[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 70 (Monday, May 21, 2001)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5271-S5278]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. KOHL (for himself, Ms. Snowe, Mr. Bayh, Mr. Graham, Mr. 
        Johnson, Mr. Lieberman, Mr. Rockefeller, Mr. Breaux, and Mrs. 
        Lincoln):
  S. 916. A bill to provide more child support money to families 
leaving welfare, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Children First 
Child Support Reform Act of 2001, and I want to thank Senators Snowe, 
Bayh, Graham, Johnson, Lieberman, Rockefeller, Breaux and Lincoln for 
cosponsoring. I am also pleased to cosponsor Senator Snowe's Child 
Support Distribution Act of 2001, which includes the ``Children First'' 
component as well as other provisions to improve child support 
collections and enforcement. I applaud Senator Snowe for her continued 
leadership on this important issue.
  The ``Children First'' bill takes significant steps toward ensuring 
that children receive the child support money they are owed and 
deserve. In Fiscal Year 1999, the public child support system collected 
child support payments for only 37 percent of its caseload, up from 23 
percent in 1998. Obviously, we still need to improve, but States are 
making real progress. It's time for Congress to take the next step and 
help States overcome a major obstacle to collecting child support for 
families.
  There are many reasons why non-custodial parents may not be paying 
support for their children. Some are not able to pay because they don't 
have jobs or have fallen on hard times. Others may not pay because they 
are unfairly prevented from spending time with their children.
  But other fathers don't pay because the public system actually 
discourages them from paying. Under current law, over $2 billion in 
child support is retained every year by the State and Federal 
governments as repayment for welfare benefits, rather than delivered to 
the children to whom it is owed. Since the money doesn't benefit their 
kids, fathers are discouraged from paying support. And mothers have no 
incentive to push for payment since the support doesn't go to them.
  It's time for Congress to change this system and encourage States to 
distribute more child support to families. My home State of Wisconsin 
has already been doing this for several years and is seeing great 
results. In 1997, I worked with my State to institute an innovative 
program of passing through child support payments directly to families. 
A recent evaluation of the Wisconsin program clearly shows that when 
child support payments are delivered to families, non-custodial parents 
are more apt to pay, and to pay more. In addition, Wisconsin has found 
that, overall, this policy does not increase government costs. That 
makes sense because ``passing through'' support payments to families 
means they have more of their own resources, and are less apt to depend 
on public help to meet other needs such as food, transportation or 
child care.
  We now have a key opportunity to encourage all States to follow 
Wisconsin's example. This legislation gives States options and strong 
incentives to send more child support directly to families who are 
working their way off, or are already off, public assistance. Not only 
will this create the right incentives for non-custodial parents to pay, 
but it will also simplify the job for States, who currently face an 
administrative nightmare in following the complicated rules of the 
current system.

  We know that creating the right incentives for non-custodial parents 
to pay support and increasing collections has long-term benefits. 
People who can count on child support are more likely to stay in jobs 
and stay off public assistance.
  This legislation finally brings the Child Support Enforcement program 
into the post-welfare reform era, shifting its focus from recovering 
welfare costs to increasing child support to families so they can 
sustain work and maintain self-sufficiency. After all, it's only fair 
that if we are asking parents to move off welfare and take financial 
responsibility for their families, then we in Congress must make sure 
that child support payments actually go to the families to whom they 
are owed and who are working so hard to succeed.
  Last year, a House version of this bill passed by an overwhelming 
bipartisan vote of 405 to 18, and a similar version has been 
reintroduced this year. My legislation has also been included in 
Senator Snowe's Child Support Distribution Act, and the bipartisan 
``Strengthening Working Families Act, both of which I am proud to be an 
original cosponsor.
  I was also greatly encouraged by the statements made by Secretary 
Thompson at the Labor, Health and Human Services, Education and Related 
Agencies Appropriations hearing on April 25, 2001, in which the 
Secretary spoke about the success of Wisconsin's program and expressed 
his support for this approach. I am hopeful that the Administration 
will be able to fully support this legislation, as I believe it is 
consistent with the President's goal of making sure that families, not 
the government, keep more of the money they earn and deserve.
  We must keep this bipartisan momentum going in this Congress. It's 
time that we finally make child support meaningful for families, and 
make sure that children get the support they need and deserve.

[[Page S5272]]

  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. 916

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

       (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Children 
     First Child Support Reform Act of 2001''.
       (b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents of this Act 
     is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
Sec. 2. Modification of rule requiring assignment of support rights as 
              a condition of receiving TANF.
Sec. 3. Increasing child support payments to families and simplifying 
              child support distribution rules.
Sec. 4. State option to discontinue certain support assignments.
Sec. 5. Effective date.

     SEC. 2. MODIFICATION OF RULE REQUIRING ASSIGNMENT OF SUPPORT 
                   RIGHTS AS A CONDITION OF RECEIVING TANF.

       Section 408(a)(3) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 
     608(a)(3)) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(3) No assistance for families not assigning certain 
     support rights to the state.--A State to which a grant is 
     made under section 403 shall require, as a condition of 
     paying assistance to a family under the State program funded 
     under this part, that a member of the family assign to the 
     State any rights the family member may have (on behalf of the 
     family member or of any other person for whom the family 
     member has applied for or is receiving such assistance) to 
     support from any other person, not exceeding the total amount 
     of assistance so paid to the family, which accrues during the 
     period that the family receives assistance under the 
     program.''.

     SEC. 3. INCREASING CHILD SUPPORT PAYMENTS TO FAMILIES AND 
                   SIMPLIFYING CHILD SUPPORT DISTRIBUTION RULES.

       (a) Distribution Rules.--
       (1) In general.--Section 457(a) of the Social Security Act 
     (42 U.S.C. 657(a)) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(a) In General.--Subject to subsections (e) and (f), the 
     amounts collected on behalf of a family as support by a State 
     under a plan approved under this part shall be distributed as 
     follows:
       ``(1) Families receiving assistance.--In the case of a 
     family receiving assistance from the State, the State shall--
       ``(A) pay to the Federal Government the Federal share of 
     the amount collected, subject to paragraph (3)(A);
       ``(B) retain, or pay to the family, the State share of the 
     amount collected, subject to paragraph (3)(B); and
       ``(C) pay to the family any remaining amount.
       ``(2) Families that formerly received assistance.--In the 
     case of a family that formerly received assistance from the 
     State:
       ``(A) Current support.--To the extent that the amount 
     collected does not exceed the current support amount, the 
     State shall pay the amount to the family.
       ``(B) Arrearages.--Except as otherwise provided in the 
     State plan approved under section 454, to the extent that the 
     amount collected exceeds the current support amount, the 
     State--
       ``(i) shall first pay to the family the excess amount, to 
     the extent necessary to satisfy support arrearages not 
     assigned under section 408(a)(3);
       ``(ii) if the amount collected exceeds the amount required 
     to be paid to the family under clause (i), shall--

