[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 30 (Thursday, March 8, 2001)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2072-S2082]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
By Mr. GREGG:
S. 489. A bill to amend the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 to
clarify the Act, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Health,
Education, Labor, and Pensions.
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, the Family and Medical Leave Act was
intended to be used by families for critical periods such as after the
birth or adoption of a child and leave to care for a child, spouse, or
one's own ``serious medical condition.''
Since its passage, the Family and Medical Leave Act has had a
significant impact on employers' leave practices and policies.
According to the Commission on Family and Medical Leave two-thirds of
covered work sites have changed some aspect of their policies in order
to comply with the Act.
Unfortunately, the Department of Labor's implementation of certain
provisions of the Act has resulted in significant unintended
administrative burden and costs on employers; resentment by co-workers
when the act is misapplied; invasions of privacy by requiring employers
to ask deeply personal questions about employees and family members
planning to take FMLA leave; disruptions to the workplace due to
increased unscheduled and unplanned absences; unnecessary record
keeping; unworkable notice requirements; and conflicts with existing
policies. Despite these problems, which have been well documented in
five separate congressional hearings, including one I chaired and a
House hearing where I testified, the previous administration choose to
ignore those problems and instead pushed for a back door expansion of
the Act through a rule known as Baby U.I., the Birth and Adoption
Unemployment Compensation Rule. The Baby U.I. rule allows states to
raid their unemployment compensation trust funds for an unrelated
program, paid family leave. As a former Governor, I am very concerned
about the impact of the rule on state unemployment trust funds, which
should be preserved for tough economic times.
The Department of Labor's vague and confusing implementing
regulations and interpretations have resulted in the FMLA being
misapplied, misunderstood and mistakenly ignored. Employers aren't sure
if situations like pink eye, ingrown toenails and even the common cold
will be considered by the regulators and the courts to be serious
health conditions. Because of these concerns and well-documented
problems with the Act, I am today introducing the Family and Medical
Leave Clarification Act to make reasonable and much needed technical
corrections to the Family and Medical Leave Act and restore it to its
original congressional intent.
The need for FMLA technical corrections has been confirmed and
strengthened by five congressional hearings and by the recent release
of key surveys. Conclusive evidence of the need for corrections has now
been established. The Congressional hearings demonstrated that the
FMLA's definition of serious health condition is vague and overly broad
due to DOL's interpretations. Additionally, the hearings documented
that the intermittent leave provisions, notification and certification
problems are causing many serious workplace problems. In addition, some
companies testified that Congress should consider allowing employers to
permit employees to take either a paid leave package under an existing
collective bargaining agreement or the 12 weeks of FMLA protected
leave, whichever is greater.
I am concerned that a recent decrease in paid leave for employees has
been attributed to the Administration's problematic FMLA
interpretations. Some research shows a decline in voluntarily provided
paid sick leave and vacation leave by the private sector. The 2000
SHRMR, Society for Human Resource Management, Benefits Survey found
that paid vacation was provided by 87 percent of companies in the year
2000 while the year before it was 94 percent. Paid sick leave was at 85
percent last year and 74 percent this year.
A recent survey conducted by former President Clinton's Department of
Labor confirmed FMLA implementation problems. The Labor Department
report found that the share of covered establishments reporting that it
was somewhat or very easy to comply with the FMLA has declined 21.5
percent from 1995 to 2000.
The recent release of the SHRMR, Society for Human Resource
Management, 2000 FMLA Survey strongly reinforces the need for FMLA
technical corrections. Respondents to the SHRM survey stated that, on
average, 60 percent of employees who take FMLA leave do not schedule
the leave in advance. Consequently, managers often do not have the
ability to plan for work disruptions. Respondents also reported that,
in most cases, the burden of the workload from the employee on leave
falls to employees who are not on leave. When asked whether they have
had to grant FMLA requests they felt were not legitimate, more than
half, 52 percent, said they had. Additionally, more than one-third, 34
percent, of respondents said they were aware of employee complaints
over the past year regarding a co-worker's questionable use of FMLA
leave. The issue of intermittent leave also continues to be extremely
difficult. Three-quarters, 76 percent, of respondents said they would
find compliance easier if the Department of Labor allowed FMLA leave to
be offered and tracked in half-day increments rather than by minutes.
I am very concerned that both the SHRM and the Labor Department
surveys show that FMLA implementation is becoming more difficult, not
easier seven years after it has been in place. I am hopeful that the
Family and Medical Leave Clarification Act will advance in the 107th
Congress on a bipartisan basis to address this problem.
The FMLA Clarification Act has the strong support of the Society for
Human Resource Management, the
[[Page S2073]]
U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National Association of Manufacturers,
the American Society of Healthcare Human Resources Professionals and
close to 300 other leading companies and associations who make up the
Family and Medical Leave Act Technical Corrections Coalition. I have
received a letter of support from the Coalition and ask that it be
printed in the Record. This broad based coalition, shares my belief
that both employers and employees would benefit from making certain
technical corrections to the FMLA, corrections that are needed to
restore congressional intent and to reduce administrative and
compliance problems experienced by employers who are making a good
faith effort to comply with the act.
The bill I am introducing today does several important things:
First, it repeals the Department of Labor's current regulations for
``serious health condition'' and includes language from the Democrats'
own original Committee Report on what types of medical conditions, such
as heart attacks, strokes, spinal injuries, etc., were intended to be
covered. In passing the FMLA, Congress stated that the term ``serious
health condition'' is not intended to cover short-term conditions, for
which treatment and recovery are very brief, recognizing that ``it is
expected that such condition will fall within the most modest sick
leave policies.'' The Department of Labor's current regulations are
extremely confusing and expansive, defining the term ``serious health
condition'' as including, among other things, any absence of more than
3 days in which the employee sees any health care provider and receives
any type of continuing treatment, including a second doctor's visit, or
a prescription, or a referral to a physical therapist, such a broad
definition potentially mandates FMLA leave where an employee sees a
health care provider once, receives a prescription drug, and is
instructed to call the health care provider back if the symptoms do not
improve; the regulations also define as a ``serious health condition''
any absence for a chronic health problem, such as arthritis, asthma,
diabetes, etc., even if the employee does not see a doctor for that
absence and is absent for less than three days.
Second, the bill amends the Act's provisions relating to intermittent
leave to allow employers to require that intermittent leave be taken in
minimum blocks of 4 hours. This would minimize the misuse of FMLA by
employees who use FMLA as an excuse for regular tardiness and routine
justification for early departures.
Third, the bill shifts to the employee the responsibility to request
leave be designated as FMLA leave, and requires the employee to provide
written application within 5 working days of providing notice to the
employer for foreseeable leave. With respect to unforeseeable leave,
the bill requires the employee to provide, at a minimum, oral
notification of the need for the leave not later than the date the
leave commences unless the employee is physically or mentally incapable
of providing notice or submitting the application. Under that
circumstance the employee is provided such additional time as necessary
to provide notice.
Shifting the burden to the employee to request leave be designated as
FMLA leave eliminates the need for the employer to question the
employee and pry into the employee's and the employee's family's
private matters, as required under current law, and helps eliminate
personal liability for employer supervisors who should not be expected
to be experts in the vague and complex regulations which even attorneys
have a difficult time understanding. Under current law, it is the
employer's responsibility in all circumstances to designate leave, paid
or unpaid, as FMLA-qualifying. Failure to do so in a timely manner or
to inform an employee that a specific event does not qualify as FMLA
leave may result in that unqualified leave becoming qualified leave
under FMLA. This scenario has actually been upheld in Court and has
placed an enormous burden on employers to respond within 48 hours of an
employee's leave request. In addition, the courts have held that there
is personal liability for employers under the FMLA and that an
individual manager may be sued and held individually liable for acts
taken based upon or relating to the FMLA. See Freemon v. Foley, 911 F.
Supp. 326, N.D. Ill. 1995, in case of first impression in 7th Circuit,
court stated, ``We believe the FMLA extends to all those who controlled
`in whole or in part' [plaintiff's] ability to take leave of absence
and return to her position'').
Fourth, with respect to leave because of the employee's own serious
health condition, the bill permits an employer to require the employee
to choose between taking unpaid leave provided by the FMLA or paid
absence under an employer's collective bargaining agreement or other
sick leave, sick pay, or disability plan, program, or policy of the
employer. This change provides incentive for employers to continue
their generous sick leave policies while providing a disincentive to
employers considering getting rid of such employee-friendly plans,
including those negotiated by the employer and the employee's union
representative. Paid leave would be subject to the employer's normal
work rules and procedures for taking such leave, including work rules
and procedures dealing with attendance requirements.
The FMLA Clarification Act is a reasonable response to the concerns
that have been raised about the Act. It leaves in place the fundamental
protections of the law while attempting to make changes necessary to
restore FMLA to its original intent and to respond to the very
legitimate concerns that have been raised. I urge my colleagues to
restore the FMLA to its original Congressional intent. I ask that the
test of the bill and a letter of support be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
S. 489
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; REFERENCES; TABLE OF CONTENTS.
(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Family and
Medical Leave Clarification Act''.
