[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 87 (Thursday, June 21, 2001)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6603-S6620]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
By Mr. GRASSLEY.
S. 1076. A bill to provide for the review of agriculture mergers and
acquisitions by the Department of Agriculture and to outlaw unfair
practices in the agriculture industry, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on the Judiciary.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, as most of my colleagues know,
agriculture is a crucial industry for Iowa. The small, independent
family farmer is an important thread which holds together my State's
cultural, economic and social fabric. In fact, the family farmer is one
of the best things about Iowa's heritage. My colleagues are well aware
that I'm committed to preserving and supporting this valuable member of
Iowa's communities.
Agriculture is a risky business. I know that from personal
experience, I've lived and worked on a farm all my life. But these
days, farmers feel especially vulnerable. ``Merger-mania'' has been
running rampant, with large companies joining forces to create new
business giants in every sector of the economy, including agriculture.
The agriculture sector has witnessed a number of mega-mergers and
alliances affecting grain and livestock. And the independent producer
is seeing fewer choices of who to buy from and who to sell to. More and
more family farmers and independent producers are feeling the pressure
and impact of concentration in agriculture. Good men and women who have
farmed for years and years are going out of business. Yet, the
independent farmer is one of the most efficient businessman in our
Nation's economy. That's why the United States can feed itself and a
good portion of the world.
I've said before that I am not of the belief that all mergers are in
and of themselves wrong or unfair to family farmers. But we need to
make sure that open and fair access to the marketplace is preserved for
everyone. We need to make sure that large businesses are not acting in
a predatory or anti-competitive manner. We need to make sure that
family farmers and independent producers can compete on a level playing
field. That's how we can keep our economy strong, our agricultural
community vibrant and competitive, and our consumers happy.
Now we've heard that a Delaware Court has ordered Tyson Foods and IBP
to resume their merger discussions, because Tyson Foods did not have a
contractually permissible reason to terminate its merger agreement with
IBP when it announced in March that it was rescinding the transaction.
While I do not want to take issue with the court's findings, I am
concerned about the fact that this merger looks like it will go through
and, consequently, the meat industry will consolidate even further.
Beginning last September when Donaldson, Lufkin & Jenrette/Rawhide
Holdings Corporation, then Smithfield Foods, and finally Tyson Foods
started a bidding war for IBP, I pushed the Justice Department to
carefully scrutinize each possible business combination. In January, I
wrote the Justice Department urging it to vigorously review the Tyson-
IBP transaction from all angles, and to consult with the Agriculture
Department to better ascertain the ramifications of such a merger on
family farmers and independent producers. I would have thought that a
combination of the Nation's largest poultry producer with the world's
largest producer of beef and pork products would result in
significantly reduced market opportunities, as well as increased the
possibility of anti-competitive business practices. I shared the
concerns of many farmers and producers that this transaction would
adversely impact their ability to obtain fair prices for their
products. I was also concerned that a combined IBP-Tyson presence in
the retail market would negatively affect product choice and the prices
consumers pay at the meat counter.
But the Justice Department determined earlier this year that the
potential negative impact on competition was insufficient to sustain an
injunction against the merger under the antitrust laws. Because the
Justice Department completed its antitrust review in January, I
understand that there is nothing further for the Department to do in
terms of an antitrust review if the parties re-engage their merger
talks in due course and without changes to the transaction. But I
remain seriously concerned about the impact this merger will have on
our farm community and I hope that, if this merger is ultimately
completed, the Justice Department will carefully monitor whether a
merged IBP-Tyson will have unintended consequences on competition in
the meat economy and, if it does, take appropriate action.
Nevertheless, this development re-energizes my gut feeling that we
need to somehow change the way ag mergers are reviewed and approved.
So, today I'm re-introducing a bill I authored last year, the
``Agriculture Competition Enhancement Act,'' to help address some of
the competition concerns of America's family farmers and independent
producers. My bill will refocus the merger review process as it
pertains to agri-business, and will enhance the Department of
Agriculture's ability to address anti-competitive activity in
agriculture. I believe that bringing to the table a greater
understanding of ag producers' needs when ag mergers are reviewed is
the biggest missing element to making the merger review process as fair
as possible. Closing this gap is the heart of my proposal.
Several provisions in the ``Agriculture Competition Enhancement Act''
are based on proposals by the American Farm Bureau, the largest
organization representing producers of agricultural commodities.
However, I'd like to briefly discuss what I believe to be the most
important components of this bill: the enhancement of the Department of
Agriculture's role in the Hart-Scott-Rodino review process, the
creation of a new ``impact on family farmers and independent
producers'' standard of review by the Department of Agriculture for ag
mergers, and the expansion of the Department of Agriculture's ability
to take regulatory and enforcement action with respect to anti-
competitive and unfair practices in the agricultural sector.
Far more than the Justice Department or the Federal Trade Commission,
the Department of Agriculture has extraordinary knowledge and expertise
in agricultural matters. The Department of Agriculture formulates ag
policy for the Nation, and works closely with the farm community about
their various concerns. So, I believe that the Department of
Agriculture is the office that can best assess the true impact of ag
mergers and other business transactions on farmers, ranchers and
independent producers. That is why my bill seeks to expand and enhance
the role that the Department of Agriculture plays in the antitrust
review of ag mergers.
Currently, when the Justice Department or the Federal Trade
Commission assesses a proposed merger, the focus of their analysis is
weighted heavily toward the impact of the transaction on consumers.
However, agriculture is unique. The antitrust laws already recognize
this with the ag cooperative exception. But I believe we need to go
further by requiring the Justice Department and Federal Trade
Commission to specifically take into account the effect ag mergers have
on family
[[Page S6604]]
farmers and producers. The ``Agriculture Competition Enhancement Act''
would do just that by requiring the Department of Agriculture to
conduct an assessment of how a proposed ag transaction will affect
family farmers and independent producers and their access to the
market.
I realize that presently the Justice Department and Federal Trade
Commission informally consult with the Department of Agriculture when
they consider ag mergers. But I believe that the current process does
not sufficiently ensure that the farm community's concerns are being
adequately addressed. The approach I advocate will ensure that
producers' concerns and needs are fully discussed when federal agencies
examine proposed ag business mergers. By guaranteeing inclusion and
openness for family farmers and independent producers, we can go a long
way toward alleviating their understandable anxiety about an
increasingly concentrated industry.
So my bill requires the Department of Agriculture to do a merger
review that focuses on the needs of producers by examining whether the
transaction would cause substantial harm to farmers' ability to compete
in the marketplace. This review would be conducted simultaneously with
the Justice Department's antitrust review, in order to minimize
disruption to the current merger review process. Further, my bill
encourages the parties and the Department of Agriculture to resolve
concerns about the proposed merger during this timeframe. If its
concerns are not satisfied, the Department of Agriculture has the
ability to challenge the merger in federal court to either stop the
merger, or to impose appropriate conditions or limitations on the
proposed transaction.
Recognizing that the Department of Agriculture needs to have an
individual who will perform this new antitrust responsibility, my bill
calls for the creation of a Special Counsel for Competition Matters at
the Department of Agriculture. My bill also provides for increased
funding for competition matters, and authorizes additional specialized
staff--including antitrust attorneys and economists--at the Justice
Department and Department of Agriculture, to ensure that these agencies
have the appropriate resources to accomplish the goals of this
legislation.
Furthermore, under my bill, the competition protection authorities of
the Department of Agriculture's Packers and Stockyards Division are
extended to include anti-competitive practices by dealers, processors
and commission merchants of all ag commodities. This expanded
authority, based on provisions in the current Packers and Stockyards
Act, will give the Department of Agriculture an increased ability to
look at unfair, deceptive and predatory business practices by all ag
businesses, not just packers and poultry farmers.
As my colleagues from rural States know, ag concentration is one of
the most important issues in agriculture today. Other members here in
Congress have introduced bills or are presently working to craft their
own legislative proposals to respond to the concerns of America's
farmers. I want it to be clearly understood that it is my desire to
work with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, as well as the Bush
Administration, so that we can make meaningful progress on this issue.
I know that my proposal has its critics, but I am willing and ready to
listen to their concerns and work on constructive changes to my bill.
But I truly hope that we can achieve a bipartisan compromise sooner
rather than later on this issue, so we can calm farmers' fears about
high levels of ag concentration.
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. 1076
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 ``Agriculture Competition
Enhancement Act''.
SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.
In this Act:
(1) Agricultural commodity.--The term ``agricultural
commodity'' has the meaning given the term in section 102 of
the Agricultural Trade Act of 1978 (7 U.S.C. 5602).
(2) Agricultural cooperative.--The term ``agricultural
cooperative'' means an association of persons that meets the
requirements of the Capper-Volstead Act (7 U.S.C. 291 et
seq.; 42 Stat. 388).
(3) Agricultural input supplier.--The term ``agricultural
input supplier'' means any person (excluding agricultural
cooperatives) engaged in the business of selling in commerce,
any product to be used as an input (including seed, germ
plasm, hormones, antibiotics, fertilizer, and chemicals, but
excluding farm machinery) for the production of any
agricultural commodity.
(4) Assistant attorney general.--The term ``Assistant
Attorney General'' means the Assistant Attorney General in
charge of the Antitrust Division of the Department of
Justice.
(5) Broker.--The term ``broker'' means any person
(excluding agricultural cooperatives) engaged in the business
of negotiating sales and purchases of any agricultural
commodity in commerce for or on behalf of the vendor or the
purchaser.
(6) Commission merchant.--The term ``commission merchant''
means any person (excluding agricultural cooperatives)
engaged in the business of receiving in commerce any
agricultural commodity for sale, on commission, or for or on
behalf of another.
(7) Dealer.--The term ``dealer'' means any person
(excluding agricultural cooperatives) engaged in the business
of buying, selling, or marketing agricultural commodities in
commerce, except that no person shall be considered a dealer
with respect to sales or marketing of any agricultural
commodity of that person's own raising.
