[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 52 (Tuesday, April 24, 2001)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3855-S3864]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
THE NONRESIDENT INCOME TAX FREEDOM ACT OF 2001
Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce
a bill called ``The Nonresident Income Tax Freedom Act of 2001.''
My legislation would prohibit a state from imposing income taxes on
income earned within such state by nonresidents of such state.
Simply put, my bill bans state income taxes levied on nonresident
workers.
I am sure that every American has studied the Boston Tea Party.
In 1776, the 13 American colonies refused to pay unjust taxes and
declared their independence from Britain.
The resulting American revolution was a revolution of ideas and
together the 13 colonies created a government which derived its just
authority from the consent of the governed.
In 1764, Britain imposed the Sugar Act on the American colonies, that
tax was followed by the Stamp Act and the Townshend Revenue Act.
The Stamp Act was essentially a paper tax of less than one cent, but
this tax inspired the formation of the Sons of Liberty, who burned the
stamps in protest of the tax.
A tea tax was imposed on the American colonies of less than one cent,
but this tax motivated Bostonians to protest the tax in the Boston Tea
Party.
The result of these British taxes were that Americans openly rebelled
in order to fight those unjust taxes.
I am not comparing the current situation to the American revolution,
but I am proposing legislation consistent with the theme of the
American Revolution--No taxation without representation.
When a citizen from New Hampshire goes to work in Massachusetts or
Maine or Vermont and pays their income tax, it is not reciprocated. We
don't have an income tax. We don't tax them. They don't live in that
State, and, therefore, I don't believe they should pay that tax.
My bill will grant Federal protection for nonresident taxpayers and
prohibit this taxation without representation.
I hope my colleagues will look carefully at this regardless of the
tax situation in their own States. The State of Oklahoma, or the State
of New Hampshire, or any other State has a perfect right to tax its
citizens in whatever way the citizens allow their elected
representatives. But the question is, Should the citizens of Wyoming or
some other State tell another State what taxes they should pay on their
citizens?
The problem exists today where workers from one State are being taxed
by others, and these taxpayers have no vote. They have no say and no
recourse into how their income tax money is spent. Approximately 90,000
from New Hampshire go to Massachusetts and work. The taxes are
collected from them for Massachusetts income taxes. They have no
recourse. They have to pay those taxes.
As a matter of fact, New Hampshire residents pay over $200 million in
income taxes to Maine, Massachusetts, and Vermont, all of which have
income taxes. New Hampshire doesn't. In 1999, Vermont imposed an income
tax on 10,840 New Hampshire residents and raised $10.2 million in
revenue off the backs of New Hampshire workers who had nothing to say
about it, nor could they do anything about it.
In 1998, Massachusetts levied an income tax on 89,336 New Hampshire
residents and raised $184 million, again, off the residents of New
Hampshire.
And finally, in Maine, in 1998, 8,219 New Hampshire residents were
taxed and $9.3 million was raised in revenue.
This is taxation without representation. I am not trying to start
another Revolutionary War here, but it is not fair. I believe that
whether you have an income tax or not in your State, the issue is
really should you be able to levy an income tax against another citizen
who lives in another State.
In New Hampshire, we have always had a keen interest in taxes, as a
matter of fact, a keen interest in less taxes. One of the greatest
Governors in the history of our State, Gov. Meldrim Thomson, passed
away last Thursday at the age of 89. Mel Thomson was a hero to many of
us in the antitax movement. His campaign theme, when
[[Page S3856]]
he ran for Governor three times, was ``ax the tax.'' And that he did.
He fought taxes and cut taxes time and time again in our State. He
helped our State to assume that true ``live free or die'' tradition
that is so popular and so well known.
It is a strength that New Hampshire politicians have not allowed a
State income tax to be levied on the hard-working residents of that
State. People still do not understand it. They come to me and say: How
can you do this without an income tax? How do you get along? We do it
through frugality and responsibility and taking care of the hard-earned
dollars of our taxpayers.
As recently as last week, my friends in the New Hampshire State House
defeated a sales tax proposal. I congratulate them for it. The
Republican-led legislature knocked down a 2.5-percent sales tax which
would have helped Maine, Massachusetts, and Vermont to discourage their
State citizens from coming across the border to shop because we would
have begun to get our States equalized in their taxes.
We have this great tradition in New Hampshire of less taxes, less
spending, and fiscal responsibility. That is why I was pleased and
proud just today--and I know the Presiding Officer's rating is high up
in this rating; and I will check the rating--I was pleased today to be
told the National Taxpayers Union ranked me No. 7 in the Senate for
fiscal responsibility on cutting spending, cutting taxes, and cutting
regulations. It is an award of which I am very proud. But it is not so
much me; it is tradition in New Hampshire.
If you advocate those sales taxes, if you advocate those income
taxes, if you advocate more taxes, you won't be reelected. There are a
lot of people who said, let's have a sales or income tax, and they have
been defeated and have not been heard from since, and many of them had
to leave town.
I think it is rather unfortunate Governor Thomson passed away at the
very time President Bush--a man who Governor Thompson admired, and
President Bush admired Governor Thompson as well; it was reciprocal--
but at the very time President Bush is proposing a $1.6 trillion tax
cut for the American people, the man who led the ``ax the tax'' fight
in New Hampshire has passed away. So President Bush has picked up the
torch from Governor Thomson, and New Hampshire is proud of that.
I am proud of President Bush's budget proposal to provide the typical
family of four paying income taxes $1,600 in tax relief.
John Marshall said: ``The power to tax is the power to destroy.''
Taxes have to be used responsibly. As I said today, when I was asked
about the National Taxpayers Union rating, it does not mean we do not
spend money. We do spend money. We have a responsibility to spend money
for our military, for those in need, or whatever. But we have to spend
it responsibly. I think that is the key issue.
The taxers in New Hampshire's neighboring States are very clever.
They impose the income tax on New Hampshire residents without any fear
whatsoever of any political retaliation. It is really cowardice. The
officials there tax citizens from my State of New Hampshire who go into
Massachusetts to work, and they cannot vote. They cannot vote. They do
not have any say about it. What can they do about it? It is not fair.
We ought to change it. I say that with respect to my colleagues no
matter what the tax status of your own State is. Tax all you want in
your State, but do not tax people from another State. And I think that
is fair.
Today's average taxpayer faces a combined Federal, State, and local
burden of nearly 50 percent of their income. I think that is a little
too much. It is time for a change. This is one small way to help New
Hampshire citizens, as I know so many are trying to help all of our
citizens with tax cuts at the national level.
So I ask my colleagues to support George W. Bush's tax cut and my tax
fairness initiative to give certainly New Hampshire citizens and all
Americans a little boost for their pocketbooks, so they can spend some
money the way they would like to spend it, to have it in their pockets.
That $200 million in the pockets of taxpayers in New Hampshire can be
used for a lot of things they would like to use it for, including
college education, health care, putting money away for a rainy day, or
whatever.
I close by saying, my bill amends chapter 4 of title 4 of the U.S.
Code to add a provision that says, ``a State or political subdivision
thereof may not impose a tax on income earned within such State or
political subdivision by non-residents of such State.'' In other words,
if they are not your citizens, then you cannot tax them with an income
tax. It explicitly allows a State, however--and this is a very
important point--if two States want to enter into a voluntary compact
or agreement to tax one another--if the two States agree--they can do
that. There is an exception for that if the two States agree.
This is consistent with the theme of ``no taxation without
representation'' because residents who become angry at politicians who
vote for income tax compacts can vote the offending politician out of
office. That is why it is good.
I look forward to pressing hard on this and getting the attention of
my colleagues. It is my hope I can be a part of the President's push to
restore reason and good sense to the Federal tax law.
I ask my colleagues to support me on the Nonresident Income Tax
Freedom Act of 2001 to help thousands of New Hampshire citizens who are
treated unfairly by taxation without representation.
______
By Mr. CONRAD (for himself, Ms. Snow, Mr. Reid, Mr. DeWine, Mr.