(b) References.--Except as otherwise expressly provided,
wherever in this Act an amendment or repeal is expressed in
terms of an amendment to, or repeal of, a section or other
provision, the reference shall be considered to be made to a
section or other provision of the Family and Medical Leave
Act of 1993 (29 U.S.C. 2601 et seq.).
(c) Table of Contents.--The table of contents is as
follows:
Sec. 1. Short title; references; table of contents.
Sec. 2. Findings.
Sec. 3. Definition of serious health condition.
Sec. 4. Intermittent leave.
Sec. 5. Request for leave.
Sec. 6. Substitution of paid leave.
Sec. 7. Regulations.
Sec. 8. Effective date.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
Congress finds the following:
(1) The Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 (referred to
in this section as the ``Act'') is not working as Congress
intended when Congress passed the Act in 1993. Many
employers, including those employers that are nationally
recognized as having generous family-friendly benefit and
leave programs, are experiencing serious problems complying
with the Act.
(2) The Department of Labor's overly broad regulations and
interpretations have caused many of these problems by greatly
expanding the Act's coverage to apply to many nonserious
health conditions.
(3) Documented problems generated by the Act include
significant new administrative and personnel costs, loss of
productivity and scheduling difficulties, unnecessary
paperwork and recordkeeping, and other compliance problems.
(4) The Act often conflicts with employers' paid sick leave
policies, prevents employers from managing absences through
their absence control plans, and results in most leave under
the Act becoming paid leave.
(5) The Commission on Leave, established in title III of
the ACt (29 U.S.C. 2631 et seq.), which reported few
difficulties with compliance with the Act, failed to identify
many of the problems with compliance because the study on
which the report was based was conducted too soon after the
date of enactment of the Act and the most significant
problems with compliance arose only when employers later
sought to comply with the Act's final regulations and
interpretations.
SEC. 3. DEFINITION OF SERIOUS HEALTH CONDITION.
Section 101(11) (29 U.S.C. 2611(11)) is amended--
(1) by redesignating subparagraphs (A) and (B) as clauses
(i) and (ii), respectively;
(2) by aligning the margins of those clauses with the
margins of clause (i) of paragraph (4)(A);
(3) by inserting before ``The'' the following:
``(A) In general.--''; and
(4) by adding at the end the following:
``(B) Exclusions.--The term does not include a short-term
illness, injury, impairment, or condition for which treatment
and recovery are very brief.
[[Page S2074]]
``(C) Examples.--The term includes an illness, injury,
impairment, or physical or mental condition such as a heart
attack, a heart condition requiring extensive therapy or a
surgical procedure, a stroke, a severe respiratory condition,
a spinal injury, appendicitis, pneumonia, emphysema, severe
arthritis, a severe nervous disorder, an injury caused by a
serious accident on or off the job, an ongoing pregnancy, a
miscarriage, a complication or illness related to pregnancy,
such as severe morning sickness, a need for prenatal care,
childbirth, and recovery from childbirth, that involves care
or treatment described in subparagraph (A).''.
SEC. 4. INTERMITTENT LEAVE.
Section 102(b)(1) (29 U.S.C. 2612(b)(1)) is amended by
striking the period at the end of the second sentence and
inserting the following: ``, as certified under section 103
by the health care provider after each leave occurrence. An
employer may require an employee to take intermittent leave
in increments of up to \1/2\ of a workday. An employer may
require an employee who travels as part of the normal day-to-
day work or duty assignment of the employee and who requests
intermittent leave or leave on a reduced schedule to take
leave for the duration of that work or assignment if the
employer cannot reasonably accommodate the employee's
request.''.
SEC. 5. REQUEST FOR LEAVE.
Section 102(e) (29 U.S.C. 2612(e)) is amended by inserting
after paragraph (2) the following:
``(3) Request for leave.--If an employer does not exercise,
under subsection (d)(2), the right to require an employee to
substitute other employer-provided leave for leave under this
title, the employer may require the employee who wants leave
under this title to request the leave in a timely manner. If
an employer requires a timely request under this paragraph,
an employee who fails to make a timely request may be denied
leave under this title.
``(4) Timeliness of request for leave.--For purposes of
paragraph (3), a request for leave shall be considered to be
timely if--
``(A) in the case of foreseeable leave, the employee--
``(i) provides the applicable advance notice required by
paragraphs (1) and (2); and
``(ii) submits any written application required by the
employer for the leave not later than 5 working days after
providing the notice to the employer; and
``(B) in the case of unforeseeable leave, the employee--
``(i) notifies the employer orally of the need for the
leave--
``(I) not later than the date the leave commences; or
``(II) during such additional period as may be necessary,
if the employee is physically or mentally incapable of
providing the notification; and
``(ii) submits any written application required by the
employer for the leave--
``(I) not later than 5 working days after providing the
notice to the employer; or
``(II) during such additional period as may be necessary,
if the employee is physically or mentally incapable of
submitting the application.''.
SEC. 6. SUBSTITUTION OF PAID LEAVE.
Section 102(d)(2) (29 U.S.C. 2612(d)(2)) is amended by
adding at the end the following:
``(C) Paid absence.--Notwithstanding subparagraphs (A) and
(B), with respect to leave provided under subparagraph (D) of
subsection (a)(1), where an employer provides a paid absence
under the employer's collective bargaining agreement, a
welfare benefit plan under the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act of 1974 (29 U.S.C. 1001 et seq.), or under any
other sick leave, sick pay, or disability plan, program, or
policy of the employer, the employer may require the employee
to choose between the paid absence and unpaid leave provided
under this title.''.
SEC. 7. REGULATIONS.
(a) Existing Regulations.--
(1) Review.--Not later than 90 days after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Labor shall review
all regulations issued before that date to implement the
Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 (29 U.S.C. 2601 et
seq.), including the regulations published in sections
825.114 and 825.115 of title 29, Code of Federal Regulations.
(2) Termination.--The regulations, and opinion letters
promulgated under the regulations, shall cease to be
effective on the effective date of final regulations issued
under subsection (b)(2)(B), except as described in subsection
(c).
(b) Revised Regulations.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary of Labor shall issue revised
regulations implementing the Family and Medical Leave Act of
1993 that reflect the amendments made by this Act.
(2) New regulations.--The Secretary of Labor shall issue--
(A) proposed regulations described in paragraph (1) not
later than 90 days after the date of enactment of this Act;
and
(B) final regulations described in paragraph (1) not later
than 180 days after that date of enactment.
(3) Effective date.--The final regulations take effect 90
days after the date on which the regulations are issued.
(e) Transitioin.--The regulations described in subsection
(a) shall apply to actions taken by an employer prior to the
effective date of final regulations issued under subsection
(b)(2)(B), with respect to leave under the Family and Medical
Leave Act of 1993.
SEC. 8. EFFECTIVE DATE
The amendments made by this Act shall take effect 180 days
after the date of enactment of this Act.
____
FMLA,
Technical Corrections Coalition,
Springfield, VA, February 7, 2001.
Hon. Judd Gregg,
Chairman,
Subcommittee on Children and Families,
Hart Senate Office Building,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Gregg: the Family and Medical Leave Act
Technical Corrections Coalition would like to commend you for
reintroducing the Family and Medical Leave Clarification Act.
As you know, the Coalition is a diverse, broad-based,
nonpartisan group of nearly 300 leading companies and
associations. Members of the Coalition are fully committed to
complying with both the spirit and the letter of the FMLA and
strongly believe that employers should provide policies and
programs to accommodate the individual work-life needs of
their employees. At the same time, members of the Coalition
believe that the FMLA should be fixed to protect those
employees that Congress aimed to assist while streamlining
administrative problems that have arisen. Since the FMLA is
not working properly, the Coalition does not support
expansions to the Act.
Unfortunately, FMLA implementation problems, which were
well documented during your July 14, 1999 hearing and four
other Congressional hearings, continue to grow. The need for
your FMLA technical corrections legislation has been
confirmed and even strengthened over the past year through
additional Congressional hearings and through the release of
new survey information: (1) the SHRM (Society for Human
Resource Management) 2000 FMLA Survey and (2) the new
Department of Labor (DOL) FMLA Survey. While the SHRM survey
is a more accurate national measure of FMLA implementation
since it was specifically directed to those actually charged
with FMLA compliance, both the SHRM and DOL surveys
essentially reached the same conclusion: FMLA problems are
growing. For example:
Both the DOL and SHRM surveys found that more employers are
finding the FMLA and its regulations and interpretations more
difficult than they did several years ago.
The Labor Department report found that the share of covered
establishments reporting that it was somewhat or very easy to
comply with the FMLA declined 21.5 percent from 1995 to 2000.
The fact that both the Labor Department and SHRM surveys show
that FMLA implementation is becoming more difficult, not
easier seven years after it has been in place is of great
concern.
The DOL survey conducted by former President Clinton's
Labor Department casts significant doubt on the need for
federally mandated FMLA expansions as the best way to provide
increased flexibility for workers. For example, the Labor
Department survey found that the gap between covered and non-
covered establishments has narrowed since 1995, as non-
covered establishments are significantly more likely to offer
FMLA-type benefits in 2000 than they were five years earlier.
Interestingly, non-covered employers are more likely than
covered establishments to offer leave for school-related
functions or routine medical appointments.