(8) Processor.--The term ``processor'' means any person
(excluding agricultural cooperatives) engaged in the business
of handling, preparing, or manufacturing (including
slaughtering) of an agricultural commodity, or the products
of such agricultural commodity, for sale or marketing in
commerce for human consumption but not with respect to sale
or marketing at the retail level.
(9) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of Agriculture.
(10) Special counsel.--The term ``Special Counsel'' means
the Special Counsel for Competition Matters at the Department
of Agriculture.
SEC. 3. SPECIAL COUNSEL FOR COMPETITION MATTERS.
(a) In General.--There shall be established within the
Department of Agriculture a Special Counsel for Competition
Matters whose primary responsibilities shall be to--
(1) analyze mergers within the food and agricultural
sectors, in consultation with the Chief Economist of the
Department of Agriculture, as required by section 4; and
(2) assure that section 5, and the Packers and Stockyards
Act and related authorities, are enforced appropriately.
(b) Appointment.--The Special Counsel for Competition
Matters shall be appointed by the President subject to the
advice and consent of the Senate.
(c) Prosecutorial Authority.--The Special Counsel for
Competition Matters shall have the authority to bring any
civil action authorized pursuant to this Act on behalf of the
United States.
SEC. 4. AGRIBUSINESS MERGER REVIEW AND ENFORCEMENT BY THE
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE.
(a) Notice of Filing.--The Assistant Attorney General or
the Federal Trade Commission, as appropriate, shall notify
the Secretary of Agriculture of any filing pursuant to
section 7A of the Clayton Act (15 U.S.C. 18a) involving a
merger or acquisition described in subsection (b)(1), and
shall give the Secretary of Agriculture the opportunity to
participate in the review proceedings.
(b) Special Counsel Review.--
(1) In general.--In addition to the antitrust review
conducted by the Federal Trade Commission or Assistant
Attorney General pursuant to section 7A of the Clayton Act
(15 U.S.C. 18a), and notwithstanding any participation in
those antitrust review proceedings, the Special Counsel for
Competition Matters, in consultation with the Chief Economist
of the Department of Agriculture, shall, contemporaneously,
observing the time period limitations provided under the
antitrust laws and the Department of Justice merger
guidelines, and utilizing the factors set forth in subsection
(d), review, to determine whether the proposed transaction
would cause substantial harm to the ability of independent
producers and family farmers to compete in the marketplace,
any merger or acquisition involving--
(A) a dealer, processor, commission merchant, agricultural
input supplier, broker, or operator of a warehouse of
agricultural commodities with annual net sales or total
assets of more than $100,000,000 merging or
acquiring, directly or indirectly, any voting securities
or assets of any other dealer, processor, commission
merchant, agricultural input supplier, broker, or operator
of a warehouse of agricultural commodities with annual net
sales or total assets of more than $10,000,000; or
(B) a dealer, processor, commission merchant, agricultural
input supplier, broker, or operator of a warehouse of
agricultural commodities with annual net sales or total
assets of more than $10,000,000 merging or acquiring,
directly or indirectly, any voting securities or assets of
any other dealer, processor, commission merchant,
agricultural input supplier, broker, or operator of a
warehouse of agricultural commodities with annual net sales
or total assets of more than
[[Page S6605]]
$100,000,000 if the acquiring person would hold--
(i) 15 percent or more of the voting securities or assets
of the acquired person; or
(ii) an aggregate total amount of the voting securities and
assets of the acquired person in excess of $15,000,000.
(2) Exception.--The Special Counsel for Competition
Matters, at his or her discretion, may also request that the
Assistant Attorney General or the Federal Trade Commission
require section 7A of the Clayton Act (15 U.S.C. 18a)
notification of an agriculture merger or acquisition of a
size smaller than is required under paragraph (1), if the
Special Counsel for Competition Matters believes that such
transaction will cause substantial harm to the ability of
independent producers and family farmers to compete in the
market.
(c) Notification on Failure To Proceed.--If the Assistant
Attorney General or the Federal Trade Commission determines
not to proceed against the parties of an agriculture merger
or acquisition under the antitrust laws, the Assistant
Attorney General or the Federal Trade Commission immediately
shall notify the Special Counsel for Competition Matters of
such decision.
(d) Standard of Review.--
(1) In general.--The Special Counsel for Competition
Matters, in consultation with the Chief Economist of the
Department of Agriculture, shall review, and may challenge, a
merger or acquisition described in subsection (b) based on
whether the merger or acquisition would cause substantial
harm to the ability of independent producers and family
farmers to compete in the marketplace.
(2) Factors.--The review shall consider, among other
factors--
(A) the effect of the acquisition or merger on prices paid
to producers who sell to, buy from, or bargain with, one or
more of the parties involved in the merger or acquisition;
(B) the likelihood that the acquisition or merger will
result in significantly increased market power for the new or
surviving entity;
(C) the likelihood that the acquisition or merger will
increase the potential for anticompetitive or predatory
conduct by the new or surviving entity; and
(D) whether the acquisition or merger will adversely affect
producers in a particular regional area, including an area as
small as a single State.
(e) Evidentiary Powers.--The Special Counsel for
Competition Matters shall have the same powers as possessed
by the Assistant Attorney General and the Federal Trade
Commission under the antitrust laws, to obtain evidence
necessary to make determinations for the review described in
subsection (b).
(f) Access to Attorney General and Federal Trade Commission
Information.--The Assistant Attorney General or the Federal
Trade Commission, as appropriate, shall make available to the
Special Counsel for Competition Matters any information,
including any testimony, documentary material, or related
information relevant to the review conducted by the Special
Counsel under this section which is under the control of the
Assistant Attorney General or the Federal Trade Commission.
Each agency will share information, consistent with
applicable confidentiality restrictions, in order to provide
the others with information believed to be potentially
relevant and useful to the others' enforcement
responsibilities. Such information may include legal,
economic, and technical assistance.
(g) Transmittal of Findings of Special Counsel for
Competition Matters.--After receiving notice pursuant to
subsection (a) and conducting the review required in
subsection (b), the Secretary of Agriculture shall report to
the Assistant Attorney General or the Federal Trade
Commission, as appropriate, and the parties, the findings of
the review, including any recommended conditions on the
merger or suggested remedies.
(h) Response to Special Counsel Findings.--
(1) Antitrust agency response to findings.--The Assistant
Attorney General or the Federal Trade Commission, as
appropriate, shall provide the Special Counsel for
Competition Matters a response, including the rationale as to
why such findings and recommendations are accepted or
rejected.
(2) Party opportunity to address findings.--The parties to
the merger or acquisition affected by such findings shall
have the opportunity to make changes to their operations or
structure, and to negotiate with the Special Counsel for
Competition Matters an acceptable resolution to any concerns
raised in the findings.
(i) Enforcement.--
(1) Judicial action.--Not later than 30 days after
notification by the Assistant Attorney General or the Federal
Trade Commission of their determination not to proceed
against the parties, the Special Counsel for Competition
Matters, if he or she is not satisfied with the review of, or
the conditions placed on, the merger or acquisition by the
Assistant Attorney General or the Federal Trade Commission,
may challenge the transaction in Federal court based on the
findings conducted in the review under this section.
(2) Enforcement and damages.--The enforcement and damage
provisions of the antitrust laws shall apply with respect to
a violation of the substantial harm to producers and family
farmers standard of subsection (d) in the same manner as such
sections apply with respect to a violation of the antitrust
laws.
(j) Conforming Amendments to Antitrust Laws.--Section 7A of
the Clayton Act (15 U.S.C. 18a) is amended by inserting at
the end the following:
``(k)(1) Notwithstanding the threshold requirements of
sections 1, 2, and 3, the Federal Trade Commission and the
Assistant Attorney General may require, at the request of the
Secretary of Agriculture, notification pursuant to the rules
under subsection (d)(1) from the parties to a proposed merger
or acquisition in the agriculture industry.
``(2) The Assistant Attorney General or the Federal Trade
Commission, as appropriate, shall give the Secretary of
Agriculture the opportunity to participate in the review
under the antitrust laws of any proposed merger or
acquisition involving the agriculture industry.''.
SEC. 5. PROHIBITIONS AGAINST UNFAIR PRACTICES IN TRANSACTIONS
INVOLVING AGRICULTURAL COMMODITIES AND
ENFORCEMENT.
(a) Unlawful Practices.--It shall be unlawful for any
dealer, processor, commission merchant, or broker of any
agricultural commodity to--
(1) engage in or use any unfair, unjustly discriminatory,
or deceptive practice or device;
(2) make or give any undue or unreasonable preference or
advantage to any particular person or locality in any respect
whatsoever, or subject any particular person or locality to
any undue or unreasonable prejudice or disadvantage;
(3) sell or otherwise transfer to or for any other dealer,
processor, commission merchant, or broker, or buy or
otherwise receive from or for any other dealer, processor,
commission merchant, or broker, any article for the purpose
or with the effect of apportioning the supply between any
such persons, if such apportionment has the tendency or
effect of restraining commerce or of creating a monopoly;
(4) sell or otherwise transfer to or for any other person,
or buy or otherwise receive from or for any other person, any
article for the purpose or with the effect of manipulating or
controlling prices, or of creating a monopoly in the
acquisition of, buying, selling, or dealing in, any article,
or of restraining commerce;
(5) engage in any course of business or do any act for the
purpose or with the effect of manipulating or controlling
prices, or of creating a monopoly in the acquisition of,
buying, selling, or dealing in, any article, or of
restraining commerce;
(6) conspire, combine, agree, or arrange with any other
person--
(A) to apportion territory for carrying on business;
(B) to apportion purchases or sales of any article; or
(C) to manipulate or control prices; or
(7) conspire, combine, agree, or arrange with any other
person to do, or aid or abet the doing of, any act made
unlawful by paragraph (1), (2), (3), (4), or (5).