Rockfeller, and Mr. Johnson):
S. 762. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow a
credit against income tax for information technology training expenses
and for other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, during the final months of the 106th
Congress, the Senate and House completed action on the American
Competitiveness in the 21st Century Act which will respond to the
shortage of skilled IT workers and help ensure our nation's continued
growth and leadership in the information technology field. Congress
increased the cap on the number of H1B visas available for foreign
workers with high-tech skills to fill the job vacancies in information
technology in the US.
As important as action by Congress to permit companies to hire
foreign-born skilled IT workers is, this legislation by itself will not
address our long-term IT worker needs. Throughout the recent debate on
the IT worker shortage, I have urged that we focus our efforts on IT
training and partnerships between the business and education
communities. Many excellent partnerships between the IT community,
state and local government, high schools, and colleges and universities
that provide individuals of all ages with education and training
opportunities in information technology are already underway.
Partnerships include ExplorNet, a non-profit organization working
with local community and school officials to train educators and
students to rebuild computers; e-learning opportunities for IT training
through more than 100 community colleges nationwide, including Bismarck
State College; Cisco Systems Training Academies in many school
districts; AOL/Time Warner Foundation's ``Time to Read'' literacy
program; Green Thumb and Microsoft working with seniors to improve
their IT skills; Great Plains Software's, Fargo, ND, partnership with
Valley City State University; and Texas Instruments sponsored training
for educators to improve technology skills in the classroom. These are
excellent examples of the IT and education communities working together
to meet the growing demand for information technology skills.
Although these partnerships are helping to train individuals to fill
many IT job vacancies, these educational opportunities cannot keep pace
with the demand for workers with advanced technical skills--a demand
that continues for the long term despite our current economic slowdown
and recent layoffs in the IT sector. Furthermore, continuing to rely on
foreign workers who obtain H1B visas is not the answer to our shortage
of skilled IT professionals.
[[Page S3857]]
A report of 685 companies released by the Information Technology
Association of America ITAA, on April 2, 2001, confirms this continuing
demand for skilled IT workers. The ITAA assessment of the current IT
job market, although reporting a significant decline in the demand for
IT workers because of the economic slowdown, confirms there are
thousands of positions that employers are not able to fill because
firms are unable to find workers with the necessary technical skills.
The study estimates there are currently 425,000 vacancies in the IT
field for skilled technical positions. Harris Miller, president, of
ITAA, remarked, ``. . . hiring has by no means halted for IT workers,
rather, demand still far exceeds supply in this market. Miller
continues to encourage individuals to pursue advanced technical
education programs. He remarked, ``this is actually the time to prepare
yourself.''
Mr. President, in response to this continuing long-term demand for
skilled IT workers, I am introducing legislation, the Technology
Education and Training Act of 2001, TETA, to provide a tax credit for
businesses offering IT training and to enable individuals enrolled in
certified IT training to take advantage of the Hope Scholarship and
Lifetime Learning Credits. This legislation is similar to a bill that I
introduced in the 106th Congress, and I am particularly pleased that
Senator Snowe is joining me again in this bipartisan effort as the
principal cosponsor. Also joining me as cosponsors are Senators Reid,
DeWine, Rockefeller, and Johnson, colleagues who have taken leadership
roles in focusing attention on the importance of information technology
for our economy and encouraging IT education and partnerships.
I am honored that this legislation is also endorsed by a broad
coalition of IT, business and educational organizations, including
Computing Technology Industry Association, CompTIA, the Technology
Workforce Coalition, the American Society for Training and Development,
the Information Technology Association of America, the Information
Technology Training Association, the Career College Association, the
National Association of Computer Consultant Businesses, Cisco Systems,
Novell, Compaq Computer Corporation, Gateway and Microsoft.
Under our legislation, businesses would receive a credit against
taxes equal to 100 percent of the first $1,500 of information
technology training expenses for non-degree IT skills certification on
behalf of a current or prospective employee. The credit would increase
to $2,000 if the training program is offered in an empowerment zone, an
enterprise community, an area declared a disaster zone, a school
district with 50 percent or more of students participating in the
school lunch program, a tribal community, a rural enterprise community,
involves a small business with 200 or fewer employees or involves an
individual with a disability.
Additionally, this legislation would amend current law regarding the
Hope Scholarship and Lifetime Learning Credits to permit individuals
enrolled in non-degree IT training programs and not attending a Title
IV institution to be eligible to apply for the Hope Scholarship or
Lifetime Learning Credit. Under current law, individuals are not
eligible to take advantage of the Hope Scholarship or the Lifetime
Learning Credits unless the programs are offered through a Title IV
higher education or proprietary institution.
In order to qualify for the Hope Scholarship or Lifetime Learning
Credit, the IT training program must lead to certification in an IT
skill similar to programs offered by Cisco, Microsoft, Novell, and
CompTIA. Under the proposed changes in the Technology Education and
Training Act, the certification offered by the commercial information
technology training provider must be approved by the Secretary of
Treasury in consultation with an Information Technology Training
Certification Board.
The shortage of skilled information technology workers will continue
to be a major concern for all sectors of our economy despite the
current economic slowdown and the recent layoffs in the IT sector. Our
continued growth and leadership in formation technology will depend on
a sufficient number of highly trained workers. Additionally, as
economies around the world rebound and countries, particularly in Asia,
develop their own high-tech corridors, it will be difficult to continue
to recruit high-tech workers from these countries to meet the needs of
our own economy.
Rather than continue our dependency on the H1B program, I believe
that encouraging partnerships between the IT and education communities
and authorizing additional incentives for businesses and individuals to
take advantage of IT skills training offers a more reasonable approach
to meeting our long-term high-tech worker needs. The Technology
Education and Training Act authorizes important initiatives to respond
to this critical shortage. I welcome additional cosponsors of this
legislation and urge my colleagues on the Senate Finance Committee to
support the proposed changes in TETA during consideration of tax
legislation in the 107th Congress.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of this legislation along with
statements of endorsement for the Technology Education and Training Act
from the Technology Workforce Coalition, the Information Technology
Association of America, and the American Society for Training and
Development be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
S. 762
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 ``Technology Education and
Training Act of 2001''.
SEC. 2. CREDIT FOR INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY TRAINING PROGRAM
EXPENSES.
(a) In General.--Subpart B of part IV of subchapter A of
chapter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by
adding at the end the following:
``SEC. 30B. INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY TRAINING PROGRAM EXPENSES.
``(a) General Rule.--In the case of a taxpayer engaged in a
trade or business during the taxable year, there shall be
allowed as a credit against the tax imposed by this chapter
for such taxable year an amount equal to 100 percent of
information technology training program expenses of the
taxpayer and any employee of the taxpayer paid or incurred by
the taxpayer during such taxable year.
``(b) Limitation.--
``(1) In general.--The amount of information technology
training program expenses with respect to any individual
which may be taken into account under subsection (a) for the
taxable year shall not exceed $1,500.
``(2) Increase in credit amount for participation in
certain programs and for certain individuals.--The dollar
amount in paragraph (1) shall be increased (but not above
$2,000) by the amount of information technology training
program expenses paid or incurred by the taxpayer--
``(A) with respect to a program operated--
``(i) in an empowerment zone or enterprise community
designated under part I of subchapter U or a renewal
community designated under part I of subchapter X,
``(ii) in a school district in which at least 50 percent of
the students attending schools in such district are eligible
for free or reduced-cost lunches under the school lunch
program established under the National School Lunch Act,
``(iii) in an area designated as a disaster area by the
Secretary of Agriculture or by the President under the
Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act in the taxable
year or the 4 preceding taxable years,
``(iv) in a rural enterprise community designated under
section 766 of the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and
Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act,
1999,
``(v) in an area designated by the Secretary of Agriculture
as a Rural Economic Area Partnership Zone,
``(vi) in an area over which an Indian tribal government
(as defined in section 7701(a)(40)) has jurisdiction, or
``(vii) by an employer who has 200 or fewer employees for
each business day in each of 20 or more calendar weeks in the
current or preceding calendar year, or
``(B) in the case of an individual with a disability.
``(c) Information Technology Training Program Expenses.--
For purposes of this section--
``(1) In general.--The term `information technology
training program expenses' means expenses paid or incurred by
reason of the participation of the taxpayer (or any employee
of the taxpayer) in any information technology training
program if such expenses lead to an industry-accepted
information technology certification for the participant.