The SHRM report confirmed Congressional hearing findings
that the issue of intermittent leave continues to be
extremely difficult. Three-quarters (76 percent) of
respondents said they would find compliance easier if the
Department of Labor allowed FMLA leave to be offered and
tracked in half-day increments rather than by minutes.
Additionally, a survey by CORE, Inc. survey found that the
majority (54%) does not feel confident that their company is
tracking FMLA correctly.
In all SHRM and Labor Department surveys, past and present,
the most commonly reported method of covering work when an
employee takes leave was to assign the work temporarily to
other employees. The SHRM survey showed that a full 34% of
human resource professionals were aware of complaints by
coworkers due to questionable use of FMLA.
The fact that both the Labor Department and SHRM surveys
show that FMLA implementation is becoming more difficult, not
easier, seven years after it has been in place is of great
concern.
Thank you for your leadership and continued commitment to
restoring the FMLA to its original Congressional intent
through FMLA technical corrections while preserving the
spirit of the Act. The entire FMLA Technical Corrections
Coalition looks forward to working with you to ensure its
success.
Respectfully,
Deanna R. Gelak, SPHR,
Executive Director.
______
By Mr. EDWARDS:
S. 490. A bill to provide grants to law enforcement agencies that
ensure that law enforcement officers employed by such agencies are
afforded due process when involved in a case that may lead to
dismissal, demotion, suspension, or transfer; to the Committee on the
Judiciary.
[[Page S2075]]
Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Law
Enforcement Officers Due Process Act of 2001. Every day our nation's
police officers put their lives on the line in the fight against crime.
Every time they patrol a beat they put their own safety at risk to
protect our children and make our country a better place to live and
work. We all owe a great deal to these brave men and women.
Working police officers spend their lives among the public
safeguarding the innocent and apprehending those who have committed
crimes. Much of this contact can be stressful for everyone involved.
Perhaps an individual has been stopped by an officer for the suspected
violation of a law. Or maybe the officer is assisting someone who is
the victim of a crime. Due to the circumstances, these are often
unpleasant situations. And unfortunately, in some instances, contact
with the police officer may become adversarial and generate complaints
about the officer's actions.
These complaints range from accusations that an officer took too long
to arrive at a crime scene, used too much force, or was not forceful
enough, to claims that the officer was rude or didn't show proper
respect. Some complaints against officers are legitimate. However, some
complaints are generated to intimidate an officer who is simply doing
his or her job, into dropping charges. Any one of these complaints can
get an officer fired, suspended, or otherwise punished without the
benefit of due process.
A patchwork of state and local laws currently governs the rights of
officers when they are involved in a case that may lead to dismissal,
demotion, suspension or transfer. Thirty-five states have state and/or
local laws in place that govern the administrative due process rights
of law enforcement officers. However, 15 states do not have any of
these much-deserved due process protections for their law enforcement
officers.
The Law Enforcement Officers Due Process Act is a common-sense
measure designed to replace arbitrary and ad hoc investigatory
procedures with consistent standards. The legislation will provide
additional funding to law enforcement agencies that either have in
place, or currently do not have but certify they will implement,
administrative due process for their law enforcement officers. An
agency will be eligible for grant money if its administrative
procedures include the right of a law enforcement officer under
investigation to: (1) a hearing before a fair and impartial board or
hearing officer; (2) be represented by an attorney or other officer at
the expense of the officer under investigation; (3) confront any
witness testifying against him or her; and (4) record all meetings he
or she attends. In many instances, an employer with direct control over
an officer is also the investigator. That is why providing basic,
explicitly stated rights to officers under investigation is crucial to
maintaining impartial investigations. These rights will not interfere
with the management of state and local internal investigations. They
will merely ensure that officers receive the benefit of fair and
objective investigations, whether a complaint against them is
legitimate or not.
Some individuals may be concerned that providing these rights would
delay removal of an officer who is ultimately found to have deserved
disciplinary action taken against them. However, I'd like to emphasize
that my legislation would not prevent the immediate suspension of an
officer whose continued presence on the job is considered to be a
substantial and immediate threat to the welfare of the law enforcement
agency or the public; who refuses to obey a direct order issued in
conformance with the agency's rules and regulations; or who is accused
of committing an illegal act.
The Law Enforcement Officers Due Process Act does not force a law
enforcement agency to implement due process rights for its officers.
Rather, it encourages agencies to do the right thing by offering them
additional funds if they establish written procedures for determining
if a complaint is valid or merely designed to cause trouble for the
officer.
I urge my colleagues who represent states that do not have law
enforcement officers' due process rights laws to cosponsor my bill and
give their police officers the protections they deserve. I also urge my
colleagues who represent states that have various local laws in place
to cosponsor my bill. By doing so they will help eliminate the
disparity that exists among local jurisdictions, and guarantee that
every single officer in their state will have a minimum baseline of
rights to help guarantee fair and impartial investigations.
Crime rates are down across the nation. We owe a tremendous debt of
gratitude to our nation's police officers for helping make this happen.
Our communities, our schools, and our places of business would not
enjoy the level of security they have today without the efforts of law
enforcement. Enacting the Law Enforcement Officers Due Process Act is
the least we can do to show officers that we will fight for all of them
just like they fight for all of us every day.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the
Record following my remarks.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 490
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 ``Law Enforcement Officers Due
Process Act of 2001''.
SEC. 2. PROTECTION FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS.
(a) Program Authorized.--The Attorney General is authorized
to provide grants to law enforcement agencies that are
eligible under subsection (b).
(b) Eligibility.--To be eligible to receive a grant under
this section, a law enforcement agency shall--
(1) have in effect an administrative process that complies
with the requirements of subsection (c); or
(2) certify that it will establish, not later than 2 years
after the date of enactment of this Act, an administrative
process that complies with the requirements of subsection
(c).
(c) Officer Rights.--The administrative process referred to
in subsection (b) shall require that a law enforcement agency
that investigates a law enforcement officer for matters which
could reasonably lead to disciplinary action against such
officer, including dismissal, demotion, suspension, or
transfer provide recourse for the officer that, at a minimum,
includes the following:
(1) Access to administrative process.--The agency has
written procedures to ensure that any law enforcement officer
is afforded access to any existing administrative process
established by the employing agency prior to the imposition
of any such disciplinary action against the officer.
(2) Specific procedures.--The procedures used under
paragraph (1) include, the right of a law enforcement officer
under investigation--
(A) to a hearing before a fair and impartial board or
hearing officer;
(B) to be represented by an attorney or other officer at
the expense of such officer;
(C) to confront any witness testifying against such
officer; and
(D) to record all meetings in which such officer attends.
(d) Immediate Suspension.--Nothing in this section shall
prevent the immediate suspension with pay of a law
enforcement officer--
(1) whose continued presence on the job is considered to be
a substantial and immediate threat to the welfare of the law
enforcement agency or the public;
(2) who refuses to obey a direct order issued in
conformance with the agency's written and disseminated rules
and regulations; or
(3) who is accused of committing an illegal act.
(e) Distribution of Funds.--From the amount made available
to carry out this section, the Attorney General shall
allocate--
(1) 50 percent for law enforcement agencies that are
eligible under paragraph (1) of subsection (b); and
(2) 50 percent for law enforcement agencies that are
eligible under paragraph (2) of subsection (b).
(f) Regulations.--The Attorney General may prescribe such
regulations as may be necessary to carry out this section.
(g) Definitions.--For purposes of this section--
(1) the term ``law enforcement agency'' means any State or
unit of local government within the State that employs law
enforcement officers; and
(2) the term ``law enforcement officer'' means an officer
with the powers of arrest as defined by the laws of each
State and required to be certified under the laws of such
State.
(h) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized
to be appropriated to carry out this section $10,000,000 for
fiscal year 2002 and such sums as may be necessary for each
of the 4 succeeding fiscal years.
______
By Mr. CAMPBELL:
S. 491. A bill to amend the Reclamation Wastewater and Groundwater
[[Page S2076]]
Study and Facilities Act to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to
participate in the design, planning, and construction of the Denver
Water Reuse project; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I take this opportunity to reintroduce a
bill that will help millions of water consumers throughout my home
state of Colorado. My bill, the Denver Water Reuse Project, is based on
legislation I previously introduced in the last Congress. The full
Senate passed this legislation last year, but time ran out in the 106th
Congress before the House could act.
The Denver Water Department has developed a plan to re-use non-
potable water for irrigation and industrial uses. In the arid West,
where growing populations and changing values are placing increasing
demands on existing water supplies, water availability remains an
important issue throughout the West. Recent conflicts are particularly
apparent where agricultural needs for water are often in direct
conflict with urban needs. This legislation will help remedy some of
this conflict.
The State of Colorado, the Colorado Water Congress, the Denver Board
of Water Commissioners, and the Mayor of Denver endorsed this
legislation last year. I am pleased to assist these interested parties
with this worthwhile proposal.
The Denver Water Department serves over a million customers and is
one of the largest water suppliers in the Rocky Mountain region. Over
the past several years Denver Water has developed a plan to treat and
re-use some of its water supply for uses not involving human
consumption. In this manner, Denver will stretch its water supply
without the cost and potential environmental disruption of building new
projects. It will also ease the demand on fresh drinking-quality water
supplies.