(b) Procedure Before Secretary for Violations.--
(1) Complaint; hearing; intervention.--If the Secretary has
reason to believe that any dealer, processor, commission
merchant, or broker, has violated or is violating any
provision of this section, the Secretary shall cause a
complaint in writing to be served upon the dealer, processor,
commission merchant, or broker, stating the charges in that
respect, and requiring the dealer, processor, commission
merchant, or broker, to attend and testify at a hearing at a
time and place designated therein, at least 30 days after the
service of such complaint; and at such time and place there
shall be afforded the dealer, processor, commission merchant,
or broker, a reasonable opportunity to be informed as to the
evidence introduced against him (including the right of
cross-examination), and to be heard in person or by counsel
and through witnesses, under such regulations as the
Secretary may prescribe. Any person for good cause shown may
on application be allowed by the Secretary to intervene in
such proceeding, and appear in person or by counsel. At any
time prior to the close of the hearing the Secretary may
amend the complaint; but in case of any amendment adding new
charges the hearing shall, on the request of the dealer,
processor, commission merchant, or broker, be adjourned for a
period not exceeding 15 days.
(2) Report and order; penalty.--If, after such hearing, the
Secretary finds that the dealer, processor, commission
merchant, or broker, has violated or is violating any
provisions of this section covered by the charges, the
Secretary shall make a report in writing in which the
Secretary shall state his findings as to the facts, and
shall issue and cause to be served on the dealer,
processor, commission merchant, or broker, an order
requiring such dealer, processor, commission merchant, or
broker, to cease and desist from continuing such
violation. The testimony taken at the hearing shall be
reduced to writing and filed in the records of the
Department of Agriculture. The Secretary may also assess a
civil penalty of not more than $10,000 for each such
violation. In determining the amount of the civil penalty
to be assessed under this section, the Secretary shall
consider the gravity of the offense, the size of the
business involved, and the effect of the penalty on the
person's ability to continue in business. If, after the
lapse of the period allowed for appeal or after the
[[Page S6606]]
affirmance of such penalty, the person against whom the
civil penalty is assessed fails to pay such penalty, the
Secretary may proceed to recover such penalty by an action
in the appropriate district court of the United States.
(3) Amendment of report or order.--Until the record in such
hearing has been filed in a court of appeals of the United
States, as provided in subsection (c), the Secretary at any
time, upon such notice and in such manner as the Secretary
deems proper, but only after reasonable opportunity to the
dealer, processor, commission merchant, or broker, to be
heard, may amend or set aside the report or order, in whole
or in part.
(4) Service of process.--Complaints, orders, and other
processes of the Secretary under this section may be served
in the same manner as provided in section 5 of the Federal
Trade Commission Act (15 U.S.C. 45).
(c) Conclusiveness of Order; Appeal and Review.--
(1) Filing of petition; bond.--An order made under
subsection (b) shall be final and conclusive unless within 30
days after service the dealer, processor, commission
merchant, or broker, appeals to the court of appeals for the
circuit in which he has his principal place of business, by
filing with the clerk of such court a written petition
praying that the Secretary's order be set aside or modified
in the manner stated in the petition, together with a bond in
such sum as the court may determine, conditioned that such
dealer, processor, commission merchant, or broker, will pay
the costs of the proceedings if the court so directs.
(2) Filing of record by secretary.--The clerk of the court
shall immediately cause a copy of the petition to be
delivered to the Secretary, and the Secretary shall thereupon
file in the court the record in such proceedings, as provided
in section 2112 of title 28, United States Code. If before
such record is filed the Secretary amends or sets aside his
report or order, in whole or in part, the petitioner may
amend the petition within such time as the court may
determine, on notice to the Secretary.
(3) Temporary injunction.--At any time after such petition
is filed, the court, on application of the Secretary, may
issue a temporary injunction, restraining, to the extent it
deems proper, the dealer, processor, commission merchant, or
broker, and his officers, directors, agents, and employees,
from violating any of the provisions of the order pending the
final determination of the appeal.
(4) Evidence.--The evidence so taken or admitted, and filed
as aforesaid as a part of the record, shall be considered by
the court as the evidence in the case.
(5) Action by the court.--The court may affirm, modify, or
set aside the order of the Secretary.
(6) Additional evidence.--If the court determines that the
just and proper disposition of the case requires the taking
of additional evidence, the court shall order the hearing to
be reopened for the taking of such evidence, in such manner
and upon such terms and conditions as the court may deem
proper. The Secretary may modify his findings as to the
facts, or make new findings, by reason of the additional
evidence so taken, and the Secretary shall file such modified
or new findings and his recommendations, if any, for the
modifications or setting aside of his order, with the return
of such additional evidence.
(7) Injunction.--If the court of appeals affirms or
modifies the order of the Secretary, its decree shall operate
as an injunction to restrain the dealer, processor,
commission merchant, or broker, and his officers, directors,
agents, and employees from violating the provisions of such
order or such order as modified.
(8) Finality.--The court of appeals shall have
jurisdiction, which upon the filing of the record with it
shall be exclusive, to review, and to affirm, set aside, or
modify, such orders of the Secretary, and the decree of such
court shall be final except that it shall be subject to
review by the Supreme Court of the United States upon
certiorari, as provided in section 1254 of title 28, United
States Code, if such writ is duly applied for within 60 days
after entry of the decree. The issue of such writ shall not
operate as a stay of the decree of the court of appeals,
insofar as such decree operates as an injunction unless so
ordered by the Supreme Court.
(d) Punishment for Violation of Order.--Any dealer,
processor, commission merchant, or broker, or any officer,
director, agent, or employee of a dealer, processor,
commission merchant, or broker, who fails to obey any order
of the Secretary issued under the provisions of subsection
(b), or such order as modified--
(1) after the expiration of the time allowed for filing a
petition in the court of appeals to set aside or modify such
order, if no such petition has been filed within such time;
(2) after the expiration of the time allowed for applying
for a writ of certiorari, if such order, or such order as
modified, has been sustained by the court of appeals and no
such writ has been applied for within such time; or
(3) after such order, or such order as modified, has been
sustained by the courts as provided in subsection (c);
shall on conviction be fined not less than $500 nor more than
$10,000, or imprisoned for not less than 6 months nor more
than 5 years, or both. Each day during which such failure
continues shall be deemed a separate offense.
SEC. 6. REPORT ON CORPORATE STRUCTURE.
A dealer, processor, commission merchant, or broker with
annual sales in excess of $100,000,000 shall annually file
with the Secretary a report which describes, with respect to
both domestic and foreign activities, the strategic
alliances, ownership in other agribusiness firms or
agribusiness-related firms, joint ventures, subsidiaries, and
brand names, interlocking boards of directors with other
corporations, representatives, and agents that lobby Congress
on behalf of such dealer, processor, commission merchant, or
broker, as determined by the Secretary.
SEC. 7. PROHIBITION ON CONFIDENTIALITY CLAUSES IN LIVESTOCK
AND POULTRY PRODUCTION CONTRACTS.
Confidentiality clauses barring a party to a contract from
sharing terms of such contract for the purposes of obtaining
legal or financial advice, are prohibited in livestock
production contracts and grain production contracts (except
to the extent a legitimate trade secret (as applied in the
Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. 552 et seq.) is being
protected).
SEC. 8. PROTECTIONS FOR CONTRACT POULTRY GROWERS.
(a) Removal of Poultry Slaughter Requirement From
Definitions.--Section 2(a) of the Packers and Stockyards Act,
1921 (7 U.S.C. 182) is amended--
(1) by striking paragraph (8) and inserting the following
new paragraph:
``(8) the term `poultry grower' means any person engaged in
the business of raising or caring for live poultry under a
poultry growing arrangement, whether the poultry is owned by
such person or by another person;'';
(2) in paragraph (9), by striking ``and cares for live
poultry for delivery, in accord with another's instructions,
for slaughter'' and inserting ``or cares for live poultry in
accord with another person's instructions''; and
(3) in paragraph (10), by striking ``for the purpose of
either slaughtering it or selling it for slaughter by
another''.
(b) Administrative Enforcement Authority Over Live Poultry
Dealers.--Sections 203, 204, and 205 of such Act (7 U.S.C.
193, 194, 195) are amended by inserting ``or live poultry
dealer'' after ``packer'' each place it appears.
(c) Authority To Request Temporary Injunction or
Restraining Order.--Section 408 of such Act (7 U.S.C. 229) is
amended by striking ``on account of poultry'' and inserting
``on account of poultry or poultry care''.
(d) Violations by Live Poultry Dealers.--Section 411 of
such Act (7 U.S.C. 228b-2) is amended--
(1) in subsection (a), by striking ``any provision of
section 207 or section 410 of''; and
(2) in subsection (b), by striking ``any provisions of
section 207 or section 410'' and inserting ``any provision''.
SEC. 9. AUTHORITY TO MAKE BUSINESS AND INDUSTRY GUARANTEED
LOANS FOR FARMER-OWNED PROJECTS THAT ADD VALUE
TO OR PROCESS AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS.
Section 310B(a)(1) of the Consolidated Farm and Rural
Development Act (7 U.S.C. 1932(a)(1)) is amended by inserting
``(and in areas other than rural communities, in the case of
insured loans, if a majority of the project involved is owned
by individuals who reside and have farming operations in
rural communities, and the project adds value to or processes
agricultural commodities)'' after ``rural communities''.
SEC. 10. AUTHORIZATION FOR ADDITIONAL STAFF AND FUNDING FOR
AGRICULTURE COMPETITION ENFORCEMENT.
(a) Additional Staff.--The Secretary of Agriculture shall
hire sufficient staff, including antitrust and litigation
attorneys, economists, and investigators, to appropriately
carry out the agribusiness merger review and prohibition
against unfair practices responsibilities, described in
sections 4 and 5.
