Congressional Record, Volume 147 Issue 13 (Wednesday, January 31, 2001)

[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.

____________________