The Denver Water Reuse Project will treat secondary wastewater which
is water that has already been used once in Denver's system. It is an
environmentally and economically viable method for extending and
conserving our limited water supplies. The water quality will meet all
Colorado and federal standards. The water will still be clean and
odorless, but since it will be used for irrigation and industrial uses
around the Denver International Airport and the Rocky Mountain Wildlife
Refuge, the additional expense to treat it for consumption will be
avoided.
In the West, naturally scarce water supplies and increasing urban
populations have increased our need for water re-use, recycling,
conservation, and storage proposals. These are all keys to successfully
meet the water needs of everyone. This plan would benefit many
Coloradans, and would help relieve many of the water burdens faced in
the Denver region. Again, I'd like to thank the interested parties for
their support, and I am hopeful this bill can be quickly passed and put
into effect.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and a copy of the
letter of support from the Mayor of Denver be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
S. 491
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. DENVER WATER REUSE PROJECT.
(a) In General.--The Reclamation Wastewater and Groundwater
Study and Facilities Act (43 U.S.C. 390h et seq.) is
amended--
(1) by redesignating sections 1631, 1632, 1633, and 1634
(43 U.S.C. 390h-13, 390h-14, 390h-15, 390h-16) as sections
1632, 1633, 1634, and 1635, respectively; and
(2) by inserting after section 1630 the following:
``SEC. 1631. DENVER WATER REUSE PROJECT.
``(a) Authorization.--The Secretary, in cooperation with
the appropriate State and local authorities, may participate
in the design, planning, and construction of the Denver Water
Reuse project to reclaim and reuse water in the service area
of the Denver Water Department of the city and county of
Denver, Colorado.
``(b) Cost Share.--The Federal share of the cost of the
project described in subsection (a) shall not exceed 25
percent of the total cost.
``(c) Limitation.--Funds provided by the Secretary shall
not be used for the operation or maintenance of the project
described in subsection (a).''.
(b) Conforming Amendments.--
(1) The Reclamation Wastewater and Groundwater Study and
Facilities Act (as amended by subsection (a)(1)) is amended--
(A) in section 1632(a), by striking ``1630'' and inserting
``1631'';
(B) in section 1633(c), by striking ``section 1633'' and
inserting ``section 1634''; and
(C) in section 1634, by striking ``section 1632'' and
inserting ``section 1633''.
(2) The table of contents in section 2 of the Reclamation
Projects Authorization and Adjustment Act of 1992 is amended
by striking the items relating to sections 1631 through 1634
and inserting the following:
``Sec. 1631. Denver water reuse project.
``Sec. 1632. Authorization of appropriations.
``Sec. 1633. Groundwater study.
``Sec. 1634. Authorization of appropriations.
``Sec. 1635. Willow Lake natural treatment system project.''.
____
Office of the Mayor,
Denver, CO, March 5, 2001.
Hon. Ben Nighthorse Campbell,
U.S. Senator, Russell Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Campbell: Once again, I want to express my
appreciation for your support of legislation adding the
Denver Water Non-potable Reuse Project to the Bureau of
Reclamation's approved projects list.
We are proud to include non-potable reuse, coupled with
water conservation and system refinements, as core components
of the Denver Water 20-year plan. We certainly acknowledge
the importance and value of our limited water resources
throughout Colorado. Reuse efforts allow us to reduce or
minimize the Denver metro area's demands on limited Colorado
River sources.
Once again, thank you for your support.
Yours truly,
Wellington E. Webb,
Mayor.
______
By Mr. DASCHLE (for himself and Mr. Johnson):
S. 493. A bill to provide for the establishment of a Sioux Nation
Economic Development Council; the Committee on Indian Affairs.
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, today I am introducing a bill along with
Senator Johnson, to amend the Wakpa Sica Reconciliation Place
legislation that was enacted in the final days of the 106th Congress.
The original version of the Wakpa Sica bill that the Senate approved
last year established a center of law, history, culture and economic
development for the Lakota, Dakota and Nakota tribes of the upper
Midwest. The Reconciliation Place authorized by the bill will become a
focal point for the preservation of Sioux law and culture. It will
enhance the knowledge and understanding of the Sioux by displaying and
interpreting their history, art, and culture. It will also provide an
important repository for the Sioux Nation history and the family
histories for members of tribes, and other important historical
documents.
Regrettably, the Reconciliation Place law that ultimately passed in
the 106th Congress did not include the economic development title to
strengthen tribal communities and expand opportunities for tribal
members and businesses. That provision, which I strongly support, was
dropped due to objections from the House of Representatives that
threatened enactment of the entire bill, which included Wakpa Sica.
The bill that I am introducing today would authorize a Sioux Nation
Economic Development Council. It complements the Wakpa Sica
Reconciliation Place by providing opportunities for further economic
development and regional job creation for the Great Sioux Nation.
The Sioux Nation Economic Development Council will assist tribal
governments and individuals in promoting economic growth on the
reservations and surrounding communities. It will coordinate economic
development and will centralize the expertise and technical support to
help tribes obtain federal assistance. It will raise funds from private
donations to match federal contributions. Finally, it will provide
grants, loans, scholarships and technical assistance to tribes and
their members, to ultimately help tribes generate jobs.
The strength of the Reconciliation Place lies in its diversity of
purpose. It will have many funding sources, both public and private.
Each agency mentioned in the bill will assist in providing funding and
technical assistance to the tribes and tribal members through the
Reconciliation Place. This assistance will not diminish the government-
to-government policy established by the United States for individual
tribes. Instead, it will provide a focal point for governmental and
private organizations to expand their ability to help the entire Great
Sioux Nation.
The United Sioux Tribes, the State of South Dakota and Mike Jandreau,
[[Page S2077]]
Chairman of the Lower Brule Sioux Tribe, have been working on this
project for many years. I share their enthusiasm for the concept and
commitment to building a comprehensive center for Sioux culture, law
and economic development. Enactment of this legislation is necessary to
fulfill that commitment to the Great Sioux Nation.
I strongly urge my colleagues to approve this legislation this year.
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. 493
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SIOUX NATION ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL.
Title IV of the Omnibus Indian Advancement Act (Public Law
106-568) is amended--
(1) in section 401--
(A) in paragraph (5), by striking ``and'' at the end;
(B) in paragraph (6), by striking the period and inserting
``; and''; and
(C) by adding at the end the following:
``(7) the establishment of a Native American Economic
Development Council will assist in promoting economic growth
and reducing poverty on reservations of the Sioux Nation by--
``(A) coordinating economic development efforts;
``(B) centralizing expertise concerning Federal assistance;
and
``(C) facilitating the raising of funds from private
donations to meet matching requirements under certain Federal
assistance programs.''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``Subtitle C--Sioux Nation Economic Development Council
``SEC. 431. ESTABLISHMENT OF SIOUX NATION ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL.
``(a) Establishment.--There is established the Sioux Nation
Economic Development Council (in this subtitle referred to as
the `Council') as a part of the Wakpa Sica Reconciliation
Place. The Council shall be a charitable and nonprofit
corporation and shall not be considered to be an agency or
establishment of the United States.
``(b) Purposes.--The purposes of the Council are--
``(1) to encourage, accept, and administer private gifts of
property;
``(2) to use those gifts as a source of matching funds
necessary to receive Federal assistance;
``(3) to provide members of Indian tribes with the skills
and resources necessary for establishing successful
businesses;
``(4) to provide grants and loans to members of Indian
tribes to establish or operate small businesses;
``(5) to provide scholarships for members of Indian tribes
who are students pursuing an education in business or a
business-related subject; and
``(6) to provide technical assistance to Indian tribes and
members thereof in obtaining Federal assistance.
``SEC. 432. BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE COUNCIL.
``(a) Establishment and Membership.--
``(1) In general.--The Council shall have a governing Board
of Directors (in this subtitle referred to as the `Board').
``(2) Membership.--The Board shall consist of 11 directors,
who shall be appointed by the Secretary as follows:
``(A)(i) Nine members appointed under this paragraph shall
represent the 9 reservations of South Dakota.
``(ii) Each member described in clause (i) shall--
``(I) represent 1 of the reservations described in clause
(i); and
``(II) be selected from among nominations submitted by the
appropriate Indian tribe.
``(B) One member appointed under this paragraph shall be
selected from nominations submitted by the Governor of South
Dakota.
``(C) One member appointed under this paragraph shall be
selected from nominations submitted by the most senior member
of the South Dakota Congressional delegation.
``(3) Citizenship.--Each member of the Board shall be a
citizen of the United States.
``(b) Appointments and Terms.--
``(1) Appointment.--Not later than December 31, 2001, the
Secretary shall appoint the directors of the Board under
subsection (a)(2).
``(2) Terms.--Each director shall serve for a term of 2
years.
``(3) Vacancies.--A vacancy on the Board shall be filled
not later than 60 days after that vacancy occurs, in the
manner in which the original appointment was made.
``(4) Limitation on terms.--No individual may serve more
than 3 consecutive terms as a director.
``(c) Chairman.--The Chairman shall be elected by the Board
from its members for a term of 2 years.