(b) Authorization.--There are authorized to be appropriated
such sums as are necessary to hire the staff referenced in
subsection (a) to implement this Act.
SEC. 11. AUTHORIZATION FOR ADDITIONAL STAFF AND FUNDING FOR
THE GRAIN INSPECTION, PACKERS AND STOCKYARDS
ADMINISTRATION.
There are authorized to be appropriated such sums as are
necessary to enhance the capability of the Grain Inspection,
Packers and Stockyards Administration to monitor,
investigate, and pursue the competitive implications of
structural changes in the meat packing industry. Sums are
specifically earmarked to hire litigating attorneys to allow
the Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration
to more comprehensively and effectively pursue its
enforcement activities.
SEC. 12. ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR AGRICULTURAL
ANTITRUST MATTERS.
(a) In General.--There shall be established within the
Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice an Assistant
Attorney General for Agricultural Antitrust Matters, who
shall be responsible for oversight and coordination of
antitrust and related matters which affect agriculture,
directly or indirectly.
(b) Appointment.--The Assistant Attorney General for
Agricultural Antitrust Matters shall be appointed by the
President subject to the advice and consent of the Senate.
[[Page S6607]]
SEC. 13. INCREASE IN HART-SCOTT-RODINO FILING FEES.
(a) In General.--The filing fee the Federal Trade
Commission assesses on a person acquiring voting securities
or assets who is required to file premerger notifications
under section 7A of the Clayton Act (15 U.S.C. 18a) for
mergers and acquisitions satisfying the $15,000,000 size-of-
transaction requirement is increased to $100,000 for those
transactions valued at more than $100,000,000.
(b) Fees Earmarked.--The filing fee increase described in
subsection (a) is partially earmarked to pay for the costs of
staff increases at the Transportation, Energy and Agriculture
section at the Department of Justice, as considered necessary
by the Assistant Attorney General, to enhance their review of
agriculture transactions.
______
By Mr. LEVIN (for himself, Mr. Jeffords, Mr. Baucus, Mr. Kennedy,
Ms. Stabenow, Mr. Reid, Mr. Schumer, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Corzine,
and Mr. Dayton):
S. 1078. A bill to promote brownfields redevelopment in urban and
rural areas and spur community revitalization in low-income and
moderate-income neighborhoods; to the Committee on Banking, Housing,
and Urban Affairs.
______
By Mr. LEVIN (for himself, Mr. Jeffords, Mr. Baucus, Mr. Kennedy,
Ms. Stabenow, Mr. Reid, Mr. Schumer, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Corzine,
Mr. Sarbanes, and Mr. Dayton):
S. 1079. A bill to amend the Public Works and Economic Development
Act of 1965 to provide assistance to communities for the redevelopment
of brownfield sites; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I am introducing today, along with Senator
Jeffords, as co-chairmen of the Senate Smart Growth Task Force, two
bills to help communities expedite the economic redevelopment of
brownfields. These bills are complementary to S. 350 which we strongly
support. Brownfields are abandoned, idled, or under-used industrial and
commercial properties where expansion or redevelopment is complicated
by real or perceived environmental contamination. More than 450,000 of
these sites taint our nation's landscape, inhibiting economic
development and posing a threat to human health and the environment.
Undeveloped, or underdeveloped, brownfields blight communities forcing
development onto greenfields. But redeveloped, these sites offer new
opportunities for businesses, housing and green space. Brownfields
redevelopment is a fiscally-sound way to bring investment back to
neglected neighborhoods, cleanup the environment, reuse existing
infrastructure that is already paid for, utilize existing markets and
labor pools, and relieve development pressure on our urban fringe and
farmlands.
My home State of Michigan is a national leader in brownfields
redevelopment. Michigan communities are reclaiming brownfields in urban
centers, towns and villages, ensuring that natural areas and
greenspaces are less likely to succumb to sprawl when there are
brownfield properties available to meet development needs. The City of
Kalamazoo has leveraged $28 million in private investment and created
over 200 jobs through its brownfields redevelopment program. The city
has fully completed development of 4 sites and played a role in the
redevelopment of 16 properties, creating new opportunities for
commercial and industrial development. The City of St. Ignace, a small
community in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan, successfully redeveloped
a former railroad property into a community recreation building and
conference center. The project, built jointly by the Sault Ste. Marie
Chippewa Indian Tribe and the City of St. Ignace, created jobs and has
the potential of stimulating additional year-round tourist activities
where seasonal unemployment rates range between 20-25 percent during
the winter months.
At the Federal level, we need to support local communities and States
in their efforts to reclaim brownfields by providing economic
development resources to revitalize these sites. The two bills I am
introducing today will aid cities like Kalamazoo and St. Ignace in
their efforts to promote social well-being and create economic vitality
by redeveloping brownfields.
The first bill, the Brownfield Site Redevelopment Assistance Act of
2001, creates a new program within the Department of Commerce's
Economic Development Administration, EDA, to provide targeted
assistance for projects that redevelop brownfield sites. The Act would
provide EDA with a dedicated source of funding for brownfields
redevelopment and increased funding flexibility to help States, local
communities, Indian tribes and nonprofit organizations restore these
sites to productive use. This bill would provide EDA with the authority
to facilitate effective economic development planning for reuse;
develop the infrastructure necessary to prepare brownfield sites for
re-entry into the market; and, provide the capital necessary to support
new business development on brownfields. The bill provides $60 million
each year for FY2002 to FY2006.
The second bill, the Brownfields Economic Development Act of 2001,
would allow the Department of Housing and Urban Development, HUD, to
make existing Brownfields Economic Development Initiative, BEDI, grants
more easily available to units of general local government and
federally-recognized Indian tribes by permitting the Department to make
these grants independent of economic development loan guarantees. The
bill also provides funding for small communities, known as
nonentitlement areas, and federally-recognized Indian tribes.
BEDI grants can help communities redevelop brownfields by providing
local governments with a flexible source of funding to pursue
brownfields redevelopment through land acquisition, site preparation,
economic development and other activities. Currently, BEDI grants are
required to support economic development loan guarantees known as
Section 108 loan guarantees. To be eligible for these funds, a local
community or State must pledge Community Development Block Grant, CDBG,
funds as partial collateral for the loan guarantee. This requirement is
a significant barrier to many local communities that need assistance to
revitalize brownfields, but are unable to pledge these funds. This bill
would allow HUD to make BEDI grants independent of economic development
loan guarantees, providing critical financial assistance to leverage
private sector investment in brownfields.
Many organizations support these bills, including: (1) the Council
for Urban Economic Development, (2) Enterprise Foundation, (3) National
Association of Business Incubators, (4) National Association of
Counties, (5) National Association of Development Organizations, (6)
National Association of Installation Developers, (7) National
Association of Regional Councils, (8) National Association of Towns and
Townships, (9) National Congress for Community Economic Development,
(10) National League of Cities, (11) Smart Growth America, and (12)
United States Conference of Mayors. Brownfields affect urban, rural and
Native American communities. In urban areas, the U.S. Conference of
Mayors, USCM, estimates that brownfields redevelopment could generate
more than 550,000 additional jobs and up to $2.4 billion in new tax
revenues in over one hundred cities surveyed. The cities surveyed by
the USCM reported that lack of funding for redevelopment and liability
problems arising from Superfund are the major obstacles to reuse. In
rural areas it is easy to ``leap frog'' over brownfields to abundant
open space. The National Association of Development Organizations,
NADO, in a report on reclaiming rural America's brownfields found that
Federal agencies are not reaching rural areas through existing
brownfields programs, and rural communities need financial and
technical assistance to include brownfields in economic development
strategies. Indian tribes face a legacy of contamination from former
agricultural, industrial and commercial facilities. The Environmental
Protection Agency estimates that nationwide there are 1,645 facilities
located on tribal lands and 6,982 facilities located within three miles
of tribal lands. Nationally, State brownfields programs have
facilitated reuse of more than 40,000 sites, but this is less than 10
percent of the estimated 450,000 brownfields nationwide. A report of
the National Governors Association stated that assessment and cleanup
of brownfields are only part of the process, equally important is
physical development of these sites. These two bills would provide the
financial resources to help communities and states
[[Page S6608]]
realize new private investment and tax revenues from the redevelopment
of brownfields, and would assist EDA and HUD to reach rural towns and
Indian tribes to support their reuse efforts.
The two bills that Senator Jeffords and I are introducing will
complement the resources and liability clarifications provided in S.
350, and together these three bills will provide communities with the
financial assistance needed to leverage private investment in
brownfields and accelerate reuse. Providing economic development
resources through HUD and EDA can stimulate brownfields economic
development by leveraging private investment into communities, and can
give communities the financial resources and technical assistance they
need to turn brownfield environmental liabilities into economic assets.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of the two bills and letters of
support be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
S. 1078
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 ``Brownfields Economic
Development Act of 2001''.
SEC. 2. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT GRANTS.
Section 108(q) of the Housing and Community Development Act
of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 5308(q)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (2), by striking ``Assistance'' and
inserting ``Except as provided in paragraph (5),
assistance'';
(2) in paragraph (3), by striking ``Eligible'' and
inserting ``Except as provided in paragraph (5), eligible'';
and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(5) Brownfields redevelopment grants.--
``(A) Grant Authority.--Notwithstanding paragraph (1), of
amounts made available to carry out this subsection, the
Secretary may make grants, on a competitive basis, to
eligible public entities and federally recognized Indian
tribes for the redevelopment of brownfield sites, independent
of any note or other obligation guaranteed under subsection
(a).
``(B) Set-aside.--Of the amounts made available for grants
under this paragraph, the Secretary shall set aside not less
than 10 percent and not more than 30 percent, which shall be
used for brownfield site redevelopment in nonentitlement
areas and by federally recognized Indian tribes.