       ``(I) pay to the Federal Government, the Federal share of 
     the excess amount described in this clause, subject to 
     paragraph (3)(A); and
       ``(II) retain, or pay to the family, the State share of the 
     excess amount described in this clause, subject to paragraph 
     (3)(B); and

       ``(iii) shall pay to the family any remaining amount.
       ``(3) Limitations.--
       ``(A) Federal reimbursements.--The total of the amounts 
     paid by the State to the Federal Government under paragraphs 
     (1) and (2) with respect to a family shall not exceed the 
     Federal share of the amount assigned with respect to the 
     family under section 408(a)(3).
       ``(B) State reimbursements.--The total of the amounts 
     retained by the State under paragraphs (1) and (2) with 
     respect to a family shall not exceed the State share of the 
     amount assigned with respect to the family under section 
     408(a)(3).
       ``(4) Families that never received assistance.--In the case 
     of any other family, the State shall pay the amount collected 
     to the family.
       ``(5) Families under certain agreements.--Notwithstanding 
     paragraphs (1) through (4), in the case of an amount 
     collected for a family in accordance with a cooperative 
     agreement under section 454(33), the State shall distribute 
     the amount collected under the terms of the agreement.
       ``(6) State financing options.--To the extent that the 
     State share of the amount payable to a family under paragraph 
     (2)(B) exceeds the amount that the State estimates (under 
     procedures approved by the Secretary) would have been payable 
     to the family under former section 457(a)(2)(B) (as in effect 
     for the State immediately before the date on which this 
     subsection, as amended by the Children First Child Support 
     Reform Act of 2001, first applies to the State) if such 
     former section had remained in effect, the State may elect to 
     use the grant made to the State under section 403(a) to pay 
     the amount, or to have the payment considered a qualified 
     State expenditure for purposes of section 409(a)(7), but not 
     both.
       ``(7) State option to pass through additional support with 
     federal financial participation.--
       ``(A) In general.--Notwithstanding paragraphs (1) and (2), 
     a State shall not be required to pay to the Federal 
     Government the Federal share of an amount collected on behalf 
     of a family that is not a recipient of assistance under the 
     State program funded under part A, to the extent that the 
     State pays the amount to the family.
       ``(B) Recipients of tanf for less than 5 years.--
       ``(i) In general.--Notwithstanding paragraphs (1) and (2), 
     a State shall not be required to pay to the Federal 
     Government the Federal share of an amount collected on behalf 
     of a family that is a recipient of assistance under the State 
     program funded under part A and, if the family includes an 
     adult, that has received the assistance for not more than 5 
     years after the date of enactment of this paragraph, to the 
     extent that--

       ``(I) the State pays the amount to the family; and
       ``(II) subject to clause (ii), the amount is disregarded in 
     determining the amount and type of the assistance provided to 
     the family.

       ``(ii) Limitation.--Of the amount disregarded as described 
     in clause (i)(II), the maximum amount that may be taken into 
     account for purposes of clause (i) shall not exceed $400 per 
     month, except that, in the case of a family that includes 2 
     or more children, the State may elect to increase the maximum 
     amount to not more than $600 per month.
       ``(8) States with demonstration waivers.--Notwithstanding 
     the preceding paragraphs, a State with a waiver under section 
     1115 that became effective on or before October 1, 1997, the 
     terms of which allow passthrough of child support payments, 
     may pass through such payments in accordance with such terms 
     with respect to families subject to the waiver.''.
       (2) State plan to include election as to which rules to 
     apply in distributing child support arrearages collected on 
     behalf of families formerly receiving assistance.--Section 
     454 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 654) is amended--
       (A) by striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (32);
       (B) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (33) and 
     inserting ``; and''; and
       (C) by inserting after paragraph (33) the following:
       ``(34) include an election by the State to apply section 
     457(a)(2)(B) or former section 457(a)(2)(B) (as in effect for 
     the State immediately before the date this paragraph, as 
     amended by the Children First Child Support Reform Act of 
     2001, first applies to the State) to the distribution of the 
     amounts which are the subject of such sections, and for so 
     long as the State elects to so apply such former section, the 
     amendments made by section 2 of the Children First Child 
     Support Reform Act of 2001 shall not apply with respect to 
     the State, notwithstanding section 6(a) of such Act.''.
       (3) Approval of estimation procedures.--Not later than 
     October 1, 2002, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, 
     in consultation with the States (as defined for purposes of 
     part D of title IV of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 651 
     et seq.)), shall establish the procedures to be used to make 
     the estimate described in section 457(a)(6) of such Act (42 
     U.S.C. 657(a)(6)).
       (b) Current Support Amount Defined.--Section 457(c) of the 
     Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 657(c)) is amended by adding 
     at the end the following:
       ``(5) Current support amount.--The term `current support 
     amount' means, with respect to amounts collected as support 
     on behalf of a family, the amount designated as the monthly 
     support obligation of the noncustodial parent in the order 
     requiring the support.''.
       (c) Conforming Amendments.--
       (1) Section 404(a) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 
     604(a)) is amended--
       (A) by striking ``or'' at the end of paragraph (1);
       (B) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (2) and 
     inserting ``; or''; and
       (C) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(3) to fund payment of an amount under section 
     457(a)(2)(B), but only to the extent that the State properly 
     elects under section 457(a)(6) to use the grant to fund the 
     payment.''.
       (2) Section 409(a)(7)(B)(i) of the Social Security Act (42 
     U.S.C. 609(a)(7)(B)(i)) is amended--
       (A) in subclause (I)(aa), by striking ``457(a)(1)(B)'' and 
     inserting ``457(a)(1)''; and
       (B) by adding at the end the following:

       ``(V) Portions of certain child support payments collected 
     on behalf of and distributed to families no longer receiving 
     assistance.--Any amount paid by a State under section 
     457(a)(2)(B), but only to the extent that the State properly 
     elects under section 457(a)(6) to have the payment considered 
     a qualified State expenditure.''.

[[Page S5273]]

     SEC. 4. STATE OPTION TO DISCONTINUE CERTAIN SUPPORT 
                   ASSIGNMENTS.

       Section 457(b) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 
     657(b)) is amended by striking ``shall'' and inserting 
     ``may''.