``(d) Quorum.--A majority of the members of the Board shall
constitute a quorum for the transaction of business.
``(e) Meetings.--The Board shall meet at the call of the
Chairman at least once a year. If a director misses 3
consecutive regularly scheduled meetings, that individual may
be removed from the Board by the Secretary and that vacancy
filled in accordance with subsection (b)(3).
``(f) Reimbursement of Expenses.--Members of the Board
shall serve without pay, but may be reimbursed for the actual
and necessary traveling and subsistence expenses incurred by
them in the performance of the duties of the Council in
accordance with section 434(a).
``(g) General Powers.--
``(1) Powers.--The Board may complete the organization of
the Council by--
``(A) appointing officers and employees;
``(B) adopting a constitution and bylaws consistent with
the purposes of the Council under this subtitle; and
``(C) carrying out such other actions as may be necessary
to carry out the purposes of the Council under this subtitle.
``(2) Effect of appointment.--Appointment to the Board
shall not constitute employment by, or the holding of an
office of, the United States for the purposes of any Federal
law.
``(3) Limitations.--The following limitations shall apply
with respect to the appointment of officers and employees of
the Council:
``(A) Officers and employees may not be appointed until the
Council has sufficient funds to pay them for their service.
``(B) Officers and employees of the Council--
``(i) shall be appointed without regard to the provisions
of title 5, United States Code, governing appointments in the
competitive service; and
``(ii) may be paid without regard to the provisions of
chapter 51 and subchapter III of chapter 53 of such title
relating to classification and General Schedule pay rates.
``(4) Secretary of the board.--The first officer or
employee appointed by the Board shall be the Secretary of the
Board. The Secretary of the Board shall--
``(A) serve, at the direction of the Board, as its chief
operating officer; and
``(B) be knowledgeable and experienced in matters relating
to economic development and Indian affairs.
``SEC. 433. POWERS AND OBLIGATIONS OF THE COUNCIL.
``(a) Corporate Powers.--To carry out its purposes under
section 431(b), the Council shall have, in addition to the
powers otherwise given it under this subtitle, the usual
powers of a corporation acting as a trustee under South
Dakota law, including the power--
``(1) to accept, receive, solicit, hold, administer, and
use any gift, devise, or bequest, either absolutely or in
trust, of real or personal property or any income therefrom
or other interest therein;
``(2) to acquire by purchase or exchange any real or
personal property or interest therein;
``(3) unless otherwise required by the instrument of
transfer, to sell, donate, lease, invest, reinvest, retain,
or otherwise dispose of any property or income therefrom;
``(4) to borrow money and issue bonds, debentures, or other
debt instruments;
``(5) to sue and be sued, and complain and defend itself in
any court of competent jurisdiction, except that the
directors shall not be personally liable, except for gross
negligence;
``(6) to enter into contracts or other arrangements with
public agencies and private organizations and persons and to
make such payments as may be necessary to carry out its
function; and
``(7) to carry out any action that is necessary and proper
to carry out the purposes of the Council.
``(b) Other Powers and Obligations.--
``(1) In general.--The Council--
``(A) shall have perpetual succession;
``(B) may conduct business throughout the several States,
territories, and possessions of the United States and abroad;
``(C) shall have its principal offices in South Dakota; and
``(D) shall at all times maintain a designated agent
authorized to accept service of process for the Council.
``(2) Service of notice.--The serving of notice to, or
service of process upon, the agent required under paragraph
(1)(D), or mailed to the business address of such agent,
shall be deemed as service upon or notice to the Council.
``(c) Seal.--The Council shall have an official seal
selected by the Board, which shall be judicially noticed.
``(d) Certain Interests.--If any current or future interest
of a gift, devise, or bequest under subsection (a)(1) is for
the benefit of the Council, the Council may accept the gift,
devise, or bequest under such subsection, even if that
gift,devise, or bequest is encumbered, restricted, or subject
to beneficial interests of 1 or more private persons.
SEC. 434. ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES AND SUPPORT.
``(a) Provision of Services.--The Secretary may provide
personnel, facilities, and other administrative services to
the Council, including reimbursement of expenses under
section 432(f), not to exceed then current applicable Federal
Government per diem rates, for a period ending not later than
5 years after the date of enactment of this subtitle.
``(b) Reimbursement.--
``(1) In general.--The Council may reimburse the Secretary
for any administrative service provided under subsection (a).
The
[[Page S2078]]
Secretary shall deposit any reimbursement received under this
subsection into the Treasury to the credit of the
appropriations then current and chargeable for the cost of
providing such services.
``(2) Continuation of certain assistance.--Notwithstanding
any other provision of this section, the Secretary is
authorized to continue to provide facilities, and necessary
support services for such facilities, to the Council after
the date specified in subsection (a), on a space available,
reimbursable cost basis.
``SEC. 435. VOLUNTEER STATUS.
``(a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
law, the Secretary may accept, without regard to the civil
service classification laws, rules, or regulations, the
services of the Council, the Board, and the officers and
employees of the Board, without compensation from the
Secretary, as volunteers in the performance of the functions
authorized under this subtitle.
``(b) Incidental Expenses.--The Secretary is authorized to
provide for incidental expenses, including transportation,
lodging, and subsistence to the officers and employees
serving as volunteers under subsection (a).
``SEC. 436. AUDITS, REPORT REQUIREMENTS, AND PETITION OF
ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR EQUITABLE RELIEF.
``(a) Audits.--The Council shall be subject to auditing and
reporting requirements under section 10101 of title 36,
United States Code, in the same manner as is a corporation
under part B of that title.
``(b) Report.--As soon as practicable after the end of each
fiscal year, the Council shall transmit to Congress a report
of its proceedings and activities during such year, including
a full and complete statement of its receipts, expenditures,
and investments.
``(c) Relief With Respect to Certain Council Acts or
Failure To Act.--If the Council--
``(1) engages in, or threatens to engage in, any act,
practice, or policy that is inconsistent with the purposes of
the Council under section 431(b); or
``(2) refuses, fails, or neglects to discharge the
obligations of the Council under this subtitle, or threatens
to do so;
then the Attorney General of the United States may petition
in the United States District Court for the District of
Columbia for such equitable relief as may be necessary or
appropriate.
``SEC. 437. UNITED STATES RELEASE FROM LIABILITY.
The United States shall not be liable for any debts,
defaults, acts, or omissions of the Council, the Board, or
the officers or employees of the Council. The full faith and
credit of the United States shall not extend to any
obligation of the Council, the Board, or the officers or
employees of the Council.
``SEC. 438. GRANTS TO COUNCIL; TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE.
``(a) Grants.--
``(1) In general.--Not less frequently than annually, the
Secretary shall award a grant to the Council, to be used to
carry out the purposes specified in section 431(b) in
accordance with this section.
``(2) Grant agreements.--As a condition to receiving a
grant under this section, the secretary of the Board, with
the approval of the Board, shall enter into an agreement with
the Secretary that specifies the duties of the Council in
carrying out the grant and the information that is required
to be included in the agreement under paragraphs (3) and (4).
``(3) Matching requirements.--Each agreement entered into
under paragraph (2) shall specify that the Federal share of a
grant under this section shall be 80 percent of the cost of
the activities funded under the grant. No amount may be made
available to the Council for a grant under this section,
unless the Council has raised an amount from private persons
or State or local government agencies equivalent to the non-
Federal share of the grant.
``(4) Prohibition on the use of federal funds for
administrative expenses.--Each agreement entered into under
paragraph (2) shall specify that a reasonable amount of the
Federal funds made available to the Council (under the grant
that is the subject of the agreement or otherwise), but in no
event more that 15 percent of such funds, may be used by the
Council for administrative expenses of the Council, including
salaries, travel and transportation expenses, and other
overhead expenses.
``(b) Technical Assistance.--
``(1) In general.--Each agency head listed in paragraph (2)
shall provide to the Council such technical assistance as may
be necessary for the Council to carry out the purposes
specified in section 431(b).
``(2) Agency heads.--The agency heads listed in this
paragraph are as follows:
``(A) The Secretary of Housing and Urban Development.
``(B) The Secretary of the Interior.
``(C) The Commissioner of Indian Affairs.
``(D) The Assistant Secretary for Economic Development of
the Department of Commerce.
``(E) The Administrator of the Small Business
Administration.
``(F) The Administrator of the Rural Development
Administration.
``SEC. 439. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
``(a) Authorization.--There are authorized to be
appropriated to the Secretary, $10,000,000 for each of fiscal
years 2002 through 2006, to be used in accordance with
section 438.
``(b) Additional Authorization.--The amounts authorized to
be appropriated under this section are in addition to any
amounts provided or made available to the Council under any
other provision of Federal law.
``SEC. 440. DEFINITION.
``In this section the term `Secretary' means the Secretary
of Commerce.''.
______
By Mr. HATCH.
S. 495. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow an
above-the-line deduction for certain professional development expenses
and classroom supplies of elementary and secondary school teachers; to
the Committee on Finance.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation
designed to increase tax fairness for America's primary and secondary
school teachers.