``(C) Brownfield site definition.--
``(i) In general.--The term `brownfield site' means real
property, the expansion, redevelopment, or reuse of which may
be complicated by the presence or potential presence of--
``(I) a hazardous substance (as defined in section 101 of
the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C. 9601)); or
``(II) any other pollutant or contaminant, as determined by
the Secretary, in consultation with the Administrator of the
Environmental Protection Agency.
``(ii) Exclusions.--Except as provided in clause (iii), the
term `brownfield site' does not include--
``(I) a facility that is the subject of a planned or
ongoing removal action under the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C.
9601 et seq.);
``(II) a facility that is listed on the National Priorities
List, or is proposed for listing, under that Act;
``(III) a facility that is the subject of a unilateral
administrative order, a court order, an administrative order
on consent or judicial consent decree that has been issued to
or entered into by the parties under that Act;
``(IV) a facility that is the subject of a unilateral
administrative order, a court order, an administrative order
on consent or judicial consent decree that has been issued to
or entered into by the parties, or a facility to which a
permit has been issued by the United States or an authorized
State under--
``(aa) the Solid Waste Disposal Act (42 U.S.C. 6901 et
seq.);
``(bb) the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C.
1321);
``(cc) the Toxic Substances Control Act (15 U.S.C. 2601 et
seq.); or
``(dd) the Safe Drinking Water Act (42 U.S.C. 300f et
seq.);
``(V) a facility that--
``(aa) is subject to corrective action under section
3004(u) or 3008(h) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act (42 U.S.C.
6924(u), 6928(h)); and
``(bb) to which a corrective action permit or order has
been issued or modified to require the implementation of
corrective measures;
``(VI) a land disposal unit with respect to which--
``(aa) a closure notification under subtitle C of the Solid
Waste Disposal Act (42 U.S.C. 6921 et seq.) has been
submitted; and
``(bb) closure requirements have been specified in a
closure plan or permit;
``(VII) a facility that is subject to the jurisdiction,
custody, or control of a department, agency, or
instrumentality of the United States, except for land held in
trust by the United States for an Indian tribe;
``(VIII) a portion of a facility--
``(aa) at which there has been a release of polychlorinated
biphenyls; and
``(bb) that is subject to remediation under the Toxic
Substances Control Act (15 U.S.C. 2601 et seq.); or
``(IX) a portion of a facility, for which portion,
assistance for response activity has been obtained under
subtitle I of the Solid Waste Disposal Act (42 U.S.C. 6991 et
seq.) from the Leaking Underground Storage Tank Trust Fund
established under section 9508 of the Internal Revenue Code
of 1986.
``(iii) Site-by-site inclusions.--The term `brownfield
site', with respect to the provision of financial assistance,
includes a site referred to in subclause (I), (IV), (V),
(VI), (VIII), or (IX) of clause (ii), if, on a site-by-site
basis, the Secretary, in consultation with the Administrator
of the Environmental Protection Agency, determines that use
of the financial assistance at the site will--
``(I) protect human health and the environment; and
``(II)(aa) promote economic development; or
``(bb) enable the creation of, preservation of, or addition
to parks, greenways, undeveloped property, other recreational
property, or other property used for nonprofit purposes.
``(D) Additional inclusions.--For purposes of subparagraph
(C), the term `brownfield site' includes a site that meets
the definition of `brownfield site' under clauses (i) through
(iii) of subparagraph (C) that--
``(i) is contaminated by a controlled substance (as defined
in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C.
802));
``(ii)(I) is contaminated by petroleum or a petroleum
product excluded from the definition of `hazardous substance'
under section 101 of the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C.
9601); and
``(II) is a site determined by the Secretary, in
consultation with the Administrator of the Environmental
Protection Agency, to be--
``(aa) of relatively low risk, as compared with other
petroleum-only sites in the State in which the site is
located; and
``(bb) a site for which there is no viable responsible
party and that will be assessed, investigated, or cleaned up
by a person that is not potentially liable for cleaning up
the site; and
``(III) is not subject to any order issued under section
9003(h) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act (42 U.S.C. 6991b(h));
or
``(iii) is mine-scarred land.''.
____
S. 1079
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 ``Brownfield Site
Redevelopment Assistance Act of 2001''.
SEC. 2. PURPOSES.
Consistent with section 2 of the Public Works and Economic
Development Act of 1965 (42 U.S.C. 3121), the purposes of
this Act are--
(1) to provide targeted assistance, including planning
assistance, for projects that promote the redevelopment,
restoration, and economic recovery of brownfield sites; and
(2) through such assistance, to further the goals of
restoring the employment and tax bases of, and bringing new
income and private investment to, distressed communities that
have not participated fully in the economic growth of the
United States because of a lack of an adequate private sector
tax base to support essential public services and facilities.
SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.
Section 3 of the Public Works and Economic Development Act
of 1965 (42 U.S.C. 3122) is amended--
(1) by redesignating paragraphs (1) through (10) as
paragraphs (2) through (11), respectively;
(2) by inserting before paragraph (2) (as so redesignated)
the following:
``(1) Brownfield site.--
``(A) In general.--The term `brownfield site' means real
property, the expansion, redevelopment, or reuse of which may
be complicated by the presence or potential presence of--
``(i) a hazardous substance (as defined in section 101 of
the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C. 9601)); or
``(ii) any other pollutant or contaminant, as determined by
the Secretary, in consultation with the Administrator of the
Environmental Protection Agency.
``(B) Exclusions.--Except as provided in subparagraph (C),
the term `brownfield site' does not include--
``(i) a facility that is the subject of a planned or
ongoing removal action under the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C.
9601 et seq.);
``(ii) a facility that is listed on the National Priorities
List, or is proposed for listing on that list, under that
Act;
``(iii) a facility that is the subject of a unilateral
administrative order, a court order, an administrative order
on consent, or a judicial consent decree that has been issued
to or entered into by the parties under that Act;
``(iv) a facility that is the subject of a unilateral
administrative order, a court order,
[[Page S6609]]
an administrative order on consent, or a judicial consent
decree that has been issued to or entered into by the
parties, or a facility to which a permit has been issued by
the United States or an authorized State, under--
``(I) the Solid Waste Disposal Act (42 U.S.C. 6901 et
seq.);
``(II) the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C.
1251 et seq.);
``(III) the Toxic Substances Control Act (15 U.S.C. 2601 et
seq.); or
``(IV) the Safe Drinking Water Act (42 U.S.C. 300f et
seq.);
``(v) a facility--
``(I) that is subject to corrective action under section
3004(u) or 3008(h) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act (42 U.S.C.
6924(u), 6928(h)); and
``(II) to which a corrective action permit or order has
been issued or modified to require the implementation of
corrective measures;
``(vi) a land disposal unit with respect to which--
``(I) a closure notification under subtitle C of the Solid
Waste Disposal Act (42 U.S.C. 6921 et seq.) has been
submitted; and
``(II) closure requirements have been specified in a
closure plan or permit;
``(vii) a facility that is subject to the jurisdiction,
custody, or control of a department, agency, or
instrumentality of the United States, except for land held in
trust by the United States for an Indian tribe;
``(viii) a portion of a facility--
``(I) at which there has been a release of polychlorinated
biphenyls; and
``(II) that is subject to remediation under the Toxic
Substances Control Act (15 U.S.C. 2601 et seq.); or
``(ix) a portion of a facility, for which portion,
assistance for response activity has been obtained under
subtitle I of the Solid Waste Disposal Act (42 U.S.C. 6991 et
seq.) from the Leaking Underground Storage Tank Trust Fund
established by section 9508 of the Internal Revenue Code of
1986.
``(C) Site-by-site inclusions.--The term `brownfield site'
includes a site referred to in clause (i), (iv), (v), (vi),
(viii), or (ix) of subparagraph (B), if, on a site-by-site
basis, the Secretary, in consultation with the Administrator
of the Environmental Protection Agency, determines that use
of the financial assistance at the site will--
``(i) protect human health and the environment; and
``(ii)(I) promote economic development; or
``(II) enable the creation of, preservation of, or addition
to parks, greenways, undeveloped property, other recreational
property, or other property used for nonprofit purposes.
``(D) Additional inclusions.--The term `brownfield site'
includes a site that meets the definition of `brownfield
site' under subparagraphs (A) through (C) that--
``(i) is contaminated by a controlled substance (as defined
in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C.
802));
``(ii)(I) is contaminated by petroleum or a petroleum
product excluded from the definition of `hazardous substance'
under section 101 of the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C.
9601); and
``(II) is a site determined by the Secretary, in
consultation with the Administrator of the Environmental
Protection Agency, to be--
``(aa) of relatively low risk, as compared with other
petroleum-only sites in the State in which the site is
located; and
``(bb) a site for which there is no viable responsible
party and that will be assessed, investigated, or cleaned up
by a person that is not potentially liable for cleaning up
the site; and
``(III) is not subject to any order issued under section
9003(h) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act (42 U.S.C. 6991b(h));
or
``(iii) is mine-scarred land.''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(12) Unused land.--The term `unused land' means any
publicly-owned or privately-owned unused, underused, or
abandoned land that is not contributing to the quality of
life or economic well-being of the community in which the
land is located.''.
SEC. 4. COORDINATION.
Section 103 of the Public Works and Economic Development
Act of 1965 (42 U.S.C. 3132) is amended--
(1) by inserting ``(a) Comprehensive Economic Development
Strategies.--'' before ``The Secretary''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(b) Brownfield Site Redevelopment.--The Secretary shall
coordinate activities relating to the redevelopment of
brownfield sites under this Act with other Federal agencies,
States, local governments, consortia of local governments,
Indian tribes, nonprofit organizations, and public-private
partnerships.''.
SEC. 5. GRANTS FOR BROWNFIELD SITE REDEVELOPMENT.
(a) In General.--Title II of the Public Works and Economic
Development Act of 1965 (42 U.S.C. 3141 et seq.) is amended--
(1) by redesignating sections 210 through 213 as sections
211 through 214, respectively; and
(2) by inserting after section 209 the following:
``SEC. 210. GRANTS FOR BROWNFIELD SITE REDEVELOPMENT.