     SEC. 5. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       (a) In General.--The amendments made by this section shall 
     take effect on October 1, 2005, and shall apply to payments 
     under parts A and D of title IV of the Social Security Act 
     (42 U.S.C. 601 et seq. and 651 et seq.) for calendar quarters 
     beginning on or after such date, and without regard to 
     whether regulations to implement the amendments (in the case 
     of State programs operated under such part D) are promulgated 
     by such date.
       (b) State Option To Accelerate Effective Date.--In 
     addition, a State may elect to have the amendments made by 
     section 2 or 3 apply to the State and to amounts collected by 
     the State, on and after such date as the State may select 
     that is after the date of enactment of this Act, by including 
     an election to that effect in the State plan under part D of 
     title IV of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 651 et seq.).
                                 ______
                                 
      By Ms. COLLINS (for herself, Mr. Bingaman, Mr. Grassley, Mr. 
        Daschle, Mr. Jeffords, Mr. Sarbanes, Mr. Harkin, Mr. Corzine, 
        and Mr. Leahy):
  S. 917. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to exclude 
from gross income amounts received on account of claims based on 
certain unlawful discrimination and to allow income averaging for 
backpay and frontpay awards received on account of such claims, and for 
other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Civil Rights Tax 
Relief Act of 2001, a bill designed to promote the fair and equitable 
settlement of civil rights claims. I am very pleased to be joined today 
by Senators Bingaman, Grassley, Daschle, Jeffords, Sarbanes, Harkin, 
Corzine, and Leahy.
  The primary purpose of this bill is to remedy an unintended 
consequence of the Small Business Job Protection Act of 1996, which 
made damage awards not based on ``physical injuries or physical 
sickness'' part of a plaintiff's taxable income. Because most acts of 
employment discrimination and civil rights violations do not cause 
physical injuries, this provision has had a direct and negative impact 
on plaintiffs who successfully prove that they have been subjected to 
intentional employment discrimination or other intentional violations 
of their civil rights. The problem is compounded by the fact that 
plaintiffs are now taxed on the entirety of their settlements or damage 
awards in civil rights cases, despite the fact that a portion of a 
settlement or award must be paid to the plaintiff's attorney, who in 
turn is taxed on the same funds! This double taxation of awards of 
attorneys' fees serves to penalize Americans who win their civil rights 
cases.
  I would like to share one example of how individuals can be harmed by 
the current taxation scheme, and even discouraged from challenging 
workplace discrimination. The example was brought to my attention by 
David Webbert, an attorney who practices in Maine's capitol, Augusta. 
In the case, David represented a person who successfully challenged a 
business' policy of discriminating against persons with a particular 
type of disability. As a result of the case, the discriminatory policy 
was declared illegal and was ended. Although the plaintiff did not seek 
any monetary damages in the case, the law did provide for payment of 
attorney's fees, which were paid by the defendant's insurance company. 
Because of the current law's double taxation of attorney's fees, they 
were taxable to the plaintiff in this case, despite the fact that they 
were also taxable to the attorney. In short, plaintiffs in civil rights 
cases like this could have to pay taxes despite receiving no monetary 
award. Or, in other words, under current law, a plaintiff can be 
penalized financially for bringing a meritorious case against a 
company's discriminatory policies.
  Our bill would eliminate the unfair taxation of civil rights victims' 
settlements and court awards; taxation that adds insult to a civil 
rights victim's injuries and serves as a barrier to the just settlement 
of civil rights claims.
  Our bill would change the taxation of awards received by individuals 
that result from judgments in or settlements of employment 
discrimination cases. First, the bill excludes from gross income 
amounts awarded other than for punitive damages and compensation 
attributable to services that were to be performed, known as 
``backpay'', or that would have been performed but for a claimed 
violation of law by the employer, known as ``frontpay''. Second, award 
amounts for frontpay or backpay would be included in income, but would 
be eligible for income averaging according to the time period covered 
by the award. This correction would allow individuals to pay taxes at 
the same marginal rates that would have applied to them had they not 
suffered discrimination. Third, the bill would change the tax code so 
that people who bring civil rights cases are not taxed on the portion 
of any award paid as fees to their attorney. This provision would 
eliminate the double-taxation of such fees, which would still be 
taxable income to the attorney.
  The Civil Rights Tax Relief Act would encourage the fair settlement 
of costly and protracted litigation of employment discrimination 
claims. Our legislation would allow both plaintiffs and defendants to 
settle claims based on the damages, not on excessive taxes that are now 
levied.
  Our bill has been endorsed by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the 
Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, the American Small Business 
Alliance, AARP, the National Whistleblower Center, the National 
Employment Lawyers Association, numerous state and local bar 
associations and sections, including the Maine State Bar Association, 
Labor and Employment Section, and others. This bill is a ``win-win'' 
for civil rights plaintiffs and defendant businesses. We invite our 
colleagues to join with us in support of this common sense legislation.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Ms. SNOWE (for herself, Mr. Kohl, Mr. Bayh, Mr. Graham, Mr. 
        Johnson, Mr. Lieberman, Mr. Rockfeller, Mr. Breaux, and Mrs. 
        Lincoln):
  S. 918. A bill to provide more child support money to families 
leaving welfare, to simplify the rules governing the assignment and 
distribution of child support collected by States on behalf of 
children, to improve the collection of child support, and for other 
purposes; to the Committee on Finance.
  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Child Support 
Distribution Act. This is companion legislation to Congresswoman Nancy 
Johnson's bill in the House. I want to begin by thanking Senator Kohl 
for his leadership on child support issues; I am delighted to have been 
able to team up with him again in this important area.
  I also want to thank Senator Bayh for his leadership on family 
issues. I am pleased that we could work together and incorporate each 
of our ideas in vital legislation which we have already introduced, the 
Strengthening Working Families Act. I am also pleased to have Senators 
Graham, Johnson, Lieberman, Rockfeller, Breaux, Lincoln, Bayh as 
original cosponsors on this bill.
  There is no question that children are the very future of our country 
and I believe fundamentally that every child has the right to grow up 
healthy, happy, and safe. Throughout my career, promoting children's 
well-being and keeping our children safe is a mission that has been 
close to my heart. While we cannot expect the government to ensure that 
every child receives parental love and attention, we can ensure that 
the custodial parent, not the government, receives this vital financial 
support.
  Ending poverty and promoting self-sufficiency is an on-going national 
commitment. Five years ago Congress restored welfare to a temporary 
assistance program, rather than a program that entangles and traps 
generation after generation. In September 2000, there were 5.7 million 
open TANF caseloads for individual recipients, down from 12.2 million, 
a 53 percent reduction, in August 1996 when Welfare Reform became law.
  Unfortunately, while we are succeeding in promoting self-sufficiency 
and self-reliance through welfare reform, we are sending out a double-
edged message on the need to pay child support. Current law regarding 
the assignment and distribution of child support for families on 
welfare is extremely complicated, depending on when families applied 
for welfare, when the child support was paid, whether that child 
support was for current or past-due payments, and depending on

[[Page S5274]]

how the child support was collected, in other words, through direct 
payments, through garnishing wages or other government assistance 
programs, or the federal income tax return intercept program.
  The ``Child Support Distribution Act of 2001'' would provide more 
child support money to families leaving welfare; would simplify the 
rules governing the assignment and distribution of child support 
collected by States; would improve the collection of child support; and 
would authorize demonstration programs encouraging public agencies to 
help collect child support; and provide guidelines for involvement of 
public agencies in child support enforcement.
  Under current law, when child support is collected for families 
receiving Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, TANF, the money is 
divided between the state and federal governments as payment for the 
welfare the family has received. The 1996 Welfare Reform Act gave 
states the option to decide how much, if any, of the state share of 
child support payments collected on behalf of TANF families to send to 
the family.

