) in the second sentence of subsection (c)(1)(B), by 
     striking ``in order to carry out'' and all that follows 
     through ``direct housing loans'' and inserting ``to make 
     direct housing loans under the program under this 
     subchapter''; and
       (C) in subsection (i)--
       (i) in paragraph (1), by striking ``pilot'';
       (ii) in paragraph (2)(A)--
       (I) by striking ``pilot program'' the first place it 
     appears and inserting ``program provided for under this 
     subchapter''; and
       (II) by striking ``pilot program'' the second place it 
     appears and inserting ``that program''; and
       (iii) in paragraph (2)(E), by striking ``pilot program'' 
     and inserting ``program provided for under this subchapter''.
       (d) Clerical Amendments.--(1) The section heading of 
     section 3761 of that title is amended to read as follows:

     ``Sec. 3761. Housing loan program''.

       (2) The subchapter heading of subchapter V of chapter 37 of 
     that title is amended to read as follows:

    ``SUBCHAPTER V--NATIVE AMERICAN VETERAN HOUSING LOAN PROGRAM''.

       (3) The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 37 of 
     that title is amended by striking the item relating to 
     subchapter V and the item relating to section 3761 and 
     inserting the following new items:

      ``SUBCHAPTER V--NATIVE AMERICAN VETERAN HOUSING LOAN PROGRAM

``3761. Housing loan program.''.
                                 ______
                                 

                            By Mr. CAMPBELL:

  S. 231. A bill to amend the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 
1965 to ensure that seniors are given an opportunity to serve as 
mentors, tutors, and volunteers for certain programs; to the Committee 
on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, the future of our nation rests on the 
small shoulders of America's school children. To help them face that 
challenge, we must call on all of our resources and find new and 
innovative ways to support our schools, right now.
  That is why today, I am introducing the ``Seniors As Volunteers in 
Our Schools Act,'' a bill that will be an important step in ensuring 
that our

[[Page S922]]

schools provide a safe and caring place for our children to learn and 
grow. This bill is based on legislation which I introduced in the 106th 
Congress, S. 1851. I am pleased to have my colleagues Senators 
Grassley, Akaka and Inouye as original co-sponsors.
  Over the past week, under the leadership of President Bush, our 
nation and this body have committed to improving the nature of our 
schools. This bill presents one common-sense approach to enhancing the 
safety in our schools by utilizing one of our greatest resources--our 
senior citizens.
  The bill I introduce today would encourage school administrators and 
teachers to use qualified seniors as volunteers in federally funded 
programs and activities authorized by the Elementary and Secondary 
Education Act, ESEA. The legislation specifically would encourage the 
use of seniors as volunteers in the safe and drug free schools 
programs, Indian education programs, the 21st Century Community before- 
and after-school programs and gifted and talented programs.
  The Seniors as Volunteers in Our Schools Act creates no new programs; 
rather it suggests another allowable use of funds already allocated. 
The discretion whether to take advantage of this new resource continues 
to remain solely with the school systems.
  In my home state of Colorado, a School Safety Summit recommended 
connecting each child to a caring adult as a way to reduce youth 
violence. Studies show that consistent guidance by a mentor or caring 
adult can help reduce teenage pregnancy, substance abuse and youth 
violence. Evidence also shows that the presence of adults on 
playgrounds, and in hallways and study halls, stabilizes the learning 
environment.
  I know firsthand the importance of mentoring based on my own 
experiences as a teacher. A mentor can have a profound and positive 
impact on a child's life. What better way to make our schools safer for 
our children than to have more caring adults visibly involved?
  I am pleased to note that the Colorado Association of School Boards 
supports the goal of this legislation. Jane Urschel, the Association's 
Associate Executive Director states, ``As many Colorado school 
districts have already discovered, having senior citizens in our 
classrooms helps to build inter-generational relationships and trust. 
It leads to a richer life for all.''
  I am pleased that a number of seniors in Colorado already are helping 
in schools throughout my state. Many of my former and current staffers 
and their relatives care deeply about this issue and are very involved 
in volunteer and mentoring activities.
  I do not expect this legislation to solve all the problems 
confronting our schools today. But, I see it as a practical way to help 
make our schools safer, more caring places for our children.
  Mr. President, the Seniors as Volunteers in Our Schools Act of 2001 
is one simple way to address the school safety issue in Colorado and 
nationwide. I believe that as we work to find the resources our schools 
require we must not overlook one of the more plentiful and accessible 
resources at our disposal--willing and capable adult role models. This 
bill provides an opportunity to immediately improve the lives of 
younger and older Americans alike by bringing them together in our 
schools. I urge my colleagues to support its passage.
  I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 231

       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 ``Seniors as Volunteers in Our 
     Schools Act''.

     SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

       Except as otherwise specifically provided, whenever in this 
     Act an amendment or repeal is expressed in terms of an 
     amendment to, or a repeal of, a section or other provision, 
     the reference shall be considered to be made to a section or 
     other provision of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act 
     of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6301 et seq.).

     SEC. 3. GOVERNOR'S PROGRAMS.

       Section 4114(c) (20 U.S.C. 7114(c)) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (11), by striking ``and'' after the 
     semicolon;
       (2) in paragraph (12), by striking the period and inserting 
     ``; and''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(13) drug and violence prevention activities that use the 
     services of appropriately qualified seniors for activities 
     that include mentoring, tutoring, and volunteering.''.

     SEC. 4. LOCAL DRUG AND VIOLENCE PREVENTION PROGRAMS.

       Section 4116(b) (20 U.S.C. 7116(b)) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (2), in the matter preceding subparagraph 
     (A), by inserting ``(including mentoring by appropriately 
     qualified seniors)'' after ``mentoring'';
       (2) in paragraph (2)(C)--
       (A) in clause (ii), by striking ``and'' after the 
     semicolon;
       (B) in clause (iii), by inserting ``and'' after the 
     semicolon; and
       (C) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(iv) drug and violence prevention activities that use the 
     services of appropriately qualified seniors for such 
     activities as mentoring, tutoring, and volunteering;'';
       (3) in paragraph (4)(C), by inserting ``(including 
     mentoring by appropriately qualified seniors)'' after 
     ``mentoring programs''; and
       (4) in paragraph (8), by inserting ``and which may involve 
     appropriately qualified seniors working with students'' after 
     ``settings''.

     SEC. 5. NATIONAL PROGRAMS.

       Section 4121(a) (20 U.S.C. 7131(a)) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (10), by inserting ``, including projects 
     and activities that promote the interaction of youth and 
     appropriately qualified seniors'' after ``responsibility''; 
     and
       (2) in paragraph (13), by inserting ``, including 
     activities that integrate appropriately qualified seniors in 
     activities, such as mentoring, tutoring, and volunteering'' 
     after ``title''.