``(a) In General.--On the application of an eligible
recipient, the Secretary may make grants for projects to
alleviate or prevent conditions of excessive unemployment,
underemployment, blight, and infrastructure deterioration
associated with brownfield sites, including projects
consisting of--
``(1) development of public facilities;
``(2) development of public services;
``(3) business development (including funding of a
revolving loan fund);
``(4) planning;
``(5) technical assistance; and
``(6) training.
``(b) Criteria for Grants.--The Secretary may provide a
grant for a project under this section only if--
``(1) the Secretary determines that the project will assist
the area where the project is or will be located to meet,
directly or indirectly, a special need arising from--
``(A) a high level of unemployment or underemployment, or a
high proportion of low-income households;
``(B) the existence of blight and infrastructure
deterioration;
``(C) dislocations resulting from commercial or industrial
restructuring;
``(D) outmigration and population loss, as indicated by--
``(i)(I) depletion of human capital (including young,
skilled, or educated populations);
``(II) depletion of financial capital (including firms and
investment); or
``(III) a shrinking tax base; and
``(ii) resulting--
``(I) fiscal pressure;
``(II) restricted access to markets; and
``(III) constrained local development potential; or
``(E) the closure or realignment of--
``(i) a military or Department of Energy installation; or
``(ii) any other Federal facility; and
``(2) except in the case of a project consisting of
planning or technical assistance--
``(A) the Secretary has approved a comprehensive economic
development strategy for the area where the project is or
will be located; and
``(B) the project is consistent with the comprehensive
economic development strategy.
``(c) Particular Community Assistance.--Assistance under
this section may include assistance provided for activities
identified by a community, the economy of which is injured by
the existence of 1 or more brownfield sites, to assist the
community in--
``(1) revitalizing affected areas by--
``(A) diversifying the economy of the community; or
``(B) carrying out industrial or commercial (including
mixed use) redevelopment projects on brownfield sites or
sites adjacent to brownfield sites;
``(2) carrying out development that conserves environmental
and agricultural resources by--
``(A) reusing existing facilities and infrastructure;
``(B) reclaiming unused land and abandoned buildings; or
``(C) creating publicly owned parks, playgrounds,
recreational facilities, or cultural centers that contribute
to the economic revitalization of a community; or
``(3) carrying out a collaborative economic development
planning process, developed with broad-based and diverse
community participation, that addresses the economic
repercussions and opportunities posed by the existence of
brownfield sites in an area.
``(d) Direct Expenditure or Redistribution by Eligible
Recipient.--
``(1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), an eligible
recipient of a grant under this section may directly expend
the grant funds or may redistribute the funds to public and
private entities in the form of a grant, loan, loan
guarantee, payment to reduce interest on a loan guarantee, or
other appropriate assistance.
``(2) Limitation.--Under paragraph (1), an eligible
recipient may not provide any grant to a private for-profit
entity.''.
(b) Conforming Amendment.--The table of contents in section
1(b) of the Public Works and Economic Development Act of 1965
(42 U.S.C. prec. 3121) is amended by striking the items
relating to sections 210 through 213 and inserting the
following:
``Sec. 210. Grants for brownfield site redevelopment.
``Sec. 211. Changed project circumstances.
``Sec. 212. Use of funds in projects constructed under projected cost.
``Sec. 213. Reports by recipients.
``Sec. 214. Prohibition on use of funds for attorney's and consultant's
fees.''.
SEC. 6. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
(a) In General.--Title VII of the Public Works and Economic
Development Act of 1965 (42 U.S.C. 3231 et seq.) is amended
by adding at the end the following:
``SEC. 704. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS FOR BROWNFIELD
SITE REDEVELOPMENT.
``(a) In General.--In addition to amounts made available
under section 701, there is authorized to be appropriated to
carry out section 210 $60,000,000 for each of fiscal years
2002 through 2006, to remain available until expended.
``(b) Federal Share.--Notwithstanding section 204, subject
to section 205, the Federal share of the cost of activities
funded with amounts made available under subsection (a) shall
be not more than 75 percent.''.
(b) Conforming Amendment.--The table of contents in section
1(b) of the Public Works and Economic Development Act of 1965
(42
[[Page S6610]]
U.S.C. prec. 3121) is amended by adding at the end of the
items relating to title VII the following:
``Sec. 704. Authorization of appropriations for brownfield site
redevelopment.''.
____
The Enterprise Foundation,
Columbia, MD, June 6, 2001.
Hon. Carl Levin,
Russell Senate Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Levin: The Enterprise Foundation commends you
for introducing with Senator Jeffords the ``Brownfield Site
Redevelopment Assistance Act of 2001'' and the ``Brownfields
Economic Development Act of 2001.'' Enterprise strongly
support these two bills.
Enterprise is a national nonprofit organization that raises
resources and channels them to grassroots at the local level
for affordable housing, economic development and other
community revitalization initiatives in distressed urban and
rural neighborhoods nationwide. Central to our mission is
generating investment in areas suffering from blight, neglect
and disinvestment. Brownfields are prime examples of such
areas.
Enterprise is engaged in several large-scale brownfield
redevelopment efforts around the country. Targeted incentives
such as your bills provide would enable Enterprise and others
in the private sector to convert more brownfields to
productive uses.
By spurring brownfields redevelopment, your bills direct
limited public resources to places that already benefit from
existing infrastructure and promote economic investment where
it is needed most. The bills epitomize smart growth and
comprehensive community development principles.
Thank you for your leadership on this important issue.
Sincerely,
F. Barton Harvey III,
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer.
____
National Association of Counties,
March 15, 2001.
Hon. Carl Levin,
Russell Senate Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Hon. James Jeffords,
Hart Senate Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Levin and Senator Jeffords: The National
Association of Counties (NACo) commends both of your efforts
in offering bipartisan legislation to address the
redevelopment of brownfields.
NACo advocates for the redevelopment of these sites, in
both urban and rural counties, as a component of a county's
broader interest in achieving sustainable development on a
regional basis. Redevelopment of abandoned or underutilized
sites can stimulate economic revitalization in the
surrounding areas, and preserve green space by providing an
alternative to unchecked urban sprawl. Therefore, NACo
strongly supports language mandating the development of a
comprehensive economic development strategy.
We applaud your efforts to provide assistance for
redevelopment projects that promote the redevelopment,
restoration and economic recovery of brownfield sites.
Furthermore, NACo supports the legislative objective of
bringing new income and private investment to distressed
communities that have not fully participated in the
nationwide economic expansion. This legislation is closely
aligned with NACo policy objectives, and we offer our support
during the legislative process.
Thank you for your leadership on this important issue.
Please feel free to contact Cassandra Matthews, Associate
Legislative Director, at (202) 942-4204 if you need
additional information or assistance.
Sincerely,
Larry E. Naake,
Executive Director.
____
National Association of
Development Organizations,
Washington, DC, March 9, 2001.
Hon. Carl Levin,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Levin: On behalf of the National Association
of Development Organizations (NADO), I am writing to express
our strong support for your efforts to enhance and support
the Economic Development Administration's (EDA's) brownfields
redevelopment activities.
As a national association representing regional planning
and development organizations that provide valuable
professional and technical assistance to over 1,800 counties
and 15,000 small cities and towns, we recognize the value and
benefits of returning former commercial and industrial sites
to productive use. This includes targeting sites in small
metropolitan and rural America, as well as our urban centers.
In addition to being encouraged and supportive of
congressional efforts to strengthen the Environmental
Protection Agency's (EPA's) brownfields portfolio, we also
recognize the unique tools and experience that EDA has to
offer local communities. While EPA has implemented effective
assessment and clean up programs, there is a tremendous need
for federal programs focused on redeveloping and transforming
the former brownfields sites into productive facilities.
Over the past 35 years, EDA has developed a successful
track record in partnering with local communities to
revitalize, upgrade and expand former commercial sites into
industrial facilities that help create quality jobs, expand
the local tax base and improve the quality of life in the
area. This includes making the necessary investments in
infrastructure, as well as providing essential planning and
technical assistance.
EDA has also proven to be an effective federal partner for
EPA, with the two federal agencies leveraging their funding
and particular expertise to assist communities. Therefore, we
strongly support your efforts to provide EDA with the
resources and program tools needed to help small metropolitan
and rural communities convert brownfields into economic
development opportunities.
Sincerely,
Aliceann Wohlbruck,
Executive Director.
____
Smart Growth America,
Washington, DC, April 4, 2001.
Hon. James Jeffords,
Co-Chair, Senate Smart Growth Task Force, U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Carl Levin,
Co-Chair, Senate Smart Growth Task Force, U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Jeffords and Senator Levin: Smart Growth
America would like to thank you for your leadership on the
introduction of the Brownfields Economic Development Act of
2001 and the Brownfields Site Redevelopment Assistance Act of
2001. We strongly support these bills and your efforts to
complement the Brownfields Revitalization and Environmental
Restoration Act of 2001 by focusing on the physical
redevelopment of brownfields.
S. 350 provides needed liability relief and funding to
inventory, assess and remediate brownfield sites. These two
new bills build upon S. 350 by providing communities with
additional economic development resources to return
brownfields to productive use.
Economic development of brownfield sites is an essential
element of smart growth--growth that revitalizes
neighborhoods, creates and preserves affordable housing,
promotes transportation choice, and preserves open space and
farmland. And, it makes economic sense. The U.S. Conference
of Mayors found that as much as $2.4 billion annually could
be generated in new tax revenues by fully tapping into the
potential of our nation's brownfields. This economic
development could create more than 550,000 new jobs.
The Brownfields Economic Development Act and the Brownfield
Site Redevelopment Assistance Act improve the ability of the
Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and the
Department of Commerce's Economic Development Administration
to fund and assist communities in their efforts to develop
their brownfields and return them to productive use. We
applaud your efforts and look forward to working with you to
see the timely passage of these measures.