Such term shall only include includes expenses paid for in
connection with course work and certification testing which
is essential to assessing skill acquisition.
``(2) Information technology training program.--The term
`information technology training program' means a program for
an industry-accepted information technology certification--
[[Page S3858]]
``(A) by any information technology trade association or
corporation, and
``(B) which--
``(i) is provided for the employees of such association or
corporation, or
``(ii) involves--
``(I) employers, and
``(II) State training programs, school districts,
university systems, higher education institutions (as defined
in section 101(b) of the Higher Education Act of 1965), or
certified commercial information technology training
providers.
``(3) Certified commercial information technology training
provider.--
``(A) In general.--The term `certified commercial
information technology training provider' means a private
sector organization providing an information technology
training program which leads to an approved information
technology industry certification for the participants.
``(B) Approved industry certification.--For purposes of
paragraph (1), an information technology industry
certification shall be considered approved if such
certification is approved by the Secretary, in consultation
with the Information Technology Training Certification
Advisory Board.
``(d) Denial of Double Benefit.--No deduction or credit
under any other provision of this chapter shall be allowed
with respect to information technology training program
expenses taken into account for the credit under this
section.
``(e) Certain rules made applicable.--For purposes of this
section, rules similar to the rules of section 45A(e)(2) and
subsections (c), (d), and (e) of section 52 shall apply.
``(f) Application With Other Credits.--The credit allowed
by subsection (a) for any taxable year shall not exceed the
excess (if any) of--
``(1) the regular tax for the taxable year reduced by the
sum of the credits allowable under the subpart A and the
previous sections of this subpart, over
``(2) the tentative minimum tax for the taxable year.''.
(b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections for subpart
B of part IV of subchapter A of chapter 1 of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``Sec. 30B. Information technology training program expenses.''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to amounts paid or incurred in taxable years
beginning after December 31, 2001.
SEC. 3. INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY TRAINING CERTIFICATION
ADVISORY BOARD.
(a) Establishment.--There is established an Information
Technology Training Certification Advisory Board (in this
section referred to as the ``Board'').
(b) Membership.--The Board shall be composed of not more
than 15 members appointed by the Secretary of the Treasury
from among individuals--
(1) associated with information technology certification
and training associations and businesses; and
(2) who are not officers or employees of the Federal
Government.
(c) Meetings.--The Board shall meet not less often than
annually.
(d) Chairperson.--
(1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), the Board shall
elect a Chairperson from among its members.
(2) Chairperson.--The chairperson shall be an individual
who is a member of an information technology industry trade
association.
(e) Duties.--The Board shall develop a list of information
technology industry certifications, for approval by the
Secretary of the Treasury, that qualify the provider of the
certification as a certified commercial information
technology training provider under section 30B(c)(3) of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as added by section (2)(a).
(f) Submission of List.--Not later than October 1, 2001,
and each year thereafter, the Board shall submit the list
required under subsection (e) to the Secretary of the
Treasury.
(g) Board personnel matters.--
(1) Compensation of members.--Each member of the Board
shall serve without compensation.
(2) Travel expenses.--Each member of the Board shall be
allowed travel expenses, including per diem in lieu of
subsistence, at rates authorized for employees of agencies
under subchapter I of chapter 57 of title 5, United States
Code, while away from their homes or regular places of
business in the performance of services for the Board.
(h) Termination of the Board.--Section 14(b) of the Federal
Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.) shall not apply to the
Board.
SEC. 4. HOPE SCHOLARSHIP AND LIFETIME LEARNING CREDITS
INCLUDE TECHNOLOGY TRAINING CENTERS.
(a) In General.--Section 25A(f)(2) of the Internal Revenue
Code of 1986 (relating to eligible educational institution)
is amended to read as follows:
``(2) Eligible educational institution.--The term `eligible
educational institution' means--
``(A) an institution--
``(i) which is described in section 101(b) of the Higher
Education Act of 1965, and
``(ii) which is eligible to participate in a program under
title IV of such Act, or
``(B) a certified commercial information technology
training provider (as defined in section 30B(c)(3)).''.
(b) Conforming Amendment.--The second sentence of section
221(e)(2) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by
striking ``section 25A(f)(2)'' and inserting ``section
25A(f)(2)(A)''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31,
2001.
____
Technology Workforce Coalition,
Arlington, VA.
For Immediate Release
Senate Introduces Tax Credit To Ease IT Worker Shortage
Washington, April 24, 2001.--Help may soon be available for
companies suffering from a shortage of skilled IT workers. On
Tuesday, the United States Senate introduced the ``Technology
Education and Training Act (TETA) of 2001,'' which gives
individuals and employers tax credits of up to $2,000 for IT
training expenses. Sponsored by Senators Kent Conrad (D-ND),
Olympia Snowe (R-ME), Mike DeWine (R-OH), and Harry Reid (D-
NV), TETA works to help individuals get needed IT training,
thus easing America's IT worker shortage.
``Headlines may scream out high-tech layoffs, but the plain
fact is that IT jobs are going empty because there are not
enough skilled people to fill them,'' noted Grant Mydland,
Director of the Technology Workforce Coalition. Mydland
applauded the bill's introduction and urged Congress' quick
consideration and passage of TETA.
Essentially, TETA:
Provides a tax credit of up to $1,500 for IT training
expenses paid by employers
Amends the HOPE and Lifetime Learning tax credits so
individuals can better access IT training courses at all of
the available institutions and training centers
Allows tax credits of up to $2,000 for small businesses, as
well as for people residing in and companies operating in
empowerment zones and other qualified areas
``Nearly half of all IT jobs that will be created in 2001
will remain vacant,'' Mydland added. ``IT drives our economy.
TETA gives individuals and companies the necessary
educational tools to meet America's rapidly evolving IT
needs. The Senate should be congratulated for its foresight
in addressing a significant challenge to U.S. prosperity and
growth.''
____
Summary of the Technology Education and Training Act (TETA) of 2001
Introduced by Senators Kent Conrad (D-ND), Olympia Snowe (R-ME), Mike
DeWine (R-OH), Harry Reid (D-NV), and Representatives Jerry Weller (R-
IL) and Jim Moran (D-VA)
Provides a tax credit for 100% of the first $1,500 of
information technology training expenses paid for by an
employer.
Amends the HOPE and Lifetime Learning tax credits to make
it easier for individuals to use these tax credits for
information technology training expenses.
The training program must result in certification.
The allowed credit would be $2,000 for small businesses and
all companies or individuals in enterprise zones, empowerment
zones, and other qualified areas.
why this tax credit is necessary
According to a 1999 Comp TIA Workforce Study, as a result
of unfilled IT positions, the U.S. economy lost $105.5
billion in spending that would have gone to salaries and
training, this reduced household income by $37.2 billion.
An estimated 268,740 (10%) of IT service and support
positions went unfilled in 1999, resulting in $4.5 billion
per year in lost worker productivity.
ITAA study released April 2, 2001, predicts a shortage of
425,000 of the 900,000 new IT workers needed in 2001.
a public-private partnership
Allows the private sector to determine who, what, where and
how to train workers.
Helps individuals seek the training they need to enter or
re-enter the IT workforce.
Fills the IT worker pipeline with thousands of new and
retrained skilled IT workers.
Helps cities all across America fill thousands of available
IT jobs.
____
The Information Technology Association of America
For Immediate Release, April 24, 2001.
ITAA Praises IT Training Tax Credit Bill
Arlington, VA.--The Information Technology Association of
America (ITAA) today hailed the Technology Education and
Training Act of 2001 introduced by Senators Kent Conrad,
Olympia Snowe, Mike DeWine and Harry Reid as a vital step
toward a permanent fix of the current high-tech workers
shortage in the U.S.
The bill would allow employers a $1500 credit against
income tax for expenses incurred by high technology job
training programs for employees, and a $2000 credit for small
businesses or all companies in enterprise zones or
empowerment zones. ITAA believes the bill would encourage
companies to go the extra mile in training U.S. workers for
high tech jobs.