     SEC. 6. AUTHORIZED SERVICES AND ACTIVITIES.

       Section 9115(b) (20 U.S.C. 7815(b)) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (6), by striking ``and'' after the 
     semicolon;
       (2) in paragraph (7), by striking the period and inserting 
     ``; and''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(8) activities that recognize and support the unique 
     cultural and educational needs of Indian children, and 
     incorporate appropriately qualified tribal elders and 
     seniors.''.

     SEC. 7. IMPROVEMENTS OF EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES FOR INDIAN 
                   CHILDREN.

       Section 9121(c)(1) (20 U.S.C. 7831(c)(1)) is amended--
       (1) in subparagraph (J), by striking ``or'' after the 
     semicolon;
       (2) by redesignating subparagraph (K) as subparagraph (L); 
     and
       (3) by inserting after subparagraph (J) the following:
       ``(K) activities that recognize and support the unique 
     cultural and educational needs of Indian children, and 
     incorporate appropriately qualified tribal elders and 
     seniors; or''.

     SEC. 8. PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT.

       Section 9122(d)(1) (20 U.S.C. 7832(d)(1)) is amended in the 
     second sentence by striking the period and inserting ``, and 
     may include programs designed to train tribal elders and 
     seniors.''.

     SEC. 9. NATIVE HAWAIIAN COMMUNITY-BASED EDUCATION LEARNING 
                   CENTERS.

       Section 9210(b) (20 U.S.C. 7910(b)) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (2), by striking ``and'' after the 
     semicolon; and
       (2) in paragraph (3), by striking the period and inserting 
     ``; and''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(4) programs that recognize and support the unique 
     cultural and educational needs of Native Hawaiian children, 
     and incorporate appropriately qualified Native Hawaiian 
     elders and seniors.''.

     SEC. 10. ALASKA NATIVE STUDENT ENRICHMENT PROGRAMS.

       Section 9306(b) (20 U.S.C. 7936(b)) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (3), by striking ``and'' after the 
     semicolon;
       (2) in paragraph (4), by striking the period and inserting 
     ``; and''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(5) activities that recognize and support the unique 
     cultural and educational needs of Alaskan Native children, 
     and incorporate appropriately qualified Alaskan Native elders 
     and seniors.''.

     SEC. 11. GIFTED AND TALENTED CHILDREN.

       Section 10204(b)(3) (20 U.S.C. 8034(b)(3)) is amended by 
     striking ``and parents'' and inserting ``, parents, and 
     appropriately qualified senior volunteers''.

     SEC. 12. 21ST CENTURY COMMUNITY LEARNING CENTERS.

       Section 10904(a)(3) (20 U.S.C. 8244(a)(3)) is amended--
       (1) in subparagraph (D), by striking ``and'' after the 
     semicolon;
       (2) in subparagraph (E), by striking the period and 
     inserting ``; and''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(F) a description of how the school or consortium will 
     encourage and use appropriately qualified seniors as 
     volunteers in activities identified under section 10905.''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. CLELAND (for himself, Mr. Durbin, Mr. Hagel, Mr. Corzine, 
        and Ms. Landrieu):
  S. 232. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code for 1986 to exclude

[[Page S923]]

United States savings bond income from gross income if it is used to 
pay long-term care expenses; to the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. CLELAND. Mr. President, I am very pleased to begin this session 
with re-introduction of a measure to help Americans to better afford 
health care. Last Congress, I introduced S. 2066, which would have 
created a Savings Bond Income Tax-exemption for long-term care 
services. On July 17, 2000, this measure was adopted by the Senate as 
an amendment to S. 2839, the Marriage Penalty Reconciliation bill, but 
unfortunately was not retained in the final version of the legislation. 
As we all know, Congress did not pass any significant tax relief for 
health care coverage last year. Today, I am joined by Senators Durbin, 
Hagel, Corzine and Landrieu in re-submitting this legislation.
  Many have expressed their continuing interest in enacting our 
proposal which would result in a revenue loss of less than $22 million 
over ten years as estimated by the Joint Committee on Taxation while 
offering significant help in the financing of long-term health care 
needs. It is currently forecasted that in the next 30 years, half of 
all women and a third of all men in the United States will spend a 
portion of their life in a nursing home at a cost of $40,000 to $90,000 
per year per person. I believe the proposed legislation would provide 
an excellent opportunity to assist millions of Americans facing the 
financial burdens of long-term care.
  The bill we are re-introducing today would exclude United States 
savings bond income from being taxed if used to pay for long-term 
health care expenses. It will assist individuals struggling to 
accommodate costs associated with many chronic medical conditions and 
the aging process. Families that claim parents or parents-in-law as 
dependents on their tax returns would qualify for this tax credit if 
savings bond income is used to pay for long-term care services. 
``Sandwich generation" families paying for both college education for 
their children and long-term care services for their parents could use 
the tax credit for either program or a combined credit up to the 
allowable amount.
  The last Congress took an important step in addressing our growing 
long-term care needs by enacting H.R. 4040, the Long-Term Care Security 
Act. H.R. 4040, which was signed into law on September 19, 2000, 
created the largest employer-based long-term care insurance program in 
American history. Additional steps are needed and our proposal will 
make long-term care more obtainable by more Americans. I urge you to 
support this needed tax relief for Americans struggling with the high 
cost of assistive and nursing home care.
  I ask that this proposal to provide tax relief for long-term care 
services be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 232

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

     SECTION 1. EXCLUSION OF UNITED STATES SAVINGS BOND INCOME 
                   FROM GROSS INCOME IF USED TO PAY LONG-TERM CARE 
                   EXPENSES.