  The 1996 Welfare Reform law also required that in order to qualify 
for TANF benefits, beneficiaries must ``assign'', or give their child 
support rights to the state for periods before and while the family is 
on welfare. This means that the State is allowed to keep, and divide 
with the federal government, child support arrearages that were owed 
even before the family went on TANF if they are collected while the 
family is receiving welfare benefits.
  The original intent of these assignment and distribution strategies 
was to reimburse the state and federal governments for their outlays to 
the welfare family. But how much sense does it make to tell a family 
that is on welfare or trying to get off welfare that the State is 
entitled to the first cut of any child support payment, even if the 
absent parent begins to pay back the child support that was owed before 
the family went on welfare?
  This means that the state gets the support before a parent can buy 
new shoes for her child, before she can buy her child a new coat for 
the approaching winter, before she can buy groceries for her family, or 
pay the rent for the next month. So in the real world, not just a 
policy-oriented world, our current law regarding child support payments 
provides a disincentive for struggling parents to leave welfare, and it 
certainly provides no incentive for the absent parent to pay, much less 
catch up with, their child support bills. I wonder how we can 
realistically expect to foster a positive relationship between a 
custodial parent, and the parent paying child support, when the State 
is entitled to all of the support money.
  The key provisions of the bill I am introducing today will allow 
states to pass through the entire child support collected on their 
behalf while a person is on welfare; will change how and when child 
support is ``owed'' to the states for reimbursement for welfare 
benefits; and will expand the child support collection provisions such 
as revoking passports for past-due child support.
  We must ensure both non-custodial and custodial parents that child 
support payments are directly benefitting their children. This bill 
will enable families to keep more of the past-due child support owed to 
them and it will further the goals of the 1996 Welfare Reform Act by 
helping families to remain self-sufficient. This bill will give mothers 
leaving welfare an additional $4 billion child support collections over 
the first five years of full implementation. It will also lead to the 
voluntary payment by states of about $900 million over five years in 
child support to families while they are still on welfare.
  Children are the leaders of tomorrow; they are the very future of our 
great nation. We owe them nothing less than the sum of our energies, 
our talents, and our efforts in providing them a foundation on which to 
build happy, healthy and productive lives. And, when appropriate, we 
need to help parents financially support and provide for their 
children. Because it simply makes little sense to ask people to be 
self-sufficient, to pay their child-support bills, and then to allow 
the State to collect all of that child-support.
  I encourage my colleagues to take a serious look at this bill and 
pass it this year.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. THURMOND:
  S. 919. A bill to require the Secretary of Energy to study the 
feasibility of developing commercial nuclear energy production 
facilities at existing Department of Energy sites; to the Committee on 
Energy and Natural Resources.
  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, one does not need to look much further 
than their mailbox and the bills they receive for filling the gas tank 
or heating the house to realize that the United States is in need of 
direction and leadership when it comes to an energy policy. I am 
pleased that President Bush and Vice President Cheney have unveiled 
their energy plan and I look forward to working with the Administration 
on this important issue.
  The President's National Energy Policy is a long term approach to 
addressing our Nation's energy challenges. The policy is a 
comprehensive plan to address the needs for additional energy 
production and environmental protection. It will promote energy 
efficiency and new technologies to modernize the Nation's energy 
infrastructure. The President's plan will help increase energy supply 
through clean coal technology, nuclear energy, renewable and 
alternative energy, and energy conservation. Now is the appropriate 
time to address these issues before a major energy crisis jeopardizes 
our economy, national security, and our standard of living.
  I am especially pleased that the President highlighted production 
sources that have been ignored and shunned in recent years such as 
clean coal and nuclear power as energy sources which must again be 
embraced. This is a long overdue recognition of the valuable and 
important roles that nuclear and coal power can and must play in 
meeting the energy needs of the United States. These two energy sources 
have clear benefits. However, their increased role in meeting national 
needs will not be realized without challenge.
  To be certain, plans to build any new nuclear production plants will 
be opposed by some quarters. Those who refuse to recognize the 
indispensable role of nuclear power will do everything to delay and 
undermine the construction of new production facilities. Essentially 
these anti-nuclear obstructionists will seek to create as many 
obstacles as they can. Past examples have witnessed lawsuits and 
intervener tactics that drove plant costs up by hundreds of percent and 
delayed the facility coming on line by decades.
  Given such examples, it would certainly not seem that building new 
production facilities would be a financially appealing or rewarding 
proposition to a utility company. Yet the truth of the matter is that 
we desperately need to build new nuclear power production plants. 
Presently, the United States gets approximately 20 percent of its power 
from nuclear plants. Even under the most optimistic projections, the 
majority of the Nation's 103 nuclear power facilities will be coming to 
the end of their service in the coming years.
  The question before us is how do we move forward with increasing this 
critical energy infrastructure but doing so in a more timely and cost-
efficient manner than what took place in the past. The President's 
National Energy Policy Report recommends an expansion at existing 
utility power plant sites. I am pleased that the President addressed 
this issue. As the report states, many existing nuclear power sites 
have the capacity to include additional reactors. This is an 
outstanding initiative. However, I remain concerned that even with 
these new reactors at existing sites the total percentage of energy 
created by nuclear power will decrease. Such a scenario would only 
exacerbate the energy shortage for years to come. Ultimately, we must 
identify new sites for the safe expansion of nuclear energy. I believe 
the solution to this challenge is creating ``energy campuses'' at 
existing Department of Energy facilities throughout the United States. 
More specifically, I am proposing co-locating civilian power production 
facilities on Department of Energy reservations such as: Hanford; the 
Nevada Test Site; the

[[Page S5275]]