Over the past few years, much has been said about the inequities of
some of the provisions of the Internal Revenue Code. Indeed, one does
not need to look very far in the Code to begin to see provisions that
are just plain unfair. I would like to highlight just one egregious
example of this unfairness today, and introduce legislation to begin to
rectify it.
Mr. President, our public school teachers are some of the unheralded
heroes of our society. These women and men dedicate their careers to
educating the young people of America. School teachers labor in often
difficult and even dangerous circumstances. In most places, including
in my home state of Utah, the salary of the average public school
teacher is significantly below that of other similarly educated and
experienced professionals in our society.
Moreover, school teachers find themselves further disadvantaged by
unfair treatment from the tax code as to the deductibility of
professional development expenses and of the out-of-pocket costs of
classroom materials that practically all teachers find themselves
supplying. Let me explain.
Like many other professionals, most elementary and secondary school
teachers regularly incur expenses to keep themselves current in their
field of knowledge. These include subscriptions to journals and other
periodicals as well as the cost of courses and seminars designed to
improve their knowledge or teaching skills. These expenditures are
necessary to keep our teachers up to date on the latest ideas,
techniques, and trends so that they can provide our children with the
best education possible.
Furthermore, almost all teachers find themselves providing basic
classroom materials for their students. Because of tight education
budgets, most schools do not provide 100 percent of the material
teachers need to adequately present their lessons. As a result,
dedicated teachers incur personal expenses for copies, art supplies,
books, puzzles and games, paper, pencils, and countless other needs. If
not for the willingness of teachers to purchase these supplies
themselves, many students would simply go without needed materials.
I realize that many employees incur expenses for professional
development and out-of-pocket expenses. In many cases, however, these
costs are fully reimbursed by the employer. This is seldom the case
with school teachers. Other professionals who are self-employed are
able to fully deduct these types of expenses.
Under the current tax law, unreimbursed employee expenses are
deductible, as miscellaneous itemized deductions. However, there are
two practical hurdles that effectively make these expenses non-
deductible for most teachers. The first hurdle is that the total amount
of a taxpayer's deductible miscellaneous deductions must exceed 2
percent of adjusted gross income before they begin to be deductible.
The second hurdle is that the amount in excess of the 2 percent floor,
if any, combined with all other deductions the taxpayer has, must
exceed the standard deduction before the teacher can itemize. Only
about 30 percent of taxpayers have enough deductions to itemize. The
unfortunate effect of these two limitations is that, as a practical
matter, only a small proportion of teachers are able to deduct these
expenses.
Let me illustrate this unfair situation with an example. Let us
consider the case of a fifth-year high school chemistry teacher in Utah
who I will call Wendy Ruffner. Wendy is single
[[Page S2079]]
and earns $35,000 per year. Last year she incurred $750 in expenses for
chemistry periodicals and for a course she took over the summer to
increase her knowledge of chemistry. Wendy also incurred $100 in out-
of-pocket expenses for classroom supplies such as copies, periodical
charts, and equipment for classroom experiments.
Under current law, Wendy's expenditures are deductible, subject to
the limitations I mentioned. The first limitation is that her expenses
must exceed 2 percent of her income before they begin to be deductible.
Two percent of $35,000 is $700. Thus only $140 of her $840 total
expenses is deductible, that portion that exceeds $700.
As a single taxpayer, Wendy's standard deduction for 2000 is $4,400.
Her total itemized deductions, including the $140 miscellaneous
deduction for professional expenses, fall short of the standard
deduction threshold. Therefore, not even the $140 of the original $840
in professional expenses is deductible for Wendy. What the first
limitation did not block, the second one did.
The legislation I introduce today, the Tax Equity for School
Teachers, or TEST Act, would eliminate the unfairness teachers face in
regards to these limitations by making all professional development and
out-of-pocket expenses an above-the-line deduction. This means a
teacher could deduct these expenses without regard to the 2 percent of
AGI limitation and whether he or she itemizes or not.
Let us return to my previous example of Wendy Ruffner. Under this
bill, Wendy would be allowed to deduct all $840 of her professional
expenses from her taxable income. This would help provide tax equity,
and a measure of much-needed tax relief for an underpaid professional.
Some might argue that this would be giving teachers preferential
treatment. I disagree. Most organizations provide training for their
employees that is fully deductible to the organization and non-taxable
to the employee. Yet, public teachers, who are some of the most vital
professionals in our society, are left to foot the bill on their own.
Office supplies and instructional materials are also fully deductible
to businesses. Shouldn't teachers who provide these similar materials
for their classrooms be afforded the same tax treatment?
School teachers deserve better tax treatment than what they receive.
With the low pay teachers typically receive, it is no wonder that many
areas of the country are facing severe shortages of experienced
teachers. The tax code is compounding the problem by adding insult to
injury. We need to remove the unfair disincentives that discourage
motivated and qualified individuals from pursuing teaching as a
profession.
I note that President Bush's tax cut plan also recognizes this need
and provides for a deduction of up to $400 in teachers' out-of-pocket
classroom expenses. This is a good step in the right direction. My
bill, however, provides an unlimited deduction for out-of-pocket
expenses and goes further and also includes the costs of professional
development expenses. I do not believe we need to place a limit on
these deductions. Teachers are going to provide their students with
materials and take the professional development courses regardless of a
tax deduction. They should be able to deduct these expenditures.
Mr. President, this bill would provide modest tax equity for teachers
who, for too long, have been footing the bill for improving the quality
of teaching by themselves. It is time we the tax code recognized this
unfairness and corrected it. I thank the Senate for the opportunity to
address this issue today, and I urge my colleagues to support this
legislation.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the
Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 495
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 ``Tax Equity for School
Teachers Act of 2001''.
SEC. 2. DEDUCTION FOR CERTAIN PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT
EXPENSES AND CLASSROOM SUPPLIES OF ELEMENTARY
AND SECONDARY SCHOOL TEACHERS.
(a) Deduction Allowed Whether or Not Taxpayer Itemizes
Other Deductions.--Subsection (a)(2) of section 62 of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (defining adjusted gross
income) is amended by adding at the end the following new
subparagraph:
``(D) Certain professional development expenses and
classroom supplies for teachers.--The deductions allowed by
section 162 which consist of qualified professional
development expenses and qualified elementary and secondary
education expenses paid or incurred by an eligible
teacher.''.
(b) Definitions.--Section 62 of the Internal Revenue Code
of 1986 is amended by adding at the end the following new
subsection:
``(d) Qualified Expenses of Eligible Teachers.--For
purposes of subsection (a)(2)(D)--
``(1) Qualified professional development expenses.--
``(A) In general.--The term `qualified professional
development expenses' means expenses for tuition, fees,
books, supplies, equipment, and transportation required for
the enrollment or attendance of an individual in a qualified
course of instruction.
``(B) Qualified course of instruction.--The term `qualified
course of instruction' means a course of instruction which--
``(i) is--
``(I) directly related to the curriculum and academic
subjects in which an eligible teacher provides instruction,
or
``(II) 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,
``(ii) may--
``(I) provide 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), or
``(II) provide instruction in how best to discipline
children in the classroom and identify early and appropriate
interventions to help children described in subclause (I) to
learn,
``(iii) is tied to challenging State or local content
standards and student performance standards,
``(iv) 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 an eligible teacher, and
``(v) is part of a program of professional development
which is approved and certified by the appropriate local
educational agency as furthering the goals of the preceding
clauses.
``(C) Local educational agency.--The term `local
educational agency' has the meaning given such term by
section 14101 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act
of 1965, as in effect on the date of the enactment of this
subsection.
``(2) Qualified elementary and secondary education
expenses.--The term `qualified elementary and secondary
education expenses' means expenses for any taxable year 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.
``(3) Eligible teacher.--
``(A) In general.--The term `eligible teacher' means an
individual who is a kindergarten through grade 12 classroom
teacher, instructor, counselor, aide, or principal in an
elementary or secondary school on a full-time basis for an
academic year ending during a taxable year.
``(B) Elementary or secondary school.--The term `elementary
or secondary school' means any school which provides
elementary education or secondary education (through grade
12), as determined under State law.''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31,
2000.
______
By Mr. SANTORUM:
S. 496. A bill to amend the Individuals with Disabilities Education
Act to modify authorizations of appropriations for programs under such
Act; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, today, I am introducing legislation to
dramatically increase funding for the Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act, IDEA. My legislation would more than double the federal
commitment to IDEA funding within four years. The legislation,
``Growing Resources in Educational Achievement for Today and
Tomorrow,'' GREATT IDEA, will take significant steps toward fulfilling
the federal commitment to IDEA funding. The legislation will also free
up additional funds for local school districts to be spent on their
highest priorities, whether it be teacher training or salaries,
reducing class sizes, school construction, library resources,
technology, or music and arts education. The legislation is supported
by the Pennsylvania School Boards Association and Pennsylvania Governor
Tom Ridge.
[[Page S2080]]
Every child is deserving of a high-quality education in an
environment that encourages them to learn and grow to the best of their
ability. Thanks to IDEA, many students are learning and achieving at
levels previously thought impossible, graduating from high school,
going to college and entering the workforce as productive citizens. We
must encourage this progress and continue to give parents and teachers
the resources they need to create opportunities for special children.
By boldly increasing the IDEA funding level, we can keep more students
in schools and help them achieve new measures of success.