       (a) In General.--Subsection (a) of section 135 of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to income from United 
     States savings bonds used to pay higher education tuition and 
     fees) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(a) Exclusion.--
       ``(1) General rule.--In the case of an individual who pays 
     qualified expenses during the taxable year, no amount shall 
     be includible in gross income by reason of the redemption 
     during such year of any qualified United States savings bond.
       ``(2) Qualified expenses.--For purposes of this section, 
     the term `qualified expenses' means--
       ``(A) qualified higher education expenses, and
       ``(B) eligible long-term care expenses.''.
       (b) Limitation Where Redemption Proceeds Exceed Qualified 
     Expenses.--Section 135(b)(1) of the Internal Revenue Code of 
     1986 (relating to limitation where redemption proceeds exceed 
     higher education expenses) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``higher education'' in subparagraph 
     (A)(ii), and
       (2) by striking ``higher education'' in the heading 
     thereof.
       (c) Eligible Long-Term Care Expenses.--Section 135(c) of 
     the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to definitions) 
     is amended by redesignating paragraph (4) as paragraph (5) 
     and by inserting after paragraph (3) the following new 
     paragraph:
       ``(4) Eligible long-term care expenses.--The term `eligible 
     long-term care expenses' means qualified long-term care 
     expenses (as defined in section 7702B(c)) and eligible long-
     term care premiums (as defined in section 213(d)(10)) of--
       ``(A) the taxpayer,
       ``(B) the taxpayer's spouse, or
       ``(C) any dependent of the taxpayer with respect to whom 
     the taxpayer is allowed a deduction under section 151.''.
       (d) Adjustments.--Section 135(d) of the Internal Revenue 
     Code of 1986 (relating to special rules) is amended by 
     redesignating paragraphs (3) and (4) as paragraphs (4) and 
     (5), respectively, and by inserting after paragraph (2) the 
     following new paragraph:
       ``(3) Eligible long-term care expense adjustments.--The 
     amount of eligible long-term care expenses otherwise taken 
     into account under subsection (a) with respect to an 
     individual shall be reduced (before the application of 
     subsection (b)) by the sum of--
       ``(A) any amount paid for qualified long-term care services 
     (as defined in section 7702B(c)) provided to such individual 
     and described in section 213(d)(11), plus
       ``(B) any amount received by the taxpayer or the taxpayer's 
     spouse or dependents for the payment of eligible long-term 
     care expenses which is excludable from gross income.''.
       (e) Coordination With Deductions.--
       (1) Section 213 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 
     (relating to medical, dental, etc., expenses) is amended by 
     adding at the end the following new subsection:
       ``(f) Coordination With Savings Bond Income Used for 
     Expenses.--Any expense taken into account in determining the 
     exclusion under section 135 shall not be treated as an 
     expense paid for medical care.''.
       (2) Section 162(l) of such Code (relating to special rules 
     for health insurance costs of self-employed individuals) is 
     amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(6) Coordination with savings bond income used for 
     expenses.--Any expense taken into account in determining the 
     exclusion under section 135 shall not be treated as an 
     expense paid for medical care.''.
       (f) Clerical Amendments.--
       (1) The heading for section 135 of the Internal Revenue 
     Code of 1986 is amended by inserting ``and long-term care 
     expenses'' after ``fees''.
       (2) The item relating to section 135 in the table of 
     sections for part III of subchapter B of chapter 1 of such 
     Code is amended by inserting ``and long-term care expenses'' 
     after ``fees''.
       (g) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 
     2000.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. FEINGOLD (for himself, Mr. Levin, Mr. Wellstone, and Mr. 
        Corzine):
  S. 233. A bill to place a moratorium on executions by the Federal 
Government and urge the States to do the same, while a National 
Commission on the Death Penalty reviews the fairness of the imposition 
of the death penalty; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, one year ago today, Governor George Ryan 
took the bold step of placing a moratorium on executions in Illinois. 
He refused to sign off on a single execution in Illinois. Why? Because 
he saw that the system by which people were sentenced to death in 
Illinois was terribly flawed. In fact, by the time Governor Ryan made 
his decision, Illinois had seen more exonerations of innocent people 
than executions. There had been 13 exonerations and 12 executions. Of 
the 13 people found innocent, some were wrongfully convicted based on 
police or prosecutorial misconduct. Modern DNA testing played a role in 
yet another 5 exonerations. And in some cases, it was students from 
Northwestern University--people very much outside the criminal justice 
system--who played a key role in finding and presenting the evidence to 
secure the release of wrongfully condemned men.
  What did Governor Ryan do in the face of this risk of executing 
innocent people? Governor Ryan recognized the moral stakes that faced 
him and took the courageous step of suspending executions. He said, 
``until I can be sure with moral certainty that no innocent man or 
woman is facing a lethal injection, no one will meet that fate.'' Is 
that too much to ask--that innocent men and women not be put to death? 
I believe the vast majority of Americans would say it is not too much 
to ask. Governor Ryan has been an ardent death penalty supporter, 
having argued vehemently for its use while a member of the Illinois 
legislature. But now, as Governor, he was faced with the awesome 
responsibility of carrying out the final stage of this punishment. 
Following his decision to place a moratorium on executions, he promptly 
appointed a panel of distinguished prosecutors and defense lawyers, as 
well as

[[Page S924]]