Idaho National Environmental Engineering Laboratory; and, the Savannah 
River Site.
  Creating such ``energy campuses'' would solve any number of problems 
associated with building a new civilian production facility. To begin, 
there is no need to secure new land or to convince the local populace 
that having a nuclear facility nearby is not a safety issue. Simply 
put, these are pro-nuclear communities that would welcome new 
industrial investment. Furthermore, it makes for a quicker and less 
contentious licensing process. Finally, it reduces the amount of new 
infrastructure required as you would be ``leveraging'' against what 
already exists at these locations.
  The benefits of such a plan are multiple, not the least being that it 
would get nuclear power plants built and on line rapidly. Several are 
in the west, the Nevada Test Site, Idaho National Environmental 
Engineering Laboratory, and Hanford, Washington, and each would be able 
to directly or indirectly provide more power to energy starved 
California. Furthermore, this plan guarantees long-term energy supply 
reliability while not contributing to greenhouse gases or depleting gas 
reserves.
  These sites were ideal for locating nuclear projects fifty years ago, 
and they remain so to this day. It makes perfect sense to use these 
existing assets as a platform upon which to expand our civilian nuclear 
power production capabilities. I am certain that this ``energy campus'' 
plan offers something for everyone, and if the Bush Administration is 
going to move forward with relying more heavily on nuclear energy, then 
this initiative is one way in which to meet the goal of making certain 
the energy needs of the United States are met.
  In order to take the first step toward establishing these energy 
campuses, I am introducing a bill that will direct the Secretary of 
Energy to undertake a study regarding the feasibility of establishing 
civilian nuclear power production facilities at existing Department of 
Energy sites.
  The economy of the United States is dependent upon reasonably priced 
energy. It is what is required to power everything from the traditional 
service of bringing goods to market to running the computers upon which 
engineers make advances in the high technology industry. There is 
nothing that we touch that does not rely on energy, and the less 
expensive the energy is, the more reasonably priced the goods or 
services we are purchasing or using will be. Simply put, Americans 
enjoy, expect, and demand reasonably priced energy. If we are going to 
continue to provide this resource at an affordable rate, which is a 
goal we must meet in order to keep our economy the world's strongest 
and most diverse, then we are going to have to look for innovative ways 
in which to supply power. It is time once again to recognize the value 
of nuclear power production and to find ways to bring more of these 
facilities ``on-line'' as quickly as possible. Establishing energy 
campuses at Department of Energy reservations will meet these 
objectives and I am certain that my colleagues will join me in 
supporting 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. 919

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

     SECTION 1. STUDY TO DETERMINE FEASIBILITY OF DEVELOPING 
                   COMMERCIAL NUCLEAR ENERGY PRODUCTION FACILITIES 
                   AT EXISTING DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY SITES.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary of Energy shall conduct a 
     study to determine the feasibility of developing commercial 
     nuclear energy production facilities at Department of Energy 
     sites in existence on the date of enactment of this Act, 
     including--
       (1) options for how and where nuclear power plants can be 
     developed on existing Department of Energy sites;
       (2) estimates on cost savings to the Federal Government 
     that may be realized by locating new nuclear power plants on 
     Federal sites;
       (3) the feasibility of incorporating new technology into 
     nuclear power plants located on Federal sites;
       (4) potential improvements in the licensing and safety 
     oversight procedures of nuclear power plants located on 
     Federal sites;
       (5) an assessment of the effects of nuclear waste 
     management policies and projects as a result of locating 
     nuclear power plants located on Federal sites; and
       (6) any other factors that the Secretary believes would be 
     relevant in making the determination.
       (b) Report.--Not later than 90 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to Congress 
     a report describing the results of the study under subsection 
     (a).
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. BREAUX (for himself, Mr. Jeffords, Mr. Graham, Mr. Chafee, 
        and Mr. Levin):
  S. 920. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide 
a credit against income tax to individuals who rehabilitate historic 
homes or who are the first purchasers of rehabilitated historic homes 
for use as a principal residence; to the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I am honored to reintroduce today, along 
with my colleagues Senators Jeffords, Graham, Chafee, and Levin, the 
``Historic Homeownership Assistance Act of 2001''. This bill will 
provide the necessary incentive needed to help preserve, revitalize and 
restore our Nation's older and historic neighborhoods, which often form 
the core of many of our Nation's most distinct urban areas. During the 
106th Congress, this legislation received bipartisan majority support 
in the House with 226 sponsors and enjoyed the support of 39 sponsors 
in the Senate. In the 107th, the House bill, H.R. 1172, sponsored by 
Rep. Clay Shaw, H.R. 1172, is already endorsed by 72 Members to date.
  This bipartisan proposal would create a historic homeowners tax 
credit directed toward housing stock in deteriorating neighborhoods and 
communities located in more than 11,000 Federal, State and local 
historic districts in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. It 
would allow homebuyers and homeowners to take a 40 percent federal tax 
credit on residential properties they rehabilitate for use as their 
primary residence. If enacted, a historic homeowners tax credit would 
be a useful tool to preserve historic neighborhoods and homes in small 
towns and urban areas; make homeownership more affordable for less 
affluent families; revitalize deteriorating older neighborhoods; 
strengthen the tax base for local governments; and combat sprawl and 
urban blight.
  The number of properties eligible for the historic homeowners credit 
is approximately one third of the almost one million structures in 
historic districts nationwide, and 58 percent are located in census 
tracts with a poverty rate of 20 percent or greater. In Louisiana, 91 
percent of the historic districts in the state overlap with census 
tracts with a rate of poverty of 20 percent or more, a figure much 
higher than the national average. My home state of Louisiana also has 
one of the highest concentrations of historic properties in the Nation. 
In a recent National Park Service survey, it was found that 109 
National Register Historic Districts in the State contain 45,084 
historic buildings. The Louisiana Division of Historic Preservation 
reports that of these 45,000 plus structures, 20 percent are in poor 
condition, 20 percent are in only fair condition and 60 percent are 
owner-occupied housing. The City of New Orleans alone is reported to 
have 30,000 vacant housing units, of which 10,000 would qualify for the 
historic homeownership tax credit.

  I cannot emphasize enough how much enactment of this incentive would 
mean to my State and the Nation at large. This bill will make ownership 
of a rehabilitated older home more affordable for residents and 
homebuyers of modest means and incomes while increasing the tax base of 
our most economically distressed urban areas.
  This legislation also includes unique provisions to assist developers 
and mortgage lenders in saving our most vulnerable historic 
neighborhoods. Under the bill, developers could rehabilitate historic 
properties, sell them, and pass the credit onto homebuyers. This 
feature would allow nonprofit housing providers to utilize the credit 
to further the goal of affordable homeownership. In addition, the bill 
offers an option to convert the tax credit to a mortgage credit 
certificate which could be transferred to a bank or mortgage lender to 
reduce the mortgage interest rate, lowering monthly mortgage payments 
to benefit low- and

[[Page S5276]]

moderate-income families who do not have enough tax liability to use 
the credit. In Empowerment Zones, Enterprise Communities, Community 
Renewal areas and distressed census tracts, the credit could also be 
used to lower the cost of the down payment on a historic home.
  America's priceless heritage is being threatened by urban sprawl as 
residents abandon the historic districts for the suburbs. The Historic 
Homeownership Assistance Act is an excellent incentive to aid in the 
restoration of our national, State and local historic districts that 
are currently threatened by abandonment and decay. It would encourage 
local residents to invest in their communities and give first time 
homebuyers an opportunity to move into older neighborhoods. This bill 
will not only preserve our heritage, but also help local governments by 
putting deteriorated ad abandoned properties back on the tax rolls. I 
strongly urge my colleagues to cosponsor this important piece of 
legislation.
  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. 920

       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 ``Historic Homeownership 
     Assistance Act''.