Sincerely,
Don Chen,
Director.
____
Coalition for Economic Development,
March 16, 2001.
Hon. Carl Levin,
Russell Senate Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Hon. James Jeffords,
Hart Senate Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Levin and Senator Jeffords: The organizations
that comprise the Coalition for Economic Development commend
both of you for proposing legislation that will address much-
needed redevelopment of brownfields.
The establishment within the Economic Development
Administration of a revolving loan fund especially devoted to
brownfields will quickly increase the amount of money ``on
the street'' for redevelopment. EDA has a highly successful
track record in operating a revolving loan fund that has put
millions of dollars into business development in low-income
urban and rural areas and has leveraged millions more.
The requirement to develop a comprehensive economic
development strategy will guarantee that different
constituents within a community are given a voice in
redevelopment planning.
The changes you propose in the Department of House and
Urban Development's Section 108 will encourage greater use of
this program since it does not tie up future Community
Development Block Grant funding that is equally needed for
other purposes.
Together, the EDA revolving fund and the HUD grant program
will provide local governments, regional councils and non-
profits with excellent programs to help redevelop these
unutilized and underutilized areas that have become eye-sores
that have hindered revitalization in many urban and rural
areas. Brownfields redevelopment helps turn those eye-sores
into homes, businesses, parks and active commercial
districts.
Please feel free to contact any members of the coalition. A
list of contacts is attached.
Contact list
Beverly Nykwest, chair, Director of Policy, National
Association of Regional Councils, (202) 457-0710, ext. 20; e-
mail: nykwest&narc.org.
Paul Kalomiris, Legislative Director, Council for Urban
Economic Development, National Association of Installation
Developers, (202) 223-4735, e-mail:
[email protected].
[[Page S6611]]
Carol Wayman, Director, Policy Research & Development,
National Congress for Community Economic Development, (202)
289-9020, ext. 112, [email protected].
Cassandra Matthews, Legislative Assistant, National
Association of Counties, (202) 942-4204, e-mail:
[email protected].
Scott Shrum, Legislative Assistant, National League of
Cities, (202) 626-3020, e-mail: [email protected].
Tom Halicki, Executive Director, National Association of
Towns and Townships, (202) 624-3553, e-mail:
[email protected].
Eugene Lowe, U.S. Conference of Mayors, (202) 293-7330, e-
mail: [email protected].
Laura Marshall, Legislative Representative National
Association of Development Organizations, (202) 624-8177, e-
mail: [email protected].
Dinah Atkins, President and CEO, National Business
Incubator Association, (740) 593-4331, e-mail:
[email protected].
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleague,
Senator Levin, in introducing two legislative initiatives that will
expand upon the resources available for brownfields revitalization.
The first bill, the Brownfields Site Redevelopment Assistance Act of
2001, provides the Department of Commerce's Economic Development
Administration (EDA) with a dedicated source of funding for
brownfields. EDA can currently assist communities with brownfields
redevelopment when these projects involve infrastructure development or
economic adjustment activities, however there is no specific authority
or funding for brownfields revitalization.
The second bill, the Brownfields Economic Development Act of 2001,
addresses requirements on the Department of Housing and Urban
Development's, HUD, Brownfields Economic Development Initiative, BEDI,
grant program that are hampering small city brownfields revitalization
efforts. BEDI's required link to Section 108 loan guarantees demands
that future Community Development Block Grant, CDBG, allocations be
pledged as collateral. BEDI's required link to Section 108 serves as a
deterrent to many small towns in Vermont and throughout the nation, who
do not have the resources to commit to brownfields. Our bill would
permit HUD to make grants available independent of economic development
loan guarantees. The legislation also provides a 30 percent set aside
for small communities and federally-recognized Indian tribes.
This legislation would help communities in Vermont reclaim their
older underutilized sites. A prime example is an old mill in the heart
of Ludlow, VT which occupies 30,000 square feet of prime downtown land.
It is next to residential properties and again, ripe for redevelopment.
There are currently Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, funds for
assessment to investigate what is in the ground and how much it will
cost to clean up. But the owner, the bank and the town are reluctant to
act if the site is contaminated. These bills will assist many small
towns such as Ludlow access the clean up funding they need to
revitalize contaminated sites.
Since the inception of the Senate Smart Growth Task Force in 1999,
Senator Levin and I as co-chairs, have been working to expand funding
sources for brownfields. This legislation is just one component of the
overall effort to restore brownfield sites to productive use in our
cities and towns. By advancing this legislation, we will address a
critical gap in brownfields' funding for site assessment and clean up,
while promoting economic development as well as preservation of
farmland and open space.
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise to join my colleagues--Senator
Jeffords, Senator Levin and others--in co-sponsoring the Brownfields
Site Redevelopment Assistance Act and the Brownfields Economic
Development Act.
These two Acts are important complements to S. 350, the Brownfields
Revitalization and Environmental Restoration Act of 2001 that the
Senate passed unanimously earlier this year. S. 350 encourages the
remediation of brownfield sites by reducing financial and legal
barriers to clean-up. The Brownfields Site Redevelopment Assistance Act
and the Brownfields Economic Development Act expand the abilities of
the Economic Development Administration and the Department of Housing
and Urban Development to help local communities physically develop and
restore brownfield sites to productive use. Taken together, these three
bills make up a complete brownfields redevelopment package.
The two Acts introduced today will provide critical economic and
technical assistance to communities during all stages of the
brownfields redevelopment process--from an initial site assessment to
putting the finishing touches on a new apartment building or city park.
These bills have enormous potential to enhance and revitalize
communities and their economies, to turn neglected wastelands into
productive developments, and to create more parks and open spaces. This
in turn will create great opportunities for new jobs and economic
development. This is particularly true in my State of Montana where
we've been working hard to jump start our economy. Montana's industrial
past has left the State with its share of brownfield sites--wood
treatment facilities, railroad yards, sawmills. Hopefully, this
legislation will provide communities with the tools they need to put
these sites to productive uses.
The Brownfields Site Redevelopment Assistance Act of 2001 will
provide the Economic Development Administration with authority and
funding for grants to States, local communities, Indian tribes and non-
profit organizations for brownfield redevelopment projects. The
Brownfields Economic Development Act of 2001 will make HUD Brownfields
Economic Development Initiative grants available to local governments
and Indian tribes for community development projects. The bill will
also provide a 30 percent set-aside for small communities and tribes, a
provision that is very important to a rural State like Montana. The
National Association of Development Organizations reports that Federal
agencies are not reaching rural areas through existing brownfields
programs. Rural communities and tribes in Montana and elsewhere need
financial and technical assistance to include brownfields in economic
development strategies.
Getting brownfield sites cleaned-up makes good sense in Montana and
throughout the nation. That, again, is good for the environment, good
for communities, good for our economy, and good for the country. I
wholeheartedly support this legislation, and I hope both bills will
enjoy swift passage through the Senate.
______
By Mr. CLELAND:
S. 1080. A bill to amend chapter 84 of title 5, United States Code,
to provide that employees who retire as registered nurses under the
Federal Employees Retirement System shall have unused sick leave used
in the computation of annuities, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on Governmental Affairs.
Mr. CLELAND. Mr. President. Statistics from the National League of
Nursing and the American Nurses' Association demonstrate the nursing
workforce is shrinking. The Federal health sector, employing
approximately 45,000 nurses, may be the hardest hit in the near future
with an estimated 47 percent of its nursing workforce eligible for
retirement in the year 2004. Current and anticipated nursing vacancies
in Federal health care agencies are particularly alarming with the
increased nursing care needs of an aging America. The Journal of the
American Medical Association published a study last year which found
the average age of the nursing workforce rose by 4.5 years between 1983
and 1998, mostly because fewer younger people are joining the
profession.
It is imperative that the Federal Health Care System recruit and
retain nurses in such crucial areas as the Veterans Affairs Health
Administration, Department of Defense, Public Health Service, Indian
Health Service, and Federal Bureau of Prisons. Nursing shortages will
result in major changes in the quality and type of care these agencies
can provide to their beneficiaries. There are no quick fixes to
recruiting and retaining registered nurses, but Congress must act now
on identified problem areas. One identified measure which would help
recruit and retain Federal nurses is to address employee benefits.
Title 38 currently excludes nurses employed by the Federal health care
system after 1983 from including unused sick leave in computation of
retirement. Approximately 68 percent of the Federal nurses are enrolled
in the Federal Employees Retirement System (FERS). My proposal
[[Page S6612]]
would allow registered nurses under FERS to include unused sick leave
in the same manner as nurses enrolled in the Civilian Retirement
System, (CRS), for computation of retirement benefits. Under CRS
regulations, unused sick leave time is added after all of the required
retirement criteria are met. With my proposal, registered nurses who
have accrued the needed increments of sick leave will retain their hard
earned benefit as part of their retirement package.
Nurses played a crucial role in my recovery from injuries incurred in
Vietnam. I can not imagine how much more difficult that recovery would
have been without the skill and compassion of nurses. I urge my Senate
colleagues to support this measure as we continue to look at strategies
to prevent the looming Federal nurse shortage.
Mr. President. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be
printed in the Record.
S. 1080
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. UNUSED SICK LEAVE INCLUDED IN ANNUITY COMPUTATION
OF REGISTERED NURSES.
(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Federal
Registered Nurse Retirement Adjustment Act of 2001''.
(b) Annuity Computation.--Section 8415 of title 5, United
States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(i) In computing an annuity under this subchapter, the
total service of an employee who retires from the position of
a registered nurse on an immediate annuity or dies while
employed in that position leaving any survivor entitled to an
annuity includes the days of unused sick leave to the credit
of that employee under a formal leave system, except that
such days shall not be counted in determining average pay or
annuity eligibility under this subchapter.''.