civic and political leaders. That panel is charged with thoroughly 
reviewing the flaws in the administration of the death penalty in 
Illinois.
  But these problems--and particularly the risk of executing an 
innocent person--are not unique to Illinois. They exist throughout our 
Nation. That is why today I rise to re-introduce the National Death 
Penalty Moratorium Act. This bill seeks to apply the wisdom of Governor 
Ryan and the people of Illinois to the federal government and all 
states that authorize the use of capital punishment. I am pleased that 
my distinguished colleagues, Senators Levin, Wellstone and Corzine, 
have joined me in cosponsoring this bill.
  Governor Ryan's decision was a watershed event. During the last year, 
his action was a significant factor in unleashing a renewed, national 
debate on the death penalty. For the first time in many years, people 
are beginning to understand that our system is fallible. Mistakes can 
be made. Mistakes have been made. But mistakes should not be made, 
particularly when mistakes can mean the difference between life and 
death. In fact, overall support for the death penalty has dropped to an 
almost 20-year low. According to an NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll, 
63 percent of Americans support a suspension of executions while 
questions of fairness are addressed.
  The time to prevent the execution of the innocent is now. The time to 
restore fairness and justice is now. The time to act is now. The time 
for a moratorium is now.
  Governor Ryan was greatly troubled by the number of innocent people 
sent to death row in Illinois--13 people, and still counting. Since the 
1970s, 93 people have been exonerated nationwide. At the same time, we 
have executed close to 700 people. That means for every seven people 
who have been executed, we have found one person sitting on death row 
who should not have been there. And it's not just Illinois that has 
sent innocent people to death row. Twenty-two of the 38 states that 
authorize capital punishment have had exonerations. In fact, Florida 
actually exceeds Illinois in total number of people exonerated: Florida 
has had 20. Oklahoma has exonerated 7, Texas has exonerated 7 people, 
Georgia has exonerated 6 people, and on and on. Mr. President, while we 
explore ways to reduce and eliminate the risk of executing the 
innocent, not a single person should be executed. The time to act is 
now. The time for a moratorium is now.
  My distinguished colleague from Vermont, the ranking member of the 
Judiciary Committee, Senator Leahy, has championed the need for access 
to modern DNA testing and certain minimum standards of competency for 
defense counsel in capital cases. I have joined him and many of our 
distinguished colleagues, including Senators Gordon Smith, Collins, 
Jeffords, and Levin, to support the Innocence Protection Act. This bill 
would bring greater fairness to the administration of the death 
penalty. I commend Senator Leahy for his leadership on this bill, 
particularly for highlighting the need for access to modern DNA 
testing. During the last year, as a result of his leadership, the 
American people are beginning to understand the value and necessity of 
modern DNA testing in our criminal justice system. But while we work to 
pass these needed reforms, a time-out is needed to ensure the integrity 
and fairness of our criminal justice system. The time for a moratorium 
is now.
  According to a study led by Columbia University Law Professor Jim 
Liebman and released last June, the overall rate of error in America's 
death penalty system is 68 percent. Reviewing over 4,500 appeals 
between 1973 and 1995, the report found that courts detected serious, 
reversible error in nearly 7 of every 10 of the capital sentences that 
were fully reviewed. It is appalling that the system is producing so 
many mistakes. And, of course, the question remains: Are we in fact 
catching all the mistakes?
  The Columbia study is further evidence that Illinois' problems are 
not unique. The overall error rate in Illinois was 66 percent, just 
below the national average, which means that some states are well above 
Illinois. I can't underscore this enough. The serious, prejudicial 
error that results in reversals is a phenomenon nationally, not just in 
Illinois.
  In the words of the study's authors, our system is ``collapsing under 
the weight of its own mistakes.'' Mr. President, if our death penalty 
system was a business enterprise that had an error rate in producing 
widgets of 68 percent, that business would undertake a thorough, top to 
bottom review. Let's conduct a thorough, top to bottom review of our 
nation's death penalty system.
  The Columbia study found that the most common errors are (1) 
egregiously incompetent defense counsel who failed to look for 
important evidence that the defendant was innocent or did not deserve 
to die; and (2) police or prosecutors who discovered that kind of 
evidence but suppressed it, again keeping it from the jury. On retrial 
where results are known, 82 percent of the reversals resulted in 
sentences less than death, while another 7 percent were found to be 
innocent of the crime that sent them to death row. When the system 
sends an innocent person to death row, there is a double loss: the 
innocent person is robbed of freedom and the real killer is still free, 
free to potentially do more harm.
  Senator Leahy's Innocence Protection Act is a first step in the fight 
to ensure that defendants facing capital charges receive competent 
legal representation. We have heard stories of sleeping lawyers, drunk 
lawyers, lawyers who are paid less than a living wage, all of whom are 
lawyers who have represented people subsequently convicted and 
sentenced to death. But, as the Columbia study shows, access to modern 
DNA testing and efforts to ensure competent counsel in capital cases 
are only two of the many menacing problems plaguing the administration 
of the death penalty.
  The second common error, according to the Columbia study, is the role 
of police or prosecutorial misconduct in suppressing evidence that 
could mean the difference between guilt and innocence, or life and 
death. The risk of police or prosecutorial misconduct is increased in 
capital cases. Why? Because capital cases are usually high profile, 
high stakes cases, particularly for the police or prosecutor's 
personal, professional advancement. One problem involves the use of 
jailhouse informant testimony. Police or prosecutors use jailhouse 
informants who claim to have heard the defendant confess to a crime. 
These informants' testimony, however, is inherently unreliable because 
they have a strong incentive to lie: their testimony to convict another 
person can mean reduced charges or a lighter sentence in their own 
case.
  Similarly, prosecutors may rely on the testimony of co-defendants who 
also may have strong incentives to lie to avoid tougher charges or 
harsher sentences. Yet another area of police misconduct involves false 
confessions. Take the case of Gary Gauger. Gauger was wrongfully 
convicted of murdering his parents on the basis of a false confession 
obtained by police. In 1993, he was convicted and sent to Illinois' 
death row. The main piece of evidence against him was a so-called 
``confession'' that the police claimed they obtained after holding 
Gauger for 21 hours without food or access to an attorney. The police 
wrote out a version of the murder and tried to convince Gauger that he 
had killed his parents while in a blackout state. He refused to sign 
the ``confession.'' But the prosecution introduced the unsigned 
confession against him at trial. His defense attorney did virtually no 
work preparing for trial, telling Gauger's sister that ``death penalty 
cases are won on appeal.'' Fortunately for Gauger, Northwestern 
University Law Professor Larry Marshall took over his case and Gauger's 
conviction was reversed. In the meantime, the real killers were 
discovered when FBI agents, listening to wiretapped conversations 
during an FBI investigation of a motorcycle gang, heard the killers 
describe murdering Gauger's parents.
  Gauger finally got his freedom, but only after being unfairly and 
unjustly dragged through our criminal justice system. Our law 
enforcement officers do a great job, but we must act to understand the 
role of misconduct by police and prosecutors and its contribution to 
creating a high rate of error in capital cases. The time to act is now. 
The time for a moratorium is now.
  Another problem with our nation's administration of the death penalty 
is

[[Page S925]]

the glaring racial disparity in decisions about who shall be executed. 
One of the most disturbing statistics suggests that white victims are 
valued more highly by the system than non-whites. Since reinstatement 
of the modern death penalty, 83 percent of capital cases involve white 
victims, even though murder victims are African American or white in 
roughly equal numbers. Nationwide, more than half the death row inmates 
are African Americans or Hispanic Americans.
  Racial disparities are particularly pronounced at the federal level. 
According to a report released by the Justice Department in September 
2000, whether a defendant lives or dies in the federal system appears 
to relate to the color of the defendant's skin or the federal district 
in which the prosecution takes place. The report also found that 80 
percent of the cases submitted for death penalty prosecution 
authorization involved minority defendants. Furthermore, according to 
the Department of Justice, white defendants are more likely than black 
defendants to negotiate plea bargains saving them from the death 
penalty in Federal cases. In fact, currently, 16 of the 20, or 80 
percent, of federal death row inmates are racial or ethnic minorities.
  The federal death penalty system also shows a troubling geographic 
disparity. The Department of Justice report shows that United States 
Attorneys in only 5 of 94 Federal districts--1 each in Virginia, 
Maryland, Puerto Rico, and 2 in New York--submit 40 percent of all 
cases in which the death penalty is considered. In fact, U.S. attorneys 
who have frequently recommended seeking the death penalty are often 
from States with a high number of executions under State law, including 
Texas, Virginia, and Missouri.
  The National Institute of Justice is already setting into motion a 
comprehensive study of these racial and geographic disparities. Federal 
executions should not proceed until these disparities are fully studied 
and discussed, and until the federal death penalty process is subjected 
to necessary remedial action.
  In addition to racial and geographic disparities in the 
administration of the federal death penalty, other serious questions 
exist about the fairness and reliability of federal death penalty 
prosecutions. Federal prosecutors rely heavily on bargained-for 
testimony from accomplices of the capital defendant, which is often 
obtained in exchange for not seeking the death penalty against the 
accomplices. This practice creates a serious risk of false testimony.
  Federal prosecutors are not required to provide discovery 
sufficiently ahead of trial to permit the defense to be prepared to use 
this information effectively in defending their clients. The FBI, in 
increasing isolation from the rest of the nation's law enforcement 
agencies, refuses to make electronic recordings of interrogations that 
produce confessions, thus making subsequent scrutiny of the legality 
and reliability of such interrogations more difficult. Federal 
prosecutors rely heavily on predictions of ``future dangerousness''--
predictions deemed unreliable and misleading by the American 
Psychiatric Association and the American Psychological Association--to 
secure death sentences.
  I was pleased when, in December 2000, President Clinton stayed Juan 
Raul Garza's execution and ordered the Justice Department to conduct 
further reviews of the racial and regional disparities in the federal 
death penalty system. Before the federal government takes this step, 
resuming executions for the first time in almost 40 years, we should be 
sure that our system of administering the ultimate punishment is fair 
and just.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in cosponsoring the National Death 
Penalty Moratorium Act. This bill would place a moratorium on federal 
executions and urge the States to do the same. The bill would also 
create a National Commission on the Death Penalty to review the 
fairness of the administration of the death penalty at the state and 
federal levels. This Commission would be an independent, blue ribbon 
panel of distinguished prosecutors, defense attorneys, jurists and 
others.
  The need for a moratorium could not be more critical than it is 
today. The time to act is now. The time for a moratorium is now.
  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. 233