Prior to IDEA's implementation in 1975, approximately 1 million
children with disabilities were shut out of schools and hundreds of
thousands more were denied appropriate services. Since then, IDEA has
helped change the lives of these children. Congress had originally
committed to cover 40 percent of IDEA's costs when it passed the
original IDEA bill in 1975, with the remaining balance to be met by
local communities and states. Over the years, however, while the law
itself continues to work and children are being educated, the intended
cost-sharing partnership has not been realized. The federal commitment
of 40 percent will be reached within eight years if the funding stream
established in GREATT IDEA is sustained. This is my first priority in
helping local school districts provide the best education possible for
elementary and secondary education.
I urge my colleagues to support this effort to double funding for
IDEA within the next four years as we continue to work to fulfill this
long neglected federal commitment and free up educational resources for
local education. I am pleased with the funding progress we were able to
make this past year. Yet, this legislation goes further by fully
funding approximately 700,000 additional IDEA students at an average
cost of $13,860 per student. We must accelerate the progress we have
made by passing and funding this legislation.
______
By Mr. LEAHY (for himself, Ms. Collins, Mr. Bingaman, Mr. Crapo,
Mr. Conrad, Mr. Specter, Mrs. Feinstein, Mr. Rockefeller, Mr.
McConnell, Mr. Dorgan, Mr. Kerry, Mr. Sarbanes, Mr. Jeffords,
Mr. Harkin, Mr. Torricelli, Ms. Mikulski, Mr. Reed, Mrs.
Murray, Mr. Feingold, and Mr. Durbin):
S. 497. A bill to express the sense of Congress that the Department
of Defense should field currently available weapons, other
technologies, tactics and operational concepts that provide suitable
alternatives to anti-personnel mines and mixed anti-tank mine systems
and that the United States should end its use of such mines and join
the Convention on the Prohibition of Anti-Personnel Mines as soon as
possible, to expand support for mine action programs including mine
victim assistance, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Armed
Services.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am today introducing the Landmine
Elimination Act of 2001. I am joined by Senators Collins, Bingaman,
Crapo, Conrad, Specter, Feinstein, Rockefeller, McConnell, Kerry,
Sarbanes, Dorgan, Jeffords, Reed, Harkin, Mikulski, Murray, Feingold,
Torricelli, and Durbin.
This legislation does three things.
It expresses the sense of Congress that the Department of Defense
should field currently available weapons, other technologies, tactics
and operational concepts which provide suitable alternatives to
landmines. It is our view that such alternatives exist and are, in
fact, better suited than mines to protect United States Armed Forces in
today's fast-moving battlefield. This view is shared by many active and
retired military officers.
The bill calls on the United States to end its use of mines, and to
join the Convention on the Prohibition of Anti-Personnel Mines as soon
as possible. It also codifies the U.S. moratorium on mine exports,
which has been in effect since 1992 and is official United States
policy. Finally, it establishes an inter-agency working group to
develop a comprehensive plan for expanded mine action programs,
including programs to assist mine victims.
Mr. President, the havoc wreaked by landmines throughout the world is
well known. They have been responsible for by far the majority of
casualties of NATO and peacekeeping forces in the Balkans. They were a
cause of American casualties in Somalia. They maimed and killed
thousands of our troops in Vietnam. And, most often, they cripple and
kill innocent civilians, thousands and thousands each year.
In 1992, the United States became the first country to stop exporting
landmines. That led other countries to take similar action, and in 1994
President Clinton called for an international treaty banning the
weapons. That treaty, which came into force in 1998, has been signed by
139 countries and ratified by 110.
The United States is not among them, because of concerns at the time
about Korea and the fact that the treaty would require the United
States to stop using most of its anti-vehicle mines. Those were not
frivolous concerns, although I do not believe either issue was fully
understood or examined when the decision was made, and I have worked to
obtain the funds to develop alternatives to mines.
Over the past year, however, I and others have spent a great deal of
time discussing these issues with both active and retired military
officers. These discussions have revealed a number of interesting
facts, which I intend to discuss with Secretary Rumsfeld, the Joint
Chiefs, President Bush and others. Most importantly, I and others have
become convinced that landmines are inconsistent with current U.S.
military doctrine. They are neither cost effective nor compatible with
our highly mobile forces, and in fact they pose serious logistical
problems and dangers for our troops. We can do better, and we should be
working together to get rid of these outdated weapons. It is not
necessary to waste years developing costly new alternatives. We have
the ``smart'' weapons and other technologies to more effectively
protect our Armed Forces.
I look forward to the day when the United States joins the Treaty,
because I am convinced that without U.S. participation and leadership
the Treaty will never achieve its promise. But having said that, I have
never regarded the Treaty as a kind of ``holy grail'' of landmines. My
interest in this issue, which dates to 1989 when I met a young Honduran
boy who had lost a leg from a mine, has always been to achieve a mine-
free world. That is an ambitious goal, but it is the right goal. And
regardless of when the U.S. joins the Treaty, we can develop a mine-
free military.
Ironically, when that happens, the United States, which at times has
been unfairly blamed for causing the mine problem, will become the
world's leader on this issue. We will have ended not only our use of
anti-personnel mines, which the Treaty prohibits, but also of anti-
vehicle mines, which, while not prohibited by the Treaty, are
responsible for the indiscriminate deaths and injuries of countless
innocent people.
I look forward to an opportunity to work with the Department of
Defense and the White House to develop a common approach, because the
issue is no longer whether we develop a mine-free military, but when.
It is a far more political issue than a military issue, and it is time
to leave past disagreements and disappointments behind and work
together on this common goal.
The problem of landmines continues to be an issue of deep concern to
people across this country and around the world. This week, hundreds of
people from dozens of countries are in Washington to focus attention on
this issue. Among them is Her Majesty Queen Noor, who I am honored to
call a friend and who has been an eloquent advocate for a mine-free
world and particularly for assistance for mine victims.
One of the purposes of this legislation is to develop more effective
programs to address the urgent needs of mine victims. It is one thing
for a person who has lost an arm or a leg from a mine to obtain an
artificial limb. It is another to get the counseling and training to be
able to earn income in poor countries where the disabled are often
ostracized. We need to do what we can to help mine victims reintegrate
into the social and economic life of their communities.
I want to thank the cosponsors of this legislation, who, like other
legislation I have sponsored on landmines
[[Page S2081]]
span the political spectrum. This is not and has never been a partisan
issue. It is a humanitarian issue. If landmines were a problem in our
own country, they would have been prohibited years ago.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows.
S. 497
Be it enacted by the Senate and the House of
Representatives of the United States of America in Congress
assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE
This Act may be cited as the ``Landmine Elimination and
Victim Assistance Act of 2001''.
SEC. 2 FINDINGS.
Congess makes the following findings:
(1) The threat posed by tens of millions of unexploded
landmines to innocent civilians is a global problem requiring
strong United States leadership in cooperation with other
governments.
(2) Landmines continue to maim and kill thousands of
people, mostly civilians, each year, and most mine victims
lack the care and rehabilitation services they need.
(3) Landmines, which remain active for hours, days or
years, impeded the mobility and threaten the safety of United
States Armed Forces, North Atlantic Treaty Organization
forces, and other friendly forces in combat and other
military operations.
(4) At least 139 countries have signed, and 110 countries
have ratified, the Convention on the Prohibition of the Use,
Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines
and on Their Destruction (opened for signature at Ottawa,
Canada, on December 3 and 4, 1997, and at the United Nations
Headquarters beginning December 5, 1997). Many of these
countries are former producers, exporters, and users of anti-
personnel mines. Worldwide adherence to the Convention would
greatly reduce the threat to future generations from anti-
personnel mines.
(5) It is United States Government policy that the United
States will search aggressively for alternatives to anti-
personnel mines and mixed anti-tank mine systems and that the
United States will join the Convention by 2006 if suitable
alternatives are fielded by then.
(6) Since 1992, United States law has prohibited the export
or transfer of anti-personnel mines.
(7) Since 1997, the United States has capped its inventory
of anti-personnel mines and has not produced anti-personnel
mines.
(8) The United States Government has contributed hundreds
of millions of dollars to the costly, dangerous, and arduous
task of humanitarian demining around the world.
SEC. 3. SENSE OF CONGRESS.
It is the sense of Congress that--
(1) the Department of Defense should field currently
available weapons, other technologies, tactics and
operational concepts that provide suitable alternatives to
anti-personnel mines and mixed anti-tank mine systems; and
(2) The United States should end its uses of such mines and
join the Convention on the Prohibition of the Use,
Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines
and on Their Destruction as soon as possible.
SEC. 4. TRANSFERS OF ANTI-PERSONNEL MINES
Section 1365(c) of the National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 1993 (22 U.S.C. 2778 note) is amended by
striking ``During'' and all that follows through ``1991--''
and inserting ``Beginning on October 23, 1992--''.
SEC. 5. INTER-AGENCY WORKING GROUP ON MINE ACTION.
Not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of
this Act, the President shall establish an inter-agency
working group to develop a comprehensive plan for expanded
mine action programs, including mine victim rehabilitation,
social support, and economic reintegration. The working group
shall be composed of the Secretaries of State, Health and
Human Services, Veterans Affairs, Defense, Education, and the
Administrator of the Agency for International Development.