``Tax credits for business to train and retrain workers
mean more high-paying, high-tech jobs for American workers,''
said ITAA President Harris N. Miller. ``The current high
vacancy rate for IT jobs represents thousands of missed
opportunities for American workers, and the impact of failing
to address this shortage can be felt as we see more
[[Page S3859]]
jobs shipped overseas. This bill is sound public policy.''
ITAA is the industry leader in combating the high-tech
worker shortage. In its latest study of the demand for IT
workers, When Can You Start?, ITAA found that the number of
needed IT positions in the U.S. had declined to 900,000 for
2001, with an expected vacancy rate of 425,000. While
substantially lower than in 2000, the study shows that demand
for approximately skilled high tech workers persists.
The Information Technology Association of America (ITAA)
provides global public policy, business networking, and
national leadership to promote the continued rapid growth of
the IT industry. ITAA consists of over 500 direct corporate
members throughout the U.S., and a global network of 41
countries' IT associations. The Association plays the leading
role in issues of IT industry concern including information
security, taxes and finance policy, digital intellectual
property protection, telecommunications competition,
workforce and education, immigration, online privacy and
consumer protection, government IT procurement, human
resources and e-commerce policy. ITAA members range from the
smallest IT start-ups to industry leaders in the Internet,
software, IT services, ASP, digital content, systems
integration, telecommunications, and enterprise solution
fields.
____
The American Society for
Training and Development,
Alexandria, VA.
For Immediate Release
ASTD Endorses the Technology Education and Training Act (TETA) of 2001
Alexandria, VA, April 24.--The American Society for
Training & Development (ASTD) today congratulated Senator
Kent Conrad (D-ND) and other leading members of the U.S.
Senate and House of Representatives for introducing the
Technology Education & Training Act (TETA) of 2001.
The legislation would provide a tax credit for 100% of the
first $1,500 of IT training expenses paid for by an employer.
It also amends the HOPE and Lifetime Learning tax credits to
make it easier for individuals to use these tax credits for
IT training expenses.
``Given the shortage of skilled IT workers, the Technology
Education & Training Act of 2001 will go a long way toward
filling the gap and providing access to additional training
opportunities offered by higher education institutions and
training providers,'' said Tina Sung, President & CEO of
ASTD. ``Training is the key to preparing and maintaining a
strong workforce.''
ASTA's data shows that organizations that make the
investment in training are more financially successful. In a
study of 575 U.S.-based publicly traded firms during 1996,
1997, and 1998, ASTD found that companies that invested $680
more in training per employee than the average company in the
study improved their Total Shareholder Return (TSR) the next
year by six percentage points.
Founded in 1944, ASTD is the world's premiere professional
association in the field of workplace learning and
performance. ASTD's membership includes more than 70,000
professionals in organizations from every level of the field
of workplace learning and performance in more than 100
countries. Its leadership and members work in more than
15,000 multinational corporations, small and medium sized
businesses, government agencies, colleges, and universities.
______
By Mrs. FEINSTEIN (for herself, Mr. Smith of Oregon, Mr.
Bingaman, Mrs. Murray, Ms. Cantwell, and Mr. Lieberman):
S. 764. A bill to direct the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to
impose just and reasonable load-differentiated demand rates or cost-of-
service based rates on sales by public utilities of electric energy at
wholesale in the western energy market, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, by now we know that there will not be
enough electricity supply to meet demand in California this summer and
that there will be significant rolling blackouts.
As the peak summer demand for power in the State kicks in over the
next few months, the crisis is only going to deepen, and we may see
electricity prices in California and the Northwest reach unprecedented
levels.
And without intervention by the Federal Government, the price gouging
that has occurred over the past 6 months will almost certainly
continue.
In fact, it looks like California will spend 10 times more for power
in 2001 than it spent in 1999, an increase from $7 billion to $70
billion.
And I predict that if left unchecked, these price spikes will spread
to other states as well.
But despite the severity and scope of this crisis, the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, FERC, has failed to take necessary steps to
address the problem.
Since last August, I have called upon FERC to impose a temporary
wholesale price cap or cost of service-based rates on energy prices in
the Western market.
But FERC, an agency whose sole mission is to regulate the energy
market, has refused to act. Today, we introduce this legislation to
force FERC to do its job.
Some have argued that a bill to control energy prices would remove
incentives for companies to build additional energy generation,
exacerbating the situation.
While I agree that we desperately need new supply, I believe that a
price cap would provide temporary price stability and reliability until
the market returns to normal.
And quite frankly, I think that with prices for power 10 times more
than they were in 1999, there is more than enough incentive for
suppliers to sell into the Western market.
With cost of service based rates, energy suppliers would generate
significant profits and be guaranteed a reasonable rate of return.
With wholesale price caps, companies would be able to decide for
themselves whether it is profitable to produce at a given price.
In fact, the energy crisis we are now experiencing is marked much
more by the withholding of energy supply from the market than an
unwillingness to build additional generation.
In fact, California expects to have 20,000 additional megawatts on
line by 2004, enough power for 20 million additional people.
But because it takes 2-3 years to site new power generation, not
enough energy can be brought online in time to help the situation this
summer.
Price controls, if done right, could actually bring more power into
the market.
Indeed, the temporary cost-based rates and/or the regional price cap
that Senator Smith and I are proposing will eliminate that incentive.
Thus, generators would have no reason to withhold power to the market.
With that said, let me talk briefly about what this bill would do:
The bill requires FERC to set either a temporary price cap or cost of
service based rates (with a reasonable rate of return). And make no
mistake this bill is temporary; it is intended to get us through two
summers. In order to qualify, a state must allow its utilities to
recover costs from ratepayers and a state must pass electricity rates
onto ratepayers. Though a state regulatory authority would still
determine the manner in which wholesale rates are passed onto
consumers. In addition, the bill directs FERC to end the temporary
suspension of the natural gas transportation rate cap. Even today the
price of natural gas in Southern California is about 3 times the cost
in neighboring San Juan, New Mexico, $13 Decatherm vs. $4.50 Decatherm.
The bill directs FERC to require that anyone selling natural gas in a
bundled transaction into California to disclose the commodity and
transportation components of the price. When a company purchases both
the transportation and commodity components of natural gas, there is no
reporting requirement as to the price of each transaction. The bill
also requires that all future orders to sell natural gas or electricity
to an affected state must include a reasonable assurance of payment.
I am deeply disappointed that FERC will not do its job and protect
consumers and businesses in the West.
It is my hope that FERC will reconsider its opposition to price caps
or cost-based rates. Price caps or cost-based rates may be the only way
to prevent the further transfer of wealth from the Western region to
energy suppliers.
______
By Mr. BROWNBACK (for himself, Mr. Reid, Mr. Lugar, and Mr.
DeWine):
S. 765. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide
a carbon sequestration investment tax credit, and for other purposes;
to the Committee on Finance.
Mr. BROWNBACK. 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. 765
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 ``Carbon Sequestration
Investment Tax Credit Act''.
[[Page S3860]]
SEC. 2. CARBON SEQUESTRATION INVESTMENT TAX CREDIT.
(a) In General.--Subpart D of part IV of subchapter A of
chapter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to
business-related credits) is amended by adding at the end the
following new section:
``SEC. 45E. CARBON SEQUESTRATION INVESTMENT CREDIT.
``(a) Allowance of Credit.--
``(1) In general.--For purposes of section 38, in the case
of an eligible taxpayer's investment in a carbon
sequestration project approved by the implementing panel
under section 2 of the International Carbon Conservation Act,
the carbon sequestration investment credit determined under
this section for the taxable year is an amount equal to--
``(A) $2.50, multiplied by
``(B) the number of tons of carbon the implementing panel
determines was sequestrated in such project during the
calendar year ending with or within such taxable year,
multiplied by
``(C) the percentage of the total investment in such
project which is represented by the investment in such
project which is attributable, directly or indirectly, to the
eligible taxpayer, as determined by the implementing panel.
``(2) Aggregate dollar limitation.--The credit determined
under paragraph (1) for any taxable year, when added to any
credit allowed to the eligible taxpayer with respect to the
such project in any preceding taxable year, shall not exceed
50 percent of the investment attributable to the eligible
taxpayer with respect to such project through such taxable
year.