       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 ``National Death Penalty 
     Moratorium Act of 2001''.

                TITLE I--MORATORIUM ON THE DEATH PENALTY

     SEC. 101. FINDINGS.

       Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) General findings.--
       (A) The administration of the death penalty by the Federal 
     government and the States should be consistent with our 
     Nation's fundamental principles of fairness, justice, 
     equality, and due process.
       (B) At a time when Federal executions are scheduled to 
     recommence, Congress should consider that more than ever 
     Americans are questioning the use of the death penalty and 
     calling for assurances that it be fairly applied. Support for 
     the death penalty has dropped to the lowest level in 19 
     years. An NBC News/Wall Street Journal Poll revealed that 63 
     percent of Americans support a suspension of executions until 
     questions of fairness can be addressed.
       (C) Documented unfairness in the Federal system requires 
     Congress to act and suspend Federal executions. Additionally, 
     substantial evidence of unfairness throughout death penalty 
     States justifies further investigation by Congress.
       (2) Administration of the death penalty by the federal 
     government.--
       (A) The fairness of the administration of the Federal death 
     penalty has recently come under serious scrutiny, 
     specifically raising questions of racial and geographic 
     disparities:
       (i) Eighty percent of Federal death row inmates are members 
     of minority groups.
       (ii) A report released by the Department of Justice on 
     September 12, 2000, found that 80 percent of defendants who 
     were charged with death-eligible offenses under Federal law 
     and whose cases were submitted by the United States attorneys 
     under the Department's death penalty decision-making 
     procedures were African American, Hispanic American, or 
     members of other minority groups.
       (iii) The Department of Justice report shows that United 
     States attorneys in only 5 of 94 Federal districts--1 each in 
     Virginia, Maryland, Puerto Rico, and 2 in New York--submit 40 
     percent of all cases in which the death penalty is 
     considered.
       (iv) The Department of Justice report shows that United 
     States attorneys who have frequently recommended seeking the 
     death penalty are often from States with a high number of 
     executions under State law, including Texas, Virginia, and 
     Missouri.
       (v) The Department of Justice report shows that white 
     defendants are more likely than black defendants to negotiate 
     plea bargains saving them from the death penalty in Federal 
     cases.
       (vi) A study conducted by the House Judiciary Subcommittee 
     on Civil and Constitutional Rights in 1994 concluded that 89 
     percent of defendants selected for capital prosecution under 
     the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988 were either African American 
     or Hispanic American.
       (vii) The National Institute of Justice has already set 
     into motion a comprehensive study of these racial and 
     geographic disparities.
       (viii) Federal executions should not proceed until these 
     disparities are fully studied, discussed, and the federal 
     death penalty process is subjected to necessary remedial 
     action.
       (B) In addition to racial and geographic disparities in the 
     administration of the federal death penalty, other serious 
     questions exist about the fairness and reliability of federal 
     death penalty prosecutions:
       (i) Federal prosecutors rely heavily on bargained-for 
     testimony from accomplices of the capital defendant, which is 
     often obtained in exchange for not seeking the death penalty 
     against the accomplices. This practice creates a serious risk 
     of false testimony.
       (ii) Federal prosecutors are not required to provide 
     discovery sufficiently ahead of trial to permit the defense 
     to be prepared to use this information effectively in 
     defending their clients.
       (iii) The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), in 
     increasing isolation from the rest of the nation's law 
     enforcement agencies, refuses to make electronic recordings 
     of interrogations that produce confessions, thus making 
     subsequent scrutiny of the legality and reliability of such 
     interrogations more difficult.
       (iv) Federal prosecutors rely heavily on predictions of 
     ``future dangerousness''--predictions deemed unreliable and 
     misleading by the American Psychiatric Association and the 
     American Psychological Association--to secure death 
     sentences.
       (3) Administration of the death penalty by the states.--
       (A) The punishment of death carries an especially heavy 
     burden to be free from arbitrariness and discrimination. The 
     Supreme Court has held that ``super due process'', a higher 
     standard than that applied in regular

[[Page S926]]