     SEC. 2. HISTORIC HOMEOWNERSHIP REHABILITATION CREDIT.

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

     ``SEC. 25B. HISTORIC HOMEOWNERSHIP REHABILITATION CREDIT.

       ``(a) General Rule.--In the case of an individual, there 
     shall be allowed as a credit against the tax imposed by this 
     chapter for the taxable year an amount equal to 20 percent of 
     the qualified rehabilitation expenditures made by the 
     taxpayer with respect to a qualified historic home.
       ``(b) Dollar Limitation.--
       ``(1) In general.--The credit allowed by subsection (a) 
     with respect to any residence of a taxpayer shall not exceed 
     $40,000 ($20,000 in the case of a married individual filing a 
     separate return).
       ``(2) Carryforward of credit unused by reason of limitation 
     based on tax liability.--If the credit allowable under 
     subsection (a) for any taxable year exceeds the limitation 
     imposed by section 26(a) for such taxable year reduced by the 
     sum of the credits allowable under this subpart (other than 
     this section), such excess shall be carried to the succeeding 
     taxable year and added to the credit allowable under 
     subsection (a) for such succeeding taxable year.
       ``(c) Qualified Rehabilitation Expenditure.--For purposes 
     of this section:
       ``(1) In general.--The term `qualified rehabilitation 
     expenditure' means any amount properly chargeable to capital 
     account--
       ``(A) in connection with the certified rehabilitation of a 
     qualified historic home, and
       ``(B) for property for which depreciation would be 
     allowable under section 168 if the qualified historic home 
     were used in a trade or business.
       ``(2) Certain expenditures not included.--
       ``(A) Exterior.--Such term shall not include any 
     expenditure in connection with the rehabilitation of a 
     building unless at least 5 percent of the total expenditures 
     made in the rehabilitation process are allocable to the 
     rehabilitation of the exterior of such building.
       ``(B) Other rules to apply.--Rules similar to the rules of 
     clauses (ii) and (iii) of section 47(c)(2)(B) shall apply.
       ``(3) Mixed use or multifamily building.--If only a portion 
     of a building is used as the principal residence of the 
     taxpayer, only qualified rehabilitation expenditures which 
     are properly allocable to such portion shall be taken into 
     account under this section.
       ``(d) Certified Rehabilitation.--For purposes of this 
     section:
       ``(1) In general.--Except as otherwise provided in this 
     subsection, the term `certified rehabilitation' has the 
     meaning given such term by section 47(c)(2)(C).
       ``(2) Factors to be considered in the case of targeted area 
     residences, etc.--
       ``(A) In general.--For purposes of applying section 
     47(c)(2)(C) under this section with respect to the 
     rehabilitation of a building to which this paragraph applies, 
     consideration shall be given to--
       ``(i) the feasibility of preserving existing architectural 
     and design elements of the interior of such building,
       ``(ii) the risk of further deterioration or demolition of 
     such building in the event that certification is denied 
     because of the failure to preserve such interior elements, 
     and
       ``(iii) the effects of such deterioration or demolition on 
     neighboring historic properties.
       ``(B) Buildings to which this paragraph applies.--This 
     paragraph shall apply with respect to any building--
       ``(i) any part of which is a targeted area residence within 
     the meaning of section 143(j)(1), or
       ``(ii) which is located within an enterprise community or 
     empowerment zone as designated under section 1391, or a 
     renewal community designated under section 1400(e),

     but shall not apply with respect to any building which is 
     listed in the National Register.
       ``(3) Approved state program.--The term `certified 
     rehabilitation' includes a certification made by--
       ``(A) a State Historic Preservation Officer who administers 
     a State Historic Preservation Program approved by the 
     Secretary of the Interior pursuant to section 101(b)(1) of 
     the National Historic Preservation Act, or
       ``(B) a local government, certified pursuant to section 
     101(c)(1) of the National Historic Preservation Act and 
     authorized by a State Historic Preservation Officer, or the 
     Secretary of the Interior where there is no approved State 
     program,

     subject to such terms and conditions as may be specified by 
     the Secretary of the Interior for the rehabilitation of 
     buildings within the jurisdiction of such officer (or local 
     government) for purposes of this section.
       ``(e) Definitions and Special Rules.--For purposes of this 
     section:
       ``(1) Qualified historic home.--The term `qualified 
     historic home' means a certified historic structure--
       ``(A) which has been substantially rehabilitated, and
       ``(B) which (or any portion of which)--
       ``(i) is owned by the taxpayer, and
       ``(ii) is used (or will, within a reasonable period, be 
     used) by such taxpayer as his principal residence.
       ``(2) Substantially rehabilitated.--The term `substantially 
     rehabilitated' has the meaning given such term by section 
     47(c)(1)(C); except that, in the case of any building 
     described in subsection (d)(2), clause (i)(I) thereof shall 
     not apply.
       ``(3) Principal residence.--The term `principal residence' 
     has the same meaning as when used in section 121.
       ``(4) Certified historic structure.--
       ``(A) In general.--The term `certified historic structure' 
     means any building (and its structural components) which--
       ``(i) is listed in the National Register, or
       ``(ii) is located in a registered historic district (as 
     defined in section 47(c)(3)(B)) within which only qualified 
     census tracts (or portions thereof) are located, and is 
     certified by the Secretary of the Interior as being of 
     historic significance to the district.
       ``(B) Certain structures included.--Such term includes any 
     building (and its structural components) which is designated 
     as being of historic significance under a statute of a State 
     or local government, if such statute is certified by the 
     Secretary of the Interior to the Secretary as containing 
     criteria which will substantially achieve the purpose of 
     preserving and rehabilitating buildings of historic 
     significance.
       ``(C) Qualified census tracts.--For purposes of 
     subparagraph (A)(ii)--
       ``(i) In general.--The term `qualified census tract' means 
     a census tract in which the median income is less than twice 
     the statewide median family income.
       ``(ii) Data used.--The determination under clause (i) shall 
     be made on the basis of the most recent decennial census for 
     which data are available.
       ``(5) Rehabilitation not complete before certification.--A 
     rehabilitation shall not be treated as complete before the 
     date of the certification referred to in subsection (d).
       ``(6) Lessees.--A taxpayer who leases his principal 
     residence shall, for purposes of this section, be treated as 
     the owner thereof if the remaining term of the lease (as 
     of the date determined under regulations prescribed by the 
     Secretary) is not less than such minimum period as the 
     regulations require.
       ``(7) Tenant-stockholder in cooperative housing 
     corporation.--If the taxpayer holds stock as a tenant-
     stockholder (as defined in section 216) in a cooperative 
     housing corporation (as defined in such section), such 
     stockholder shall be treated as owning the house or apartment 
     which the taxpayer is entitled to occupy as such stockholder.
       ``(8) Allocation of expenditures relating to exterior of 
     building containing cooperative or condominium units.--The 
     percentage of the total expenditures made in the 
     rehabilitation of a building containing cooperative or 
     condominium residential units allocated to the rehabilitation 
     of the exterior of the building shall be attributed 
     proportionately to each cooperative or condominium 
     residential unit in such building for which a credit under 
     this section is claimed.
       ``(f) When Expenditures Taken Into Account.--In the case of 
     a building other than a building to which subsection (g) 
     applies, qualified rehabilitation expenditures shall be 
     treated for purposes of this section as made--
       ``(1) on the date the rehabilitation is completed, or
       ``(2) to the extent provided by the Secretary by 
     regulation, when such expenditures are properly chargeable to 
     capital account.