The comprehensive plan shall be developed in close
consultation with relevant nongovernmental organizations. As
part of the development of the comprehensive plan, the
working group shall determine an estimated cost of carrying
out the plan.
SEC. 6. REPORT ON ALTERNATIVES TO MINES.
No later than 120 days after the date of the enactment of
this Act, the Secretary of Defense shall submit to the
Committees on Armed Services and the Committees on
Appropriations of the Senate and the House or Representatives
a report describing actions taken by the Department of
Defense to field currently available weapons, other
technologies, tactics and operational concepts that provide
suitable alternatives to anti-personnel mines and mixed anti-
tank mine systems.
______
By Mr. MURKOWSKI:
S. 498. A bill entitled ``National Discovery Trails Act of 2001''; to
the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, America's trails are one of our most
treasured recreational resources. Each year millions of Americans hike,
ski, jog, bike, ride horses, drive snow machines and all-terrain
vehicles, observe nature, commute, and relax on trails throughout the
country. The types of trails found across the nation are varied and
range from urban bike paths to bridle paths, community green ways,
abandoned railroad right-of-ways, historic trails, and long distance
hiking trails.
This legislation proposes to establish the American Discovery Trail,
or ADT. The ADT is being proposed as a continuous coast to coast trail
that links the nation's principal north-south trails and east-west
historic trails with shorter local and regional trails into a
nationwide network.
National Discovery Trails are a new category of trails that recognize
that use and enjoyment of trails close to home is equally as important
as hiking remote wilderness trails. National Discovery Trails will
connect people to large cities, small towns and urban areas and to
mountains, forest, desert and natural areas by incorporating local,
regional and national trails together.
The American Discovery Trail links towns and cities on America's long
distance trail system. Existing long-distance trails are used mostly by
people living close to the trail and by weekend users. Backpacking
excursions are normally a few days to a couple of weeks long. For
example, of the estimated three million users of the Appalachian Trail
each year, only about 150 to 200 are ``through-hikers'' who hike the
trail from end to end. This will also be true of the American Discovery
Trail as well, especially because of its proximity to urban areas.
The ADT, the first of the Discovery Trails, will connect six national
scenic trails, 10 national historic trails, 23 national recreational
trails, and hundreds of other local and regional trails. The ADT will
be a thread that sews together a variety of events, cultures, and
features that are all part of the American experience.
What makes the ADT so exciting is the way it has already brought
people together. More than 100 organizations along the trail's 6,000
miles support the effort. Each state the trail pass through already has
a volunteer coordinator who leads an active ADT committee. This strong
grassroots effort, along with financial support from Backpacker
magazine, Ford Motor Company, The Coleman Company and others have
helped take the ADT from dream to reality.
Only one more very important step on the trail needs to be taken.
Congress needs to authorize the trail as part of our National Trails
System.
The American Discovery Trail begins (or ends) with your two feet in
the Pacific Ocean at Point Reyes National Seashore, just north of San
Francisco. Next are Berkeley and Sacramento before the climb to the
Pacific Crest National Scenic Trail and Lake Tahoe, in the middle of
the Sierra Nevada Mountains.
Nevada will offer Historic Virginia City, home of the Comstock Lode,
the Pony Express National Historic Trail, Great Basin National Park
with Lehman Caves and Wheeler Peak.
Utah will provide National Forests and Parks along with spectacular
red rock country, until you get to Colorado and Colorado National
Monument and its 20,445 acres of sandstone monoliths and canyons. Then
there's Grand Mesa over Scofield Pass, and Crested Butte, in the heart
of ski country as you follow the Colorado and Continental Divide Trails
into Evergreen.
At Denver the ADT divides and becomes the Northern and Southern
Midwest routes. The Northern Midwest Route winds through Nebraska,
Iowa, Illinois, Indiana and Ohio. The Southern Midwest Route leaves
Colorado and the Air Force Academy and follows the tracks and wagon
wheel ruts of thousands of early pioneers through Kansas and Missouri
as well as settlements and historic places in Illinois, Indiana,
Kentucky until the trail joins the Northern route in Cincinnati.
West Virginia is next, then Maryland to the C&O Canal into Washington
D.C. The Trail passed the Mall, the White House, the Capitol, and then
heads on to Annapolis. Finally, in Delaware, the ADT reaches its
eastern terminus at Cap Henlopen State Park and the Atlantic Ocean.
Between the Pacific and Atlantic Oceans one will experience some of
the
[[Page S2082]]
most spectacular scenery in the world, thousands of historic sites,
lakes, rivers and streams of every size. The trail offers an
opportunity to discover America from small towns, to rural country
side, to large metropolitan areas.
When the President signs this legislation into law, a twelve year
effort will have been achieved--the American Discovery Trail will have
become a reality. The more people who use it, the better.
______
By Mr. BURNS (for himself, Mr. Baucus, Mr. Daschle, Mrs. Lincoln,
and Mr. Dorgan):
S. 500. A bill to amend the Communications Act of 1934 in order to
required the Federal Communications Commission to fulfill the
sufficient universal service support requirements for high cost areas,
and for other purposes; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 500
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 ``Universal Service Support
Act''.
SEC. 2. REMOVAL OF IMPEDIMENTS TO SUFFICIENT SUPPORT
MECHANISMS.
Section 254 of the Communications Act of 1934 is amended by
adding at the end the following new subsection:
(m) Removal of Impediments to Sufficient Support
Mechanisms.--
(1) Removal of caps on high cost support mechanisms.--The
caps and limitations on universal service support contained
in sections 36.601(c), and 36.621(4) and 54.305 of the
Commission's regulations (47 CFR 36.601, [etc]) shall cease
to be effective on the date of enactment of the Universal
Service Support Act. The Commission shall not, on or after
such date of enactment, enforce or reimpose caps or
limitations on support mechanisms for rural telephone
companies or exchanges they acquire based on fund size or
other considerations unrelated to the sufficiency of support
to achieve the purposes of this section.
(2) High cost support and nationwide average
calculations.--The Commission shall
(A) calculate that portion of the high cost support
mechanism attributable to loops that have costs that are in
excess of 115 percent of the nationwide average under section
36.631 of the Commission's regulations (47 CFR 36.631) as in
effect in the date of enactment of the Universal Service
Support Act; and
(B) calculate the nationwide average unseparated loop cost
for purposed of sections 36.621 (a)(1)-(3) and 36.622 of
those regulations (47 CFR 36.621 and 36.622) as in effect on
such date of enactment of such Act, taking into account the
elimination of caps and limitations of support pursuant to
paragraph (1) of this subsection.
______
By Mr. GRAHAM (for himself, Mr. Jeffords, Mr. Rockfeller, Ms.
Snowe, Mr. Wellstone, Mr. Breaux, Mr. Lieberman, Mrs. Murray,
Mrs. Lincoln, Mr. Dodd, Mr. Johnson, Mr. Cleland, Mr. Schumer,
Mr. Kerry, Mrs. Clinton, Ms. Landrieu, and Mr. Torricelli):
S. 501. A bill to amend titles IV and XX of the Social Security Act
to restore funding for the Social Services Block Grant, to restore the
ability of States to transfer up to 10 percent of TANF funds to carry
out activities under such block grant, and to require an annual report
on such activities by the Secretary of Health and Human Services, to
the Committee on Finance.
Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today with my colleagues, Senators
Jeffords, Rockefeller, and Snowe, to introduce the Social Services
Block Grant Restoration Act of 2001. This important block grant,
commonly known as ``SSBG,'' is more than just money.
When SSBG was written into law two decades ago, the goals were
spelled out clearly. SSBG was created to ``prevent, reduce or eliminate
dependency.'' It exists to help people ``achieve or maintain self-
sufficiency.'' It meant to ``prevent or remedy neglect, abuse or
exploitation of children and adults unable to protect their own
interests,'' and for ``preserving, rehabilitating or reuniting
families.''
In other words, SSBG is a commitment on the part of this country to
the most vulnerable members of our society. SSBG has become a
commitment by this country to help address the pressing needs of many
of our senior citizens. SSBG dollars are used to provide training
services for those making the transition from welfare to work.
It is a commitment to protect children. It is a commitment to those
in need of mental health services and those with disabilities. It is a
commitment to states that the federal government recognizes and shares
the responsibility for providing human services programs.
For too long we shrugged off this commitment and directed these vital
federal dollars to other programs. Data from the Department of Health
and Human Services shows how many lives this has affected.
In 1998, SSBG accounted for 25 percent of all federal, state, and
local expenditures for services for the disabled; 24 percent of all
expenditures for child protective services; and 22 percent of all
expenditures for adult protective services.
The state of Florida relies on SSBG for 25 percent of its budget to
protect abused and neglected elderly persons.
These are all programs that touch the lives of the people who sent us
here--people who are rarely able to lobby us here in our nation's
Capitol. This program directly relates to the goals that the new
markets tax credit would achieve--enhancing peoples' lives and giving
vulnerable communities the ability to thrive.
I urge my colleagues to join us in cosponsoring this critical piece
of legislation.
____________________