     criminal trials, is necessary to meet constitutional 
     requirements. There is significant evidence that States are 
     not providing this heightened level of due process. For 
     example:
       (i) In the most comprehensive review of modern death 
     sentencing, Professor James Liebman and researchers at 
     Columbia University found that, during the period 1973 to 
     1995, 68 percent of all death penalty cases reviewed were 
     overturned due to serious constitutional errors. In the wake 
     of the Liebman study, 6 States (Arizona, Maryland, North 
     Carolina, Illinois, Indiana, and Nebraska), as well as the 
     Chicago Tribune and the Texas Defender Service are conducting 
     additional studies. These studies may expose additional 
     problems. With few exceptions, the rate of error was 
     consistent across all death penalty States.
       (ii) Forty percent of the cases overturned were reversed in 
     Federal court after having been upheld by the States.
       (B) The high rate of error throughout all death penalty 
     jurisdictions suggests that there is a grave risk that 
     innocent persons may have been, or will likely be, wrongfully 
     executed. Although the Supreme Court has never conclusively 
     addressed the issue of whether executing an innocent person 
     would in and of itself violate the Constitution, in Herrara 
     v. Collins, 506 U.S. 390 (1993), a majority of the court 
     expressed the view that a persuasive demonstration of actual 
     innocence would violate substantive due process rendering 
     imposition of a death sentence unconstitutional. In any 
     event, the wrongful conviction and sentencing of a person to 
     death is a serious concern for many Americans. For example:
       (i) After 13 innocent people were released from Illinois 
     death row in the same period that the State had executed 12 
     people, on January 31, 2000, Governor George Ryan of Illinois 
     imposed a moratorium on executions until he could be ``sure 
     with moral certainty that no innocent man or woman is facing 
     a lethal injection, no one will meet that fate''.
       (ii) Since 1973, 93 persons have been freed and exonerated 
     from death rows across the country, most after serving 
     lengthy sentences.
       (C) Wrongful convictions create a serious public safety 
     problem because the true killer is still at large, while the 
     innocent person languishes in prison.
       (D) There are many systemic problems that result in 
     innocent people being convicted such as mistaken 
     identification, reliance on jailhouse informants, reliance on 
     faulty forensic testing and no access to reliable DNA 
     testing. For example:
       (i) A study of cases of innocent people who were later 
     exonerated, conducted by attorneys Barry Scheck and Peter 
     Neufeld with ``The Innocence Project'' at Cardozo Law School, 
     showed that mistaken identifications of eyewitnesses or 
     victims contributed to 84 percent of the wrongful 
     convictions.
       (ii) Many persons on death row were convicted prior to 1994 
     and did not receive the benefit of modern DNA testing. At 
     least 10 individuals sentenced to death have been exonerated 
     through post-conviction DNA testing, some within days of 
     execution. Yet in spite of the current widespread prevalence 
     and availability of DNA testing, many States have procedural 
     barriers blocking introduction of post-conviction DNA 
     testing. More than 30 States have laws that require a motion 
     for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence to be 
     filed within 6 months or less.
       (iii) The widespread use of jailhouse snitches who earn 
     reduced charges or sentences by fabricating ``admissions'' by 
     fellow inmates to unsolved crimes can lead to wrongful 
     convictions.
       (iv) The misuse of forensic evidence can lead to wrongful 
     convictions. A recently released report from the Texas 
     Defender Service entitled ``A State of Denial: Texas and the 
     Death Penalty'' found 160 cases of official forensic 
     misconduct including 121 cases where expert psychiatrists 
     testified ``with absolute certainty that the defendant would 
     be a danger in the future'', often without even interviewing 
     the defendant.
       (E) The sixth amendment to the Constitution guarantees all 
     accused persons access to competent counsel. The Supreme 
     Court set out standards for determining competency in the 
     case of Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984). 
     Unfortunately, there is unequal access to competent counsel 
     throughout death penalty States. For example:
       (i) Ninety percent of capital defendants cannot afford to 
     hire their own attorney.
       (ii) Fewer than one-quarter of the 38 death penalty States 
     have set any standards for competency of counsel and in those 
     few States, these standards were set only recently. In most 
     States, any person who passes a bar examination, even if that 
     attorney has never represented a client in any type of case, 
     may represent a client in a death penalty case.
       (iii) Thirty-seven percent of capital cases were reversed 
     because of ineffective assistance of counsel, according to 
     the Columbia study.
       (iv) The recent Texas report noted problems with Texas 
     defense attorneys who slept through capital trials, ignored 
     obvious exculpatory evidence, suffered discipline for ethical 
     lapses or for being under the influence of drugs or alcohol 
     while representing an indigent capital defendant at trial.
       (v) Poor lawyering was also cited by Governor Ryan in 
     Illinois as a basis for a moratorium. More than half of all 
     capital defendants there were represented by lawyers who were 
     later disciplined or disbarred for unethical conduct.
       (F) The Supreme Court has held that it is a violation of 
     the eighth amendment to impose the death penalty in a manner 
     that is arbitrary, capricious, or discriminatory. McKlesky v. 
     Kemp, 481 U.S. 279 (1987). Studies consistently indicate 
     racial disparity in the application of the death penalty both 
     for the defendants and the victims. The death penalty is 
     disparately applied in various regions throughout the 
     country, suggesting arbitrary administration of the death 
     penalty based on where the prosecution takes place. For 
     example:
       (i) Of the 85 executions in the year 2000, 51 percent of 
     the defendants were white, 40 percent were black, 7 percent 
     were Latino and 2 percent Native American. Of the victims in 
     the underlying murder, 76 percent were white, 18 percent were 
     black, 2 percent were Latino, and 3 percent were ``other''. 
     These figures show a continuing trend since reinstatement of 
     the modern death penalty of a predominance of white victims' 
     cases. Despite the fact that nationally whites and blacks are 
     victims of murder in approximately equal numbers, 83 percent 
     of the victims involved in capital cases overall since 
     reinstatement, and 76 percent of the victims in 2000, have 
     been white. Since this disparity is confirmed in studies that 
     control for similar crimes by defendants with similar 
     backgrounds, it implies that white victims are considered 
     more valuable in the criminal justice system.
       (ii) Executions are conducted predominately in southern 
     States. Ninety percent of all executions in 2000 were 
     conducted in the south. Only 3 States outside the south, 
     Arizona, California, and Missouri, conducted an execution in 
     2000. Texas accounted for almost as many executions as all 
     the remaining States combined.

     SEC. 102. FEDERAL AND STATE DEATH PENALTY MORATORIUM.

       (a) In General.--The Federal Government shall not carry out 
     any sentence of death imposed under Federal law until the 
     Congress considers the final findings and recommendations of 
     the National Commission on the Death Penalty in the report 
     submitted under section 202(c)(2) and the Congress enacts 
     legislation repealing this section and implements or rejects 
     the guidelines and procedures recommended by the Commission.
       (b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that 
     each State that authorizes the use of the death penalty 
     should enact a moratorium on executions to allow time to 
     review whether the administration of the death penalty by 
     that State is consistent with constitutional requirements of 
     fairness, justice, equality, and due process.

           TITLE II--NATIONAL COMMISSION ON THE DEATH PENALTY

     SEC. 201. ESTABLISHMENT OF COMMISSION.

       (a) Establishment.--There is established a commission to be 
     known as the National Commission on the Death Penalty (in 
     this title referred to as the ``Commission'').
       (b) Membership.--
       (1) Appointment.--Members of the Commission shall be 
     appointed by the President in consultation with the Attorney 
     General and the Chairmen and Ranking Members of the 
     Committees on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives 
     and the Senate.
       (2) Composition.--The Commission shall be composed of 15 
     members, of whom--
       (A) 3 members shall be Federal or State prosecutors;
       (B) 3 members shall be attorneys experienced in capital 
     defense;
       (C) 2 members shall be current or former Federal or State 
     judges;
       (D) 2 members shall be current or former Federal or State 
     law enforcement officials; and
       (E) 5 members shall be individuals from the public or 
     private sector who have knowledge or expertise, whether by 
     experience or training, in matters to be studied by the 
     Commission, which may include--
       (i) officers or employees of the Federal Government or 
     State or local governments;
       (ii) members of academia, nonprofit organizations, the 
     religious community, or industry; and
       (iii) other interested individuals.
       (3) Balanced viewpoints.--In appointing the members of the 
     Commission, the President shall, to the maximum extent 
     practicable, ensure that the membership of the Commission is 
     fairly balanced with respect to the opinions of the members 
     of the Commission regarding support for or opposition to the 
     use of the death penalty.
       (4) Date.--The appointments of the initial members of the 
     Commission shall be made not later than 30 days after the 
     date of enactment of this Act.
       (c) Period of Appointment.--Each member shall be appointed 
     for the life of the Commission.
       (d) Vacancies.--A vacancy in the Commission shall not 
     affect the powers of the Commission, but shall be filled in 
     the same manner as the original appointment.
       (e) Initial Meeting.--Not later than 30 days after all 
     initial members of the Commission have been appointed, the 
     Commission shall hold the first meeting.
       (f) Meetings.--The Commission shall meet at the call of the 
     Chairperson.
       (g) Quorum.--A majority of the members of the Commission 
     shall constitute a quorum for conducting business, but a 
     lesser number of members may hold hearings.
       (h) Chair.--The President shall designate 1 member 
     appointed under subsection (a) to serve as the Chair of the 
     Commission.