``(b) Annual Limitation on Aggregate Credit Allowable.--
``(1) In general.--The amount of the carbon sequestration
investment credit determined under subsection (a) for any
taxable year, when added to all such credits allowed to all
eligible taxpayers with respect to the such project for such
taxable year shall not exceed the credit dollar amount
allocated to such project under this subsection by the
implementing panel for the calendar year ending with or
within such taxable year.
``(2) Time for making allocation.--An allocation shall be
taken into account under paragraph (1) only if it is made not
later than the close of the calendar year in which the carbon
sequestration project proposal with respect to such project
is approved by the implementing panel under section 2 of the
International Carbon Conservation Act.
``(3) Aggregate credit dollar amount.--The aggregate credit
dollar amount which the implementing panel may allocate for
any calendar year is equal to $200,000,000.
``(e) Eligible Taxpayer; Implementing Panel.--For purposes
of this section--
``(1) Eligible taxpayer.--A taxpayer is eligible for the
credit under this section with respect to a carbon
sequestration project if such taxpayer has not elected the
application of sections 3 and 4 of the International Carbon
Conservation Act with respect to such project.
``(2) Implementing panel.--The term `implementing panel'
means the implementing panel established under section 2 of
such Act.
``(f) Recapture of Credit In Certain Cases.--
``(1) In general.--If, at any time during the 30-year
period of a carbon sequestration project, there is a
recapture event with respect to such project, then the tax
imposed by this chapter for the taxable year in which such
event occurs shall be increased by the credit recapture
amount.
``(2) Credit recapture amount.--For purposes of paragraph
(1)--
``(A) In general.--The credit recapture amount is an amount
equal to the recapture percentage of all carbon sequestration
investment credits previously allowable to an eligible
taxpayer with respect to any investment in such project that
is attributable to such taxpayer.
``(B) Recapture percentage.--The recapture percentage shall
be 100 percent if the recapture event occurs during the first
10 years of the project, 66\2/3\ percent if the recapture
event occurs during the second 10 years of the project, 33\1/
3\ percent if the recapture event occurs during the third 10
years of the project, and 0 percent if the recapture event
occurs at any time after the 30th year of the project.
``(3) Recapture event.--For purposes of paragraph (1),
there is a recapture event with respect to a carbon
sequestration project if--
``(A) the eligible taxpayer violates a term or condition of
the approval of the project by the implementing panel at any
time,
``(B) the eligible taxpayer adopts a practice which the
implementing panel has specified in its approval of the
project as a practice which would tend to defeat the purposes
of the carbon sequestration program, or
``(C) the eligible taxpayer disposes of any ownership
interest arising out of its investment that the implementing
panel has determined is attributable to the project, unless
the implementing panel determines that such disposition will
not have any adverse effect on the carbon sequestration
project.
If an event which otherwise would be a recapture event is
outside the control of the eligible taxpayer, as determined
by the implementing panel, such event shall not be treated as
a recapture event with respect to such taxpayer.
``(4) Special rules.--
``(A) Tax benefit rule.--The tax for the taxable year shall
be increased under paragraph (1) only with respect to credits
allowed by reason of this section which were used to reduce
tax liability. In the case of credits not so used to reduce
tax liability, the carryforwards and carrybacks under section
39 shall be appropriately adjusted.
``(B) No credits against tax.--Any increase in tax under
this subsection shall not be treated as a tax imposed by this
chapter for purposes of determining the amount of any credit
under this chapter or for purposes of section 55.
``(g) Disallowance of Double Benefit.--
``(1) Basis reduction.--The basis of any investment in a
carbon sequestration project shall be reduced by the amount
of any credit determined under this section with respect to
such investment.
``(2) Charitable deduction disallowed.--No deduction shall
be allowed to an eligible taxpayer under section 170 with
respect to any contribution which the implementing panel
certifies pursuant to section 2 of the International Carbon
Conservation Act to the Secretary constitutes an investment
in a carbon sequestration project that is attributable to
such taxpayer.
``(h) Certification to Secretary.--The implementing panel
shall certify to the Secretary before January 31 of each year
with respect to each eligible taxpayer which has made an
investment in a carbon sequestration project--
``(1) the amount of the carbon sequestration investment
credit allowable to such taxpayer for the preceding calendar
year,
``(2) whether a recapture event occurred with respect to
such taxpayer during the preceding calendar year, and
``(3) the credit recapture amount, if any, with respect to
such taxpayer for the preceding calendar year.
``(i) Regulations.--The Secretary shall prescribe such
regulations as may be appropriate to carry out this section,
including regulations--
``(1) which limit the credit for investments which are
directly or indirectly subsidized by other Federal benefits,
``(2) which prevent the abuse of the provisions of this
section through the use of related parties, and
``(3) which impose appropriate reporting requirements.''.
(b) Credit Made Part of General Business Credit.--
(1) In general.--Subsection (b) of section 38 of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by striking ``plus''
at the end of paragraph (12), by striking the period at the
end of paragraph (13) and inserting ``, plus'', and by adding
at the end the following new paragraph:
``(14) the carbon sequestration investment credit
determined under section 45E(a).''.
(2) Limitation on carryback.--Subsection (d) of section 39
of such Code is amended by adding at the end the following
new paragraph:
``(10) No carryback of carbon sequestration investment
credit before january 1, 2002.--No portion of the unused
business credit for any taxable year which is attributable to
the credit under section 45E may be carried back to a taxable
year ending before January 1, 2002.''.
(c) Deduction for Unused Credit.--Subsection (c) of section
196 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by
striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (7), by striking the
period at the end of paragraph (8) and inserting ``, and'',
and by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(9) the carbon sequestration investment credit determined
under section 45E(a).''.
(d) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections for subpart
D of part IV of subchapter A of chapter 1 of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by adding at the end the
following new item:
``Sec. 45E. Carbon sequestration investment credit.''.
(e) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to investments made after December 31, 2001.
______
By Mr. HUTCHINSON:
S. 766. A bill to impose notification and reporting requirements in
connection with grants of waivers of the limitation on certain
procurements of the Department of Defense that is known as the Berry
amendment, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Armed Services
Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill
I am introducing today be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 766
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. NOTIFICATION AND REPORTING REQUIREMENTS REGARDING
WAIVER OF THE BERRY AMENDMENT LIMITATION.
(a) Annual Report.--(1) After the end of each fiscal year,
the Secretary of Defense shall submit to Congress a report on
the waivers of the limitation on use of funds set forth in
section 9005 of Public Law 102-396 (popularly known as the
``Berry amendment'') that were granted under any provision of
law during that fiscal year for procurements made by the
Defense Logistics Agency for the military departments.
[[Page S3861]]
(2) The report for a fiscal year shall include the
following:
(A) The number of waivers.
(B) For each waiver--
(i) the reasons for the waiver;
(ii) the date of the notification of the military
department concerned under subsection (b); and
(iii) a description of the items procured pursuant to the
waiver, together with the amount of the procurement.
(C) The number of instances in which the Secretary of
Defense waived the notification requirement under subsection
(b).
(b) Notification.--(1) Not later than 14 days before
granting a waiver of the limitation referred to in subsection
(a)(1) for a procurement to be made by the Defense Logistics
Agency for a military department, the Secretary of Defense
shall transmit to the Secretary of the military department a
notification of the determination to waive the limitation.
(2) The Secretary of Defense may waive the applicability of
the notification requirement under paragraph (1) in any case
in which the Secretary determines that a delay of the
procurement to satisfy the requirement is not consistent with
a need to expedite the procurement in the national security
interests of the United States.
(c) System for Data Collection.--The Secretary of Defense
shall establish a system for--
(1) monitoring the granting of waivers of the limitation
referred to in subsection (a)(1); and
(2) recording the waivers and the reasons for the waivers.
(d) Definition.--In this section, the term ``waiver'', with
respect to the limitation referred to in subsection (a)(1),
means a determination authorized under section 9005 of Public
Law 102-396 that a particular procurement is covered by an
exception provided in that section.