     Regulations under paragraph (2) shall include a rule similar 
     to the rule under section 50(a)(2) (relating to recapture if 
     property ceases to qualify for progress expenditures).

[[Page S5277]]

       ``(g) Allowance of Credit for Purchase of Rehabilitated 
     Historic Home.--
       ``(1) In general.--In the case of a qualified purchased 
     historic home, the taxpayer shall be treated as having made 
     (on the date of purchase) the expenditures made by the seller 
     of such home. For purposes of the preceding sentence, 
     expenditures made by the seller shall be deemed to be 
     qualified rehabilitation expenditures if such expenditures, 
     if made by the purchaser, would be qualified rehabilitation 
     expenditures.
       ``(2) Qualified purchased historic home.--For purposes of 
     this subsection, the term `qualified purchased historic home' 
     means any substantially rehabilitated certified historic 
     structure purchased by the taxpayer if--
       ``(A) the taxpayer is the first purchaser of such structure 
     after the date rehabilitation is completed, and the purchase 
     occurs within 5 years after such date,
       ``(B) the structure (or a portion thereof) will, within a 
     reasonable period, be the principal residence of the 
     taxpayer,
       ``(C) no credit was allowed to the seller under this 
     section or section 47 with respect to such rehabilitation, 
     and
       ``(D) the taxpayer is furnished with such information as 
     the Secretary determines is necessary to determine the credit 
     under this subsection.
       ``(h) Historic Rehabilitation Mortgage Credit 
     Certificate.--
       ``(1) In general.--The taxpayer may elect, in lieu of the 
     credit otherwise allowable under this section, to receive a 
     historic rehabilitation mortgage credit certificate. An 
     election under this paragraph shall be made--
       ``(A) in the case of a building to which subsection (g) 
     applies, at the time of purchase, or
       ``(B) in any other case, at the time rehabilitation is 
     completed.
       ``(2) Historic rehabilitation mortgage credit 
     certificate.--For purposes of this subsection, the term 
     `historic rehabilitation mortgage credit certificate' means a 
     certificate--
       ``(A) issued to the taxpayer, in accordance with procedures 
     prescribed by the Secretary, with respect to a certified 
     rehabilitation,
       ``(B) the face amount of which shall be equal to the credit 
     which would (but for this subsection) be allowable under 
     subsection (a) to the taxpayer with respect to such 
     rehabilitation,
       ``(C) which may only be transferred by the taxpayer to a 
     lending institution (including a nondepository institution) 
     in connection with a loan--
       ``(i) that is secured by the building with respect to which 
     the credit relates, and
       ``(ii) the proceeds of which may not be used for any 
     purpose other than the acquisition or rehabilitation of such 
     building, and
       ``(D) in exchange for which such lending institution 
     provides to the taxpayer--
       ``(i) a reduction in the rate of interest on the loan which 
     results in interest payment reductions which are 
     substantially equivalent on a present value basis to the face 
     amount of such certificate, or
       ``(ii) if the taxpayer so elects with respect to a 
     specified amount of the face amount of such a certificate 
     relating to a building--

       ``(I) which is a targeted area residence (within the 
     meaning of section 143(j)(1)), or
       ``(II) which is located in an enterprise community or 
     empowerment zone as designated under section 1391, or a 
     renewal community as designated under section 1400(e),

     a payment which is substantially equivalent to such specified 
     amount to be used to reduce the taxpayer's cost of purchasing 
     the building (and only the remainder of such face amount 
     shall be taken into account under clause (i)).
       ``(3) Method of discounting.--The present value under 
     paragraph (2)(D)(i) shall be determined--
       ``(A) for a period equal to the term of the loan referred 
     to in subparagraph (D)(i),
       ``(B) by using the convention that any payment on such loan 
     in any taxable year within such period is deemed to have been 
     made on the last day of such taxable year,
       ``(C) by using a discount rate equal to 65 percent of the 
     average of the annual Federal mid-term rate and the annual 
     Federal long-term rate applicable under section 1274(d)(1) to 
     the month in which the taxpayer makes an election under 
     paragraph (1) and compounded annually, and
       ``(D) by assuming that the credit allowable under this 
     section for any year is received on the last day of such 
     year.
       ``(4) Use of certificate by lender.--The amount of the 
     credit specified in the certificate shall be allowed to the 
     lender only to offset the regular tax (as defined in section 
     55(c)) of such lender. The lender may carry forward all 
     unused amounts under this subsection until exhausted.
       ``(5) Historic rehabilitation mortgage credit certificate 
     not treated as taxable income.--Notwithstanding any other 
     provision of law, no benefit accruing to the taxpayer through 
     the use of a historic rehabilitation mortgage credit 
     certificate shall be included in gross income for purposes of 
     this title.
       ``(i) Recapture.--
       ``(1) In general.--If, before the end of the 5-year period 
     beginning on the date on which the rehabilitation of the 
     building is completed (or, if subsection (g) applies, the 
     date of purchase of such building by the taxpayer)--
       ``(A) the taxpayer disposes of such taxpayer's interest in 
     such building, or
       ``(B) such building ceases to be used as the principal 
     residence of the taxpayer or ceases to be a certified 
     historic structure,