[[Page S927]]

       (i) Rules and Procedures.--The Commission shall adopt rules 
     and procedures to govern the proceedings of the Commission.

     SEC. 202. DUTIES OF THE COMMISSION.

       (a) Study.--
       (1) In general.--The Commission shall conduct a thorough 
     study of all matters relating to the administration of the 
     death penalty to determine whether the administration of the 
     death penalty comports with constitutional principles and 
     requirements of fairness, justice, equality, and due process.
       (2) Matters studied.--The matters studied by the Commission 
     shall include the following:
       (A) Racial disparities in capital charging, prosecuting, 
     and sentencing decisions.
       (B) Disproportionality in capital charging, prosecuting, 
     and sentencing decisions based on geographic location and 
     income status of defendants or any other factor resulting in 
     such disproportionality.
       (C) Adequacy of representation of capital defendants, 
     including consideration of the American Bar Association 
     ``Guidelines for the Appointment and Performance of Counsel 
     in Death Penalty Cases'' (adopted February 1989) and American 
     Bar Association policies that are intended to encourage 
     competency of counsel in capital cases (adopted February 
     1979, February 1988, February 1990, and August 1996).
       (D) Whether innocent persons have been sentenced to death 
     and the reasons these wrongful convictions have occurred.
       (E) Whether the Federal government should seek the death 
     penalty in a State with no death penalty.
       (F) Whether courts are adequately exercising independent 
     judgment on the merits of constitutional claims in State 
     post-conviction and Federal habeas corpus proceedings.
       (G) Whether mentally retarded persons and persons who were 
     under the age of 18 at the time of their offenses should be 
     sentenced to death after conviction of death-eligible 
     offenses.
       (H) Procedures to ensure that persons sentenced to death 
     have access to forensic evidence and modern testing of 
     forensic evidence, including DNA testing, when modern testing 
     could result in new evidence of innocence.
       (I) Any other law or procedure to ensure that death penalty 
     cases are administered fairly and impartially, in accordance 
     with the Constitution.
       (b) Guidelines and Procedures.--
       (1) In general.--Based on the study conducted under 
     subsection (a), the Commission shall establish guidelines and 
     procedures for the administration of the death penalty 
     consistent with paragraph (2).
       (2) Intent of guidelines and procedures.--The guidelines 
     and procedures required by this subsection shall--
       (A) ensure that the death penalty cases are administered 
     fairly and impartially, in accordance with due process;
       (B) minimize the risk that innocent persons may be 
     executed; and
       (C) ensure that the death penalty is not administered in a 
     racially discriminatory manner.
       (c) Report.--
       (1) Preliminary report.--Not later than 1 year after the 
     date of enactment of this Act, the Commission shall submit to 
     the President, the Attorney General, and the Congress a 
     preliminary report, which shall contain a preliminary 
     statement of findings and conclusions.
       (2) Final report.--Not later than 2 years after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Commission shall submit a report 
     to the President, the Attorney General, and the Congress 
     which shall contain a detailed statement of the findings and 
     conclusions of the Commission, together with the 
     recommendations of the Commission for legislation and 
     administrative actions that implement the guidelines and 
     procedures that the Commission considers appropriate.

     SEC. 203. POWERS OF THE COMMISSION.

       (a) Information From Federal and State Agencies.--
       (1) In general.--The Commission may secure directly from 
     any Federal or State department or agency information that 
     the Commission considers necessary to carry out the 
     provisions of this title.
       (2) Furnishing of information.--Upon a request of the 
     Chairperson of the Commission, the head of any Federal or 
     State department or agency shall furnish the information 
     requested by the Chairperson to the Commission.
       (b) Postal Services.--The Commission may use the United 
     States mails in the same manner and under the same conditions 
     as other departments and agencies of the Federal Government.
       (c) Gifts.--The Commission may accept, use, and dispose of 
     gifts or donations of services or property.
       (d) Hearings.--The Commission or, at the direction of the 
     Commission, any subcommittee or member of the Commission, 
     may, for the purpose of carrying out the provisions of this 
     title--
       (1) hold hearings, sit and act at times and places, take 
     testimony, receive evidence, and administer oaths that the 
     Commission, subcommittee, or member considers advisable; and
       (2) require, by subpoena or otherwise, the attendance and 
     testimony of witnesses and the production of books, records, 
     correspondence, memoranda, papers, documents, tapes, and 
     materials that the Commission, subcommittee, or member 
     considers advisable.
       (e) Issuance and Enforcement of Subpoenas.--
       (1) Issuance.--Subpoenas issued pursuant to subsection 
     (d)--
       (A) shall bear the signature of the Chairperson of the 
     Commission; and
       (B) shall be served by any person or class of persons 
     designated by the Chairperson for that purpose.
       (2) Enforcement.--
       (A) In general.--In the case of contumacy or failure to 
     obey a subpoena issued under subsection (d), the district 
     court of the United States for the judicial district in which 
     the subpoenaed person resides, is served, or may be found, 
     may issue an order requiring that person to appear at any 
     designated place to testify or to produce documentary or 
     other evidence.
       (B) Contempt.--Any failure to obey a court order issued 
     under subparagraph (A) may be punished by the court as a 
     contempt.
       (3) Testimony of persons in custody.--A court of the United 
     States within the jurisdiction in which testimony of a person 
     held in custody is sought by the Commission or within the 
     jurisdiction of which such person is held in custody, may, 
     upon application by the Attorney General, issue a writ of 
     habeas corpus ad testificandum requiring the custodian to 
     produce such person before the Commission, or before a member 
     of the Commission or a member of the staff of the Commission 
     designated by the Commission for such purpose.
       (f) Witness Allowances and Fees.--
       (1) In general.--The provisions of section 1821 of title 
     28, United States Code, shall apply to witnesses requested or 
     subpoenaed to appear at any hearing of the Commission.
       (2) Travel expenses.--The per diem and mileage allowances 
     for witnesses shall be paid from funds available to pay the 
     expenses of the Commission.