______
By Mr. REED (for himself, Mr. Corzine, Mr. Kennedy, Mrs. Clinton,
Mr. Durbin, Mrs. Feinstein, Mr. Levin, Mr. Torricelli, Mr.
Kerry, Mr. Chafee, Mrs. Boxer, Mr. Schumer, Ms. Mikulski, Mr.
Wellstone, Mr. Graham, Mr. Inouye, Mr. Carper, Mr. Wyden, Mr.
Sarbanes, Mr. Akaka, and Mr. Hollings):
S. 767. A bill to extend the Brady background checks to gun shows,
and for other purposes; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Gun Show Background
Check Act of 2001. Along with twenty of my colleagues, I am offering
this legislation to renew the process of bringing some sense to our
nation's gun laws by closing a loophole that has allowed criminals to
buy firearms at gun shows for far too long.
The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms reported to Congress last
year that gun shows are a major gun trafficking channel responsible for
more than 26,000 illegal firearms sales during an 18-month period. The
FBI and ATF tell us again and again that convicted felons, domestic
abusers, and other prohibited purchasers are taking advantage of the
gun show loophole to acquire firearms.
Two years ago, after Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold killed 13 people
at Columbine High School with weapons purchased from a private seller
at a gun show, the United States Senate passed the Lautenberg amendment
to close the gun show loophole. The legislation I am introducing today
is identical to that Senate-passed amendment.
Under federal law, Federal Firearms Licensees are required to
maintain careful records of their sales, and under the Brady Act, to
check a purchaser's background with the National Instant Criminal
Background Check System before transferring any firearm. However, a
person does not need a federal firearms license, and the Brady Act does
not apply, if the person is not ``engaged in the business'' of selling
firearms pursuant to federal law. These nonlicensees make up one
quarter or more of the sellers of firearms at thousands of gun shows in
America each year. Consequently, felons and other prohibited persons
who want to avoid Brady Act checks and records of their purchases buy
firearms at gun shows.
My legislation incorporates recommendations made by the Department of
Justice and the Department of the Treasury in their 1999 report on gun
shows. The legislation would take several steps to make gun show
transactions safer for all Americans:
Definition of gun shows: Gun shows are defined to include any event
at which 50 or more firearms are offered or exhibited for sale. This
definition includes not only those events where firearms are the main
commodity sold, but also other events where a significant number of
guns are sold, such as flea markets or swap meets.
Gun show promoters: Gun show promoters would be required to register
with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms, maintain a list of
vendors at all gun shows, and ensure that all vendors acknowledge
receipt of information about their legal obligations.
Background checks for all transactions: The bill requires that all
firearms sales at gun shows go through a Federal Firearms Licensee. If
a nonlicensed person is selling a weapon, they would use an FFL at the
gun show to complete the transaction. The FFL would be responsible for
conducting a Brady check on the purchaser and maintaining records of
the transactions.
Improved firearm tracing: FFLs would be required to submit
information necessary to trace all firearms transferred at gun shows to
the ATF's National Tracing Center, including the manufacturer/importer,
model, and serial number of the firearms. However, no personal
information about either the seller or the purchaser would be given to
the government. Instead, as under current law, FFLs would maintain this
information in their files. The NTC would request this information from
an FFL only in the event that a firearm subsequently becomes the
subject of a law enforcement trace request.
Some will say that this legislation is an attempt to end gun shows,
but the experience of states that have closed the gun show loophole
proves otherwise. California, for example, requires not only background
checks at gun shows but a 10-day waiting period for all gun sales, yet
gun shows continue to thrive there. No, we're not trying to end gun
shows. What we are trying to end is the free pass we're giving to
convicted felons when they can walk into a gun show, find a private
dealer, buy whatever weapons they want and walk out without a Brady
background check.
In overwhelming numbers, the American people believe that background
checks should be required for all gun show sales. The people of
Colorado and Oregon confirmed this last fall when they approved ballot
initiatives to close the gun show loophole. I urge my colleagues to
support the Gun Show Background Check Act of 2001 so that we can
finally close this loophole in every state and make sure that convicted
felons, domestic abusers, and other prohibited persons do not use gun
shows to purchase firearms without a Brady background check.
______
By Mr. WARNER:
S. 768. A bill to amend section 8339(p) of title 5, United States
Code, to clarify the method for computing certain annuities under the
Civil Service Retirement System which are based (in whole or in part)
on part-time service, and for other purposes, to the Committee on
Governmental Affairs.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleague in the
House of Representatives, Congressman Jim Moran, in introducing
legislation to correct an error in the retirement benefits calculation
for certain part-time federal employees.
In 1986, Congress passed legislation to reform the retirement system
for the federal workforce, establishing the Federal Employees
Retirement System to replace the Civil Service Retirement System.
Provisions in this legislation also revised the formula used to
determine retirement benefits for employees with full time and part
time service in the federal government. Congress did not intend this
change to impact the existing workers who remained under the Civil
Service Retirement System.
Implementation of the provision, however, was misinterpreted by the
Office of Personnel Management. Affected employees are losing hundreds,
and in some cases thousands, of dollars every year of the retirement
benefits they earned.
Many employees only became aware as they were about to retire that
they would not receive all of the benefits they were expecting. The
impacted federal workers had full-time service before 1986, and changed
to part-time service for the end of their civil service career. Often
these employees cut back their hours to care for their families,
[[Page S3862]]
or even delayed retirement and worked part-time to help an office
during a transition period.
The revised retirement formula calculates benefits for a federal
part-time worker based on a full-time equivalent basis which is scaled
accordingly. Benefits are based on a worker's high-three average salary
during his or her career. This could occur during an employee's part-
time service.
Civil service employees with pre-1986 full-time work and some part-
time work after 1986 do not receive the proper credit for their full-
time work, however, because full-time and part-time work are broken
into two parts. The full-time equivalent pay for the high-three years
should apply to an employees entire career. Instead, for the affected
employees, their pre-1986 full-time benefits are based on actual
salary. This two-step approach undervalues the worker's full-time
service.
The bill I am introducing today will correct this error by allowing
an employee's full-time equivalent salary for their high-three years
apply to their entire careers, including pre-1986 service.
I encourage my colleagues to support this legislation and these
federal employees for their dedicated service by ensuring they receive
the retirement benefits they have earned.
I ask 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. 768
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. COMPUTATION OF CERTAIN ANNUITIES BASED ON PART-
TIME SERVICE.
Section 8339(p) of title 5, United States Code, is amended
by adding at the end the following:
``(3) In the administration of paragraph (1)--
``(A) subparagraph (A) of such paragraph shall apply with
respect to any service performed on a part-time basis before,
on, or after April 7, 1986;
``(B) subparagraph (B) of such paragraph shall apply with
respect to all service performed on or after April 7, 1986
(whether on a part-time basis or otherwise); and
``(C) any service performed on a part-time basis before
April 7, 1986, shall be credited as service performed on a
full-time basis.''.
SEC. 2. APPLICABILITY.
(a) In General.--Except as provided in subsection (b), the
amendment made by this Act shall apply only with respect to
an annuity entitlement that is based on a separation
occurring on or after the date of enactment of this Act.
(b) Recomputation of Certain Annuities.--
(1) In general.--In the case of any individual who--
(A) before April 7, 1986, performed any service creditable
under subchapter III of chapter 83 of title 5, United States
Code, and
(B) was separated from the service on or after April 7,
1986, and before the date of enactment of this Act,
any annuity under subchapter III of chapter 83 of title 5,
United States Code (or under chapter 84 of that title, to the
extent of any portion of such annuity which is computed under
subchapter III of such chapter 83) based on the service of
such individual shall be recomputed to take into account the
amendment made by this Act, if application therefor is made
within 18 months after the date of enactment of this Act.
(2) Amounts to which applicable.--Any change in an annuity
resulting from a recomputation under paragraph (1) shall be
effective with respect to amounts accruing for months
beginning after the date on which application for such
recomputation is made.
(c) Notice Requirement.--
(1) In general.--The Office of Personnel Management shall
take such action as may be necessary and appropriate to
inform individuals entitled to have any annuity recomputed
under subsection (b) of their entitlement to such
recomputation.