     the taxpayer's tax imposed by this chapter for the taxable 
     year in which such disposition or cessation occurs shall be 
     increased by the recapture percentage of the credit allowed 
     under this section for all prior taxable years with respect 
     to such rehabilitation.
       ``(2) Recapture percentage.--For purposes of paragraph (1), 
     the recapture percentage shall be determined in accordance 
     with the table under section 50(a)(1)(B), deeming such table 
     to be amended--
       ``(A) by striking `If the property ceases to be investment 
     credit property within--' and inserting `If the disposition 
     or cessation occurs within--', and
       ``(B) in clause (i) by striking `One full year after placed 
     in service' and inserting `One full year after the taxpayer 
     becomes entitled to the credit'.
       ``(3) Transfer between spouses or incident to divorce.--In 
     the case of any transfer described in subsection (a) of 
     section 1041 (relating to transfers between spouses or 
     incident to divorce)--
       ``(A) the foregoing provisions of this subsection shall not 
     apply, and
       ``(B) the same tax treatment under this subsection with 
     respect to the transferred property shall apply to the 
     transferee as would have applied to the transferor.
       ``(j) Basis Adjustments.--For purposes of this subtitle, if 
     a credit is allowed under this section for any expenditure 
     with respect to any property (including any purchase under 
     subsection (g) and any transfer under subsection (h)), the 
     increase in the basis of such property which would (but for 
     this subsection) result from such expenditure shall be 
     reduced by the amount of the credit so allowed.
       ``(k) Processing Fees.--Any State may impose a fee for the 
     processing of applications for the certification of any 
     rehabilitation under this section provided that the amount of 
     such fee is used only to defray expenses associated with the 
     processing of such applications.
       ``(l) Denial of Double Benefit.--No credit shall be allowed 
     under this section for any amount for which credit is allowed 
     under section 47.
       ``(m) Regulations.--The Secretary shall prescribe such 
     regulations as may be appropriate to carry out the purposes 
     of this section, including regulations where less than all of 
     a building is used as a principal residence and where more 
     than 1 taxpayer use the same dwelling unit as their principal 
     residence.''
       (b) Conforming Amendments.--
       (1) Subsection (c) of section 23 of such Code is amended by 
     striking ``and section 1400C'' and inserting ``and sections 
     25B and 1400C''.
       (2) Subparagraph (C) of section 25(e)(1) of such Code is 
     amended by inserting ``, 25B,'' after ``sections 23''.
       (3) Subsection (d) of section 1400C of such Code is amended 
     by striking ``other than this section)'' and inserting 
     ``other than this section and section 25B)''.
       (4) Subsection (a) of section 1016 of such Code is amended 
     by striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (26), by striking 
     the period at the end of paragraph (27) and inserting ``, 
     and'', and by adding at the end the following new item:
       ``(28) to the extent provided in section 25B(j).''
       (c) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections for subpart 
     A of part IV of subchapter A of chapter 1 of such Code is 
     amended by inserting after the item relating to section 25A 
     the following new item:

``Sec. 25B. Historic homeownership rehabilitation credit.''

       (d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply with respect to rehabilitations the physical work 
     on which begins after the date of enactment of this Act.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. DeWINE:
  S. 921. A bill to adjust the boundary of the William Howard Taft 
National Historic Site in the State of Ohio, to authorize an exchange 
of land in connection with the historic site, and for other purposes; 
to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
  Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the ``William 
Howard Taft National Historic Site Boundary Adjustment Act of 2001.'' 
This legislation would do three things: First, it would authorize the 
expansion of the historic grounds of the William Howard Taft's 
childhood home; second it would allow the Secretary of the Interior, 
through the National Park Service, to swap one section of equal-valued 
land for another; and third, it would allow the National Park Service 
to extend the boundary line of the Historic Site.
  As you may know, I strongly support the preservation of Presidential 
Historic Sites. Sadly, a number of these Presidential Historic sites 
are becoming run down and are in dire need of our help to secure their 
existence for future generations. These sites are great educational 
tools for our children. We must ensure their survival. If we don't, we 
will lose a valuable part of our American history.

[[Page S5278]]

  That is why I introduced the Presidential Sites Improvement Act last 
year and plan to reintroduce it later this year. This legislation is 
designed to provide grant money for the protection and improvement of 
Presidential sites, like the William Howard Taft home in Ohio.
  President Taft was born in Cincinnati, Ohio, in 1857. He was the son 
of a distinguished judge and former Ohio Attorney General. Taft 
graduated from Yale, and then returned to Cincinnati to study and 
practice law. As my colleagues know, Taft went on to become our 27th 
U.S. President. He is the only President in U.S. history who went on to 
become the Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. In describing his 
illustrious career as a public servant, Taft once wrote that he always 
had his ``plate the right side up when offices were falling.''
  With the bill I am introducing today, we can make a lasting 
commitment to future generations by preserving the memory and 
contributions of our nation's former leaders. Our children and 
grandchildren should have the opportunity to understand the richness of 
our country's history.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, last year's Loan Deficiency Payments, 
LDPs, were made available to producers for crops grown on farms not 
covered by Production Flexibility Contract, PFC, under the 1996 farm 
bill. In Iowa there are 6200 farms that do not participate in the farm 
program. Non-participating farms are classified as farms not enrolled 
in 1996 at the beginning of the program, or farms that changed hands 
during the farm bill that were not properly re-enrolled.
  The Agricultural Risk Protection Act of 2000, which we passed into 
law last year, furnished LDP's to farmers who produced a 2000 crop 
contract commodity on a farm not covered by a PFC. Senator Nelson and I 
are offering legislation to extend this one-year opportunity for 
producers. Our legislation provides an extension of this opportunity 
that will run for the remainder of the 1996 farm bill.
  Not all of the 6200 non-participating farms will choose to use and 
benefit from an LDP, but for the family farmers in Iowa who are not in 
the program, guaranteeing close to $1.78 on corn and $5.26 on soybeans 
is significant assistance.
  With the record low prices Iowa producers have experienced recently, 
I think that the Federal Government should do everything it can to keep 
producers on the farm. This by no means solves all their problems, but 
it helps and it's something we should have done for these individuals 
on a permanent basis when we provided a one-year opportunity for 
participation in the LDP program last 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. 923

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

     SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF EXPANSION OF PRODUCERS ELIGIBLE FOR 
                   LOAN DEFICIENCY PAYMENTS.

       Section 135(a)(2) of the Agricultural Market Transition Act 
     (7 U.S.C. 7235(a)(2)) is amended by striking ``the 2000 crop 
     year'' and inserting ``each of the 2000 through 2002 crop 
     years''.

                          ____________________