     SEC. 204. COMMISSION PERSONNEL MATTERS.

       (a) Compensation of Members.--Members of the Commission 
     shall serve without compensation for the services of the 
     member to the Commission.
       (b) Travel Expenses.--The members of the Commission shall 
     be allowed travel expenses, including per diem in lieu of 
     subsistence, at rates authorized for employees of agencies 
     under subchapter I of chapter 57 of title 5, United States 
     Code, while away from their homes or regular places of 
     business in the performance of services for the Commission.
       (c) Staff.--
       (1) In general.--The Chairperson of the Commission may, 
     without regard to the civil service laws and regulations, 
     appoint and terminate an executive director and such other 
     additional personnel as may be necessary to enable the 
     Commission to perform the duties of the Commission.
       (2) Executive director.--The employment of an executive 
     director shall be subject to confirmation by the Commission.
       (3) Compensation.--The Chairperson of the Commission may 
     fix the compensation of the executive director and other 
     personnel without regard to the provisions of chapter 51 and 
     subchapter III of chapter 53 of title 5, United States Code, 
     relating to classification of positions and General Schedule 
     pay rates, except that the rate of pay for the executive 
     director and other personnel may not exceed the rate payable 
     for level V of the Executive Schedule under section 5316 of 
     title 5.
       (d) Detail of Government Employees.--Any Federal Government 
     employee may be detailed to the Commission without 
     reimbursement, and the detail shall be without interruption 
     or loss of civil service status or privilege.
       (e) Procurement of Temporary and Intermittent Services.--
     The Chairperson of the Commission may procure temporary and 
     intermittent services under section 3109(b) of title 5, 
     United States Code, at rates for individuals which do not 
     exceed the daily equivalent of the annual rate of basic pay 
     prescribed for level V of the Executive Schedule under 
     section 5316 of title 5.

     SEC. 205. TERMINATION OF THE COMMISSION.

       The Commission shall terminate 90 days after the date on 
     which the Commission submits its report under section 202.

     SEC. 206. FUNDING.

       (a) In General.--The Commission may expend an amount not to 
     exceed $850,000, as provided by subsection (b), to carry out 
     this title.
       (b) Availability.--Sums appropriated to the Department of 
     Justice shall be made available to carry out this title.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. SHELBY:
  S.J. Res. 3. A joint resolution proposing an amendment to the 
Constitution of the United States which requires (except during time of 
war and subject to suspension by the Congress) that the total amount of 
money expended by the United States during any fiscal year not exceed 
the amount of certain revenue received by the United States during such 
fiscal year and not exceed 20 per centum of the gross national product 
of the United States during the previous calender year; to the 
Committee on the Judiciary.


                            budget amendment

  Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a balanced 
budget

[[Page S928]]

amendment to the Constitution. This is the same amendment which I have 
introduced in every Congress since the 97th Congress. Throughout my 
entire tenure in Congress, during the good economic times and the bad, 
I have devoted much time and attention to this idea because I believe 
that the most significant thing that the Federal Government can do to 
enhance the lives of all Americans and future generation is to ensure 
that we have a balanced Federal budget.
  Our Founding Fathers, wise men indeed, had great concerns regarding 
the capability of those in government to operate within budgetary 
constraints. Alexander Hamilton once wrote that ``* * * there is a 
general propensity in those who govern, founded in the constitution of 
man, to shift the burden from the present to a future day.'' Thomas 
Jefferson commented on the moral significance of this ``shifting of the 
burden from the present to the future.'' He said: ``the question 
whether one generation has the right to bind another by the deficit it 
imposes is a question of such consequence as to place it among the 
fundamental principles of government. We should consider ourselves 
unauthorized to saddle posterity with our debts and morally bound to 
pay them ourselves.''
  I completely agree with these sentiments. History has shown that 
Hamilton was correct. Those who govern have in fact saddled future 
generations with the responsibility of paying for their debts. For a 
large part of the past 30 years, annual deficits became routine and the 
federal government built up massive debt. Furthermore, I believe that 
Jefferson's assessment of the significance of this is also correct: 
intergenerational debt shifting is morally wrong.
  Some may find it strange that I am talking about the problems of 
budget deficits and the need for a balanced budget amendment at a time 
when the budget is actually in balance. However, I raise this issue 
now, as I have time and time again in the past, because of the seminal 
importance involved in establishing a permanent mechanism to ensure 
that our annual federal budget is always balanced. Without such an 
amendment there is a no guarantee that the budget will remain balanced.
  A permanently balanced budget would have a considerable impact in the 
everyday lives of the American people. A balanced budget would 
dramatically lower interest rates thereby saving money for anyone with 
a home mortgage, a student loan, a car loan, credit card debt, or any 
other interest rate sensitive payment responsibility. Simply by 
balancing its books, the Federal Government would put real money into 
the hands of hard working people. In all practical sense, the effect of 
such fiscal responsibility on the part of the government would be the 
same as a significant tax cut for the American people. Moreover, if the 
government demand for capital is reduced, more money would be available 
for private sector use, which in turn, would generate substantial 
economic growth and create thousands of new jobs. More money in the 
pockets of Americans, more job creation by the economy, a simple step 
could make this reality-a balanced budget amendment. Furthermore, a 
balanced budget amendment would also provide the discipline to keep us 
on the course towards reducing our massive national debt.
  Currently, the Federal Government pays hundreds of billions of 
dollars in interest payments on the debt each year. This means we spend 
billions of dollars each year on exactly, nothing. At the end of the 
year we have nothing of substance to show for these expenditures. These 
expenditures do not provide better educations for our children, they do 
not make our Nation safer, they do not further important medical 
research, they do not build new roads. They do nothing but pay the 
obligations created by the fiscal irresponsibility of those who came 
earlier. In the end, we need to ensure that we continue on the road to 
a balanced budget so that we can end the wasteful practice of making 
interest payments on the deficit.
  However, opponents of a balanced budget amendment act like it is 
something extraordinary. In reality, a balanced budget amendment will 
only require the government to do what every American already has to 
do: balance their checkbook. It is simply a promise to the American 
people, and more importantly, to future generations of Americans, that 
the government will act responsibility.
  Thankfully the budget is currently balanced. However, there are no 
guarantees that it will stay as such. We could see dramatic changes in 
economic conditions. The drain on the government caused by the 
retirement of the Baby Boomers may exceed expectations. Future leaders 
may fall pray to the ``general propensity * * * to shift the burden'' 
that Alexander Hamilton wrote about so long ago. We need to establish 
guarantees for future generations. The balanced budget amendment is the 
best such mechanism available.

                          ____________________