(2) Assistance.--The Office shall, on request, assist any
individual referred to in paragraph (1) in obtaining from any
department, agency, or other instrumentality of the United
States such information in the possession of such
instrumentality as may be necessary--
(A) to verify the entitlement of such individual to have an
annuity recomputed under subsection (b); or
(B) to carry out any such recomputation.
(3) Information.--Any department, agency, or other
instrumentality of the United States which possesses any
information with respect to part-time service performed by an
individual shall, at the request of the Office, furnish such
information to the Office.
______
By Mr. BROWNBACK (for himself, Mr. Reid, Mr. Lugar, and Mr.
DeWine):
S. 769. A bill to establish a carbon sequestration program and an
implementing panel within the Department of Commerce to enhance
international conservation, to promote the role of carbon sequestration
as a means of slowing the buildup of greenhouse gases in the
atmosphere, and to reward and encourage voluntary, pro-active
environmental efforts on the issue of global climate change; to the
Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.
Mr. BROWNBACK. 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. 769
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 ``International Carbon
Conservation Act''.
SEC. 2. CARBON SEQUESTRATION PROGRAM.
(a) Carbon Sequestration Program.--Within 180 days after
the date of the enactment of this Act, the implementing panel
shall establish a carbon sequestration program to permit
project sponsors to make carbon sequestration project
proposals to the implementing panel.
(b) Implementing Panel.--There is established within the
National Institute of Standards and Technology of the
Department of Commerce an implementing panel consisting of--
(1) the Director of the National Institute of Standards and
Technology,
(2) the Secretary of Agriculture,
(3) the Secretary of State,
(4) the Secretary of Energy,
(5) the Chief of the Forest Service, and
(6) representatives of nongovernmental organizations who
have an expertise and experience in carbon sequestration
practices, appointed by the Secretary of Agriculture.
The Chief of the Forest Service shall act as chairperson of
the implementing panel.
(c) Carbon Sequestration Project.--For purposes of this
section--
(1) In general.--The term ``carbon sequestration project''
means a project--
(A) which is located outside the United States,
(B) the duration of which is not less than 30 years,
(C) which is designed to increase the sequestration of
carbon, and
(D) which is accepted by the implementing panel under the
carbon sequestration program.
(2) Acceptance of project proposals.--
(A) In general.--Under the carbon sequestration program,
the implementing panel shall accept a proposal for a carbon
sequestration project from a project sponsor only if--
(i) the proposal includes a needs assessment described in
subparagraph (B),
(ii) the proposal identifies the benefits of carbon
sequestration practices of the sponsored project under
criteria developed to evaluate such benefits under subsection
(d) and under guidelines instituted to quantify such benefits
under subsection (e) and includes an agreement by the sponsor
to carry out such practices as described in subparagraph (C),
and
(iii) the proposal includes an agreement to provide
verification of compliance with an approved project as
described in subparagraph (D) under standards established
under subsection (f).
(B) Needs assessment.--A needs assessment described in this
subparagraph is an assessment of the need for the carbon
sequestration project described in a proposal and the ability
of the project sponsor to carry out the carbon sequestration
practices related to such project. The assessment shall be
developed by the project sponsor, in cooperation with the
Agency for International Development, nongovernmental
organizations, and independent third-party verifiers.
(C) Carbon sequestration practices.--Under a carbon
sequestration project proposal, the project sponsor shall
agree to contract with other entities, including
organizations based in the country in which the sponsored
carbon sequestration project is located, to carry out carbon
sequestration practices proposed by the project sponsor which
(as determined by the implementing panel)--
(i) provide for additional carbon sequestration beyond that
which would be provided in the absence of such project, and
(ii) contribute to a positive reduction of greenhouse gases
in the atmosphere through carbon sequestration over at least
a 30-year period.
(D) Verification of compliance with approved carbon
sequestration project.--Under a carbon sequestration project
proposal, the project sponsor shall agree to provide the
implementing panel with verification through a third party
that such project is sequestering carbon in accordance with
the proposal approved by the implementing panel, including an
annual audit of the project, an actual verification of the
practices at the project site every 5 years, and such random
inspections as are necessary.
(d) Criteria for Evaluating Benefits of Carbon
Sequestration Practices.--
[[Page S3863]]
(1) In general.--Under the carbon sequestration program the
Chief of the Forest Service, in consultation with other
members of the implementing panel, shall develop criteria for
prioritizing, determining the acceptability of, and
evaluating, the benefits of the carbon sequestration
practices proposed in projects for the purpose of determining
the acceptability of project proposals.
(2) Content.--The criteria shall ensure that carbon
sequestration investment credits under section 45E of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 are not allocated to projects
the primary purpose of which is to grow timber for commercial
harvest or to projects which replace native ecological
systems with commercial timber plantations. Projects should
be prioritized according to--
(A) native forest preservation, especially with respect to
land which would otherwise cease to be native forest land,
(B) reforestation of former forest land where such land has
not been forested for at least 10 years,
(C) biodiversity enhancement,
(D) the prevention of greenhouse gas emissions through the
preservation of carbon storing plants and trees,
(E) soil erosion management,
(F) soil fertility restoration, and
(G) the duration of the project, including any project
under which other entities are engaged to extend the duration
of the project beyond the minimum carbon sequestration
project term.
(e) Guidelines for Quantifying Benefits.--
(1) In general.--Under the carbon sequestration program,
the Chief of the Forest Service, in consultation with other
members of the implementing panel, shall institute guidelines
for the development of methodologies for quantifying the
amount of carbon sequestered by particular projects for the
purposes of determining the acceptability of project
proposals. These guidelines should set standards for project
sponsors with regard to--
(A) methodologies for measuring the carbon sequestered,
(B) measures to assure the duration of projects sponsored,
(C) criteria that verifies that the carbon sequestered is
additional to the sequestration which would have occurred
without the sponsored project,
(D) reasonable criteria to evaluate the extent to which the
project displaces activity that causes deforestation in
another location, and
(E) the extent to which the project promotes sustainable
development in a project area, particularly with regard to
protecting the traditional land tenure of indigenous people.
(2) Basis.--In developing the guidelines, the Chief of the
Forest Service shall--
(A) consult with land grant universities and entities which
specialize in carbon storage verification and measurement,
and
(B) use information reported to the Secretary of Energy
from projects carried out under the voluntary reporting
program of the Energy Information Administration under
section 1605 of the Energy Policy Act of 1992 (42 U.S.C.
13385).
(f) Verification Standards.--Under the carbon sequestration
program, the Director of the National Institute of Standards
and Technology, in consultation with other members of the
implementing panel and the National Science Foundation, shall
establish verification standards for purposes of subsection
(c)(2)(D).
(g) Program Reporting.--The Administrator of the Energy
Information Administration, in consultation with the
Secretary of Agriculture, shall develop forms to monitor
carbon sequestration improvements made as a result of the
program established under this section and the implementing
panel shall use such forms to report to the Administrator
on--
(1) carbon sequestration improvements made as a result of
the program,
(2) carbon sequestration practices of project sponsors
enrolled in the program, and
(3) compliance with the terms of the implementing panel's
approval of projects.
(h) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated such sums as are necessary to carry out
the program established under subsection (a).
SEC. 3. EXPORT-IMPORT BANK FINANCING.
An owner or operator of property that is located outside of
the United States and that is used in a carbon sequestration
project approved by the implementing panel under section 2
may enter into a contract for an extension of credit from the
Export-Import Bank of the United States of up to 75 percent
of the cost of carrying out the carbon sequestration
practices specified in the carbon sequestration project
proposal to the extent that the Export-Import Bank determines
that the cost sharing is appropriate, in the public interest,
and otherwise meets the requirements of the Export-Import
Bank Act of 1945.
SEC. 4. EQUITY INVESTMENT INSURANCE.
An owner or operator of property that is located outside of
the United States and that is used in a carbon sequestration
project approved by the implementing panel under section 2
may enter into a contract for investment insurance issued by
the Overseas Private Investment Corporation pursuant to
section 234 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C.
2194) if the Corporation determines that issuance of the
insurance is consistent with the provisions of such section
234.
______
By Mr. LEVIN (for himself and Mr. Jeffords):
S. 770. A bill to amend part A of title IV of the Social security Act
to allow up to 24 months of vocational educational training to be
counted as a work activity under the temporary assistance to needy
families program; to the Committee on Finance.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined by Senator
Jeffords, Chairman of the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions
Committee in introducing legislation that seeks to add an important
measure of flexibility to a provision of the Temporary Assistance for
Needy Families program, TANF, under the Personal Responsibility and
Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996. The legislation we are
introducing increases from 12 to 24 months the limit on the amount of
vocational education training that a state can count towards meeting
its work participation rate.
Under the pre-1996 Aid to Families with Dependent Children program,
recipients could participate in post-secondary vocational training or
community college programs for up to 24 months. While I support the new
law's emphasis on moving welfare recipients more quickly into jobs, I
am troubled by the law's restriction on post-secondary education
training, limiting it to 12 months. One year of vocational education is
an approved work activity, the second year of post-secondary education
study is not.
The limitation on post-secondary education training raises a number
of concerns, not the least of which is whether individuals may be
forced into low-paying, short-term employment that will lead them back
onto public assistance because they are unable to support themselves or
their families. According to recent studies, this is exactly what has
happened in far too many cases. According to a March 13, 2001 report of
the Congressional Research Service, which is based on research
published in the 2000 Edition of the House Committee on Ways and Means
Green Book, although the majority of recipients who have left the
welfare rolls left because they became employed, most remained poor.
The research also revealed that the average hourly wage for these
former welfare recipients ranged from $5.50 to $8.80 per hour.
Study after study indicates that short-term training programs raise
the income of workers only marginally, while completion of at least a
two-year associate degree has the potential of breaking the cycle of
poverty for welfare recipients. According to the U.S. Census Bureau,
the median earnings of adults with an associate degree are 30 percent
higher than adults who have not achieved such a degree.
A majority of the members of the Senate has previously cast their
vote in favor of making 24 months of post-secondary education a
permissible work activity under TANF The Levin-Jeffords amendment to
the 1997 Reconciliation bill, permitting up to 24 months of post-
secondary education, received 55 votes--falling five votes short of the
required procedural vote of 60. The amendment had the support of the
National Governors Association, NGA, and NGA's support continues with
the legislation Senator Jeffords and I are introducing today. I would
also like to make note of Senator Wellstone's efforts on this issue. He
subsequently proposed several modifications to TANF, including raising
the 12 month limit to 24 months, in an amendment to the 1998 Higher
Education reauthorization bill. The amendment passed the Senate but was
deleted during conference negotiations.
It is my hope that the Senate will again act favorably and
expeditiously on this legislation and that the House will support this
much-needed State flexibility. We must do what is necessary to achieve
TANF's intended goal of getting families permanently off of welfare and
onto self-sufficiency.
In closing, I would like to present to my colleagues some examples of
the earnings that can be made upon completion of two years of training
in a structured vocational or community college program. The following
are jobs that an individual could prepare for in a two-year community
college program, including the average starting salary for each
nationwide.
[[Page S3864]]
Average Starting Salary Nationwide
Dental Hygiene..................................................$31,750
Physical Therapy Assistant.......................................28,782
Computer Programing..............................................28,000
Occupational Therapy Assistant...................................27,624
Respiratory Therapy..............................................26,877
Computer Assisted Design.........................................26,890
Drafting and Design..............................................24,800
Electronic Technology............................................24,255
Culinary Arts....................................................22,500
Early Childhood Development Assistant............................18,000
Again, I urge my colleagues to act with haste. The modification
embodied in this legislation can give the states the flexibility they
need to help improve the economic status of families across America.
______
By Mr. WARNER (for himself and Mr. Allen):
S.J. Res. 13. A joint resolution conferring honorary citizenship of
the United States on Paul Yves Roch Gilbert du Motier, also known as
the Marquis de Lafayette; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill that will
make General Lafayette an honorary United States Citizen. This honor
has been bestowed on four other individuals including Winston Churchill
and Mother Teresa.
Marie Joseph Paul Yves Roch Gilbert du Motier, Marquis de La Fayette
(1757-1834) was born in France and was a wealthy French youth blessed
with every advantage offered by Europe's aristocracy. Although he was
wealthy and among France's aristocracy, he risked his wealth and status
to aid the Americans in their revolution against Great Britain.
At the age of 19, determined to dedicate himself to the cause of our
liberty, he bought a ship and sailed to the American colonies to
volunteer his services. In early summer of 1777, soon after his
arrival, Congress voted him the rank and commission of Major General.
Just two months later, Lafayette was wounded at the battle of
Brandywine, forever endearing himself to the American soldiers.
Throughout the American Revolution, Lafayette acted as a liaison
between France and the American colonies. He urged influential policy
makers to have France make the decisive military, naval and financial
commitment to the colonists. His tireless efforts, both as a liaison
and a general, aided America in her time of need.
As a general, his military tactics lured British General Cornwallis
and his army to Yorktown, Virginia. The American Army, led by General
Washington, along with French forces led by Rochambeau, came south and
trapped Cornwallis and his troops at Yorktown. As a result, the British
were forced to surrender.
Lafayette's services to America extended beyond the battlefront. He
worked diligently as an advisor, helping win concessions from Britain
during the Treaty negotiations. At Versailles, when negotiating with
the French government, our representatives Franklin and Jefferson found
him invaluable. Moreover, his impartial friendship was extended to the
first eight U.S. presidents.
Despite his commitment to our Country, America did not recognize his
United States' citizenship in his time of need. While crossing the
French border into the Netherlands to escape arrest from the
Revolutionary French Government, the Austrians captured and arrested
General Lafayette. Despite his claim that he was an American citizen
being illegally detained, the Austrians disagreed. General Lafayette
appealed to American ministers for help, but his calls for intervention
were not answered. Lafayette clearly felt that he was an America
citizen, and technically he may have been under the blanket
naturalization granted all citizens of each state when the Constitution
was ratified. The U.S. government, however, failed to acknowledge his
claim, and he spent the next five years in prison.
Although General Lafayette was made an honorary citizen by Virginia
and Maryland before the United States Constitution was ratified, the
United States failed to recognize his citizenship while he was
imprisoned. I feel that we must set the record straight and honor
General Lafayette for his commitment to the United States by making him
an honorary United States citizen. I ask unanimous consent that the
text of the bill be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the joint resolution was ordered to be
printed in the Record, as follows:
S. J. Res. 13
Whereas the United States has conferred honorary
citizenship on four other occasions in more than 200 years of
its independence, and honorary citizenship is and should
remain an extraordinary honor not lightly conferred nor
frequently granted;
Whereas Paul Yves Roch Gilbert du Motier, also known as the
Marquis de Lafayette or General Lafayette, voluntarily put
forth his own money and risked his life for the freedom of
Americans;
Whereas the Marquis de Lafayette, by an Act of Congress,
was voted to the rank of Major General;
Whereas, during the Revolutionary War, General Lafayette
was wounded at the Battle of Brandywine, demonstrating
bravery that forever endeared him to the American soldiers;
Whereas the Marquis de Lafayette secured the help of France
to aid the United States' colonists against Great Britain;
Whereas the Marquis de Lafayette was conferred the honor of
honorary citizenship by the Commonwealth of Virginia and the
State of Maryland;
Whereas the Marquis de Lafayette was the first foreign
dignitary to address Congress, which honor was accorded him
upon his return to the United States in 1824;
Whereas, upon his death, both the House of Representatives
and the Senate draped their chambers in black as a
demonstration of respect and gratitude for his contribution
to the independence of the United States;
Whereas an American flag has flown over his grave in France
since his death and has not been removed, even while France
occupied by Nazi Germany during World War II; and
Whereas the Marquis de Lafayette gave aid to the United
States in time need and is forever a symbol of freedom: Now,
therefore, be it
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled, That Paul
Yves Roch Gilbert du Motier, also known as the Marquis de
Lafayette, is proclaimed to be an honorary citizen of the
United States of America.
____________________