(c) Deposit Not Required.--Section 8422(d) of title 5,
United States Code, is amended--
(1) by inserting ``(1)'' before ``Under such regulations'';
and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(2) Deposit may not be required for days of unused sick
leave credited under section 8415(i).''.
(d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall take effect 60 days after the date of enactment of this
Act and apply to individuals who separate from service on or
after that effective date.
______
By Mr. TORRICELLI (for himself and Mr. Dayton):
S. 1081. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow a
business credit for the development of low-to-moderate income housing
for home ownership, and for other purposes; to the Committee on
Finance.
Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill which
builds on the most well received provisions of the highly successful
Low to Moderate Income Housing Tax Credit bill, LIHTC, of 1986. The
evidence is clear that the entrepreneurial spirit that has been
harnessed over the last 15 years in favor of aggressively addressing
the Nation's need for rental housing can and should be channeled in
response to the dire need for affordable single family hosing in urban
America.
Although the economic prosperity enjoyed by this country for a decade
led to a home ownership rate that has reached levels of nearly 70
percent, sadly the rate for central cities is 52 percent. One
unfortunate reality is that having a good job does not guarantee a
family a decent place to live at an affordable rate. According to one
report; ``More than 220,000 teachers, police and public safety officers
across the country spend more than half their incomes for housing and
the problem is, in fact, getting worse.''
Housing experts continually tell us that low homeownership in our
urban communities is a result of the lack of quality homes to purchase
and not the lack of potential homeowners. Developers have expressed
that the high costs associated with building homes in urban areas have
acted as a disincentive to developing or redeveloping communities. If
supply drives demand as it often does in the case of other commodities
then the key to revitalizing neighborhoods that were once jewels is the
entrepreneural spirit to build homes.
The use of tax credits to provide a source of capital to dramatically
increase the rental housing stock has been a wonderful success. In
recent meetings with developers and community development officials in
my State of New Jersey, a consistent answer to the question of ``what
can we do to spur the development of single family homes'' has been
``just build on the success of the low income housing tax credit
program''. Using tax incentives for such critical economic development
purposes, such as overcoming capital market shortages is a proven
method. In that regard, inclusion of certain industry practice
development costs in the ``eligible costs'' basis of the property for
computing tax credits and exclusion of the first $10,000 would quite
often be just enough to keep developers out of the ``red'' in many
urban communities.
In many respects it is only proper that we begin this century
recapturing space that once served as home of vibrant neighborhoods and
bustling businesses since the middle of the 19th century. Certainly,
effective development of space at the core of our urban centers
requires building on the pride of ownership, rehabilitating classic
structures that are found in all of our older cities and reclaiming
land that has served us well.
As we move ahead as a nation it is critical that we not leave many of
our urban communities behind. AHEAD, (Affordable Housing and
Environmental Action through Development), is a sound approach that
cannot be implemented too soon. I urge my colleagues to support this
bill. 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. 1081
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; ETC.
(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Low-to-
Moderate Income Home Ownership Tax Credit Act''.
(b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents for this Act
is as follows:
Sec. 1. Short title; etc.
Sec. 2. Credit for low-to-moderate income housing for home ownership.
Sec. 3. Partial exclusion of gain from sale of low-to-moderate income
housing.
Sec. 4. Expansion of rehabilitation credit.
SEC. 2. CREDIT FOR LOW-TO-MODERATE INCOME HOUSING FOR HOME
OWNERSHIP.
(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:
``SEC. 42A. LOW-TO-MODERATE INCOME HOME OWNERSHIP CREDIT.
``(a) In General.--For purposes of section 38, the amount
of the home ownership credit determined under this section
for any taxable year in the credit period shall be an amount
equal to the applicable percentage of the qualified basis of
each qualified low-to-moderate income building.
``(b) Applicable Percentage: 70 Percent Present Value
Credit for New Buildings; 30 Percent Present Value Credit for
Existing Buildings.--For purposes of this section--
``(1) In general.--The term `applicable percentage' means
the appropriate percentage prescribed by the Secretary for
the earlier of--
``(A) the first month of the credit period with respect to
a low-to-moderate income building, or
``(B) at the election of the taxpayer, the month in which
the taxpayer and the housing credit agency enter into an
agreement with respect to such building (which is binding on
such agency, the taxpayer, and all successors in interest) as
to the housing credit dollar amount to be allocated to such
building.
A month may be elected under subparagraph (B) only if the
election is made not later than the 5th day after the close
of such month. Such an election, once made, shall be
irrevocable.
``(2) Method of prescribing percentages.--The percentages
prescribed by the Secretary for any month shall be
percentages which will yield over a 10-year period amounts of
credit under subsection (a) which have a present value equal
to--
``(A) 70 percent of the qualified basis of a new building,
and
``(B) 30 percent of the qualified basis of an existing
building.
``(3) Method of discounting.--The present value under
paragraph (2) shall be determined--
``(A) as of the last day of the 1st year of the 10-year
period referred to in paragraph (2),
``(B) by using a discount rate equal to 72 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 applicable under subparagraph (A) or (B) of
paragraph (1) and compounded annually, and
``(C) by assuming that the credit allowable under this
section for any year is received on the last day of such
year.
``(c) Qualified Basis; Eligible Basis; Qualified Low-to-
Moderate Income Building.--For purposes of this section--
``(1) Qualified basis.--
[[Page S6613]]
``(A) Determination.--The qualified basis of any qualified
low-to-moderate income building for any taxable year is an
amount equal to--
``(i) the applicable fraction (determined as of the close
of such taxable year) of
``(ii) the eligible basis of such building.
``(B) Applicable fraction.--
``(i) In general.--For purposes of subparagraph (A), the
term `applicable fraction' means the smaller of the unit
fraction or the floor space fraction.
``(ii) Unit fraction.--For purposes of clause (i), the term
`unit fraction' means the fraction--
``(I) the numerator of which is the number of low-to-
moderate income units in the building, and
``(II) the denominator of which is the number of all units
(whether or not occupied) in such building.
``(iii) Floor space fraction.--For purposes of clause (i),
the term `floor space fraction' means the fraction--
``(I) the numerator of which is the total floor space of
the low-to-moderate income units in such building, and
``(II) the denominator of which is the total floor space of
all units (whether or not occupied) in such building.
``(C) Eligible basis.--
``(i) In general.--The eligible basis of any qualified low-
to-moderate income building for any taxable year shall be
determined under rules similar to the rules under section
42(d), except that--
``(I) the determination of the adjusted basis of any
building shall be made as of the beginning of the credit
period, and
``(II) such basis shall include development costs properly
attributable to such building.
``(ii) Development costs.--For purposes of clause (i)(II),
the term `development costs' includes--
``(I) site preparation costs,
``(II) State and local impact fees,
``(III) reasonable development costs,
``(IV) professional fees related to basis items,
``(V) construction financing costs related to basis items
other than land, and
``(VI) on-site and adjacent improvements required by State
and local governments.
``(2) Qualified low-to-moderate income building.--The term
`qualified low-to-moderate income building' means any
building which is part of a qualified low-to-moderate income
development project at all times during the period--
``(A) beginning on the 1st day in the compliance period on
which such building is part of such a development project,
and
``(B) ending on the last day of the compliance period with
respect to such building.
``(d) Rehabilitation expenditures treated as separate new
building.--Rehabilitation expenditures paid or incurred by
the taxpayer with respect to any building shall be treated
for purposes of this section as a separate new building under
the rules of section 42(e).
``(e) Definition and special rules relating to credit
period.--
``(1) Credit period defined.--For purposes of this section,
the term `credit period' means, with respect to any building,
the period of 10 taxable years beginning with the taxable
year in which the building (or a low-to-moderate income unit
in such building) is first sold by the taxpayer to a low-to
moderate income individual after being placed in service.
``(2) Special rule for 1st year of credit period.--
``(A) In general.--The credit allowable under subsection
(a) with respect to any building for the 1st taxable year of
the credit period shall be determined by substituting for the
applicable fraction under subsection (c)(1) the fraction--
``(i) the numerator of which is the sum of the applicable
fractions determined under subsection (c)(1) as of the close
of each full month of such year during which such building
was in service, and
``(ii) the denominator of which is 12.
``(B) Disallowed 1st year credit allowed in 11th year.--Any
reduction by reason of subparagraph (A) in the credit
allowable (without regard to subparagraph (A)) for the 1st
taxable year of the credit period shall be allowable under
subsection (a) for the 1st taxable year following the credit
period.
``(3) Credit period for existing buildings not to begin
before rehabilitation credit allowed.--The credit period for
an existing building shall not begin before the 1st taxable
year of the credit period for rehabilitation expenditures
with respect to the building.
``(f) Qualified Low-to-Moderate Income Development
Project.--For purposes of this section--
``(1) In general.--The term `qualified low-to-moderate
income development project' means any development project of
1 or more for qualified low-to-moderate income buildings
located in an area if 40 percent or more of the residential
units in such development project are occupied and owned by
individuals whose income is 100 percent or less of area
median gross income.
``(2) Treatment of units occupied by individuals whose
incomes rise above limit.--Notwithstanding an increase in the
income of the occupants of a low-to-moderate income unit
above the income limitation applicable under paragraph (2) or
(3), such unit shall continue to be treated as a low-to-
moderate income unit if the income of such occupants
initially met such income limitation and such unit continues
to be so restricted.
``(3) Certain rules made applicable.--Paragraphs (3), (5),
(7), and (8) of section 42(g) shall apply for purposes of
determining whether any development project is a qualified
low-to-moderate income development project.
``(g) Limitation on aggregate credit allowable with respect
to development projects located in a State.--
``(1) Credit may not exceed credit amount allocated to
building.--The amount of the credit determined under this
section for any taxable year with respect to any building
shall not exceed the housing credit dollar amount allocated
to such building under rules similar to the rules of section
42(h)(1) (determined without regard to subparagraph (D)
thereof).
``(2) Allocated credit amount to apply to all taxable years
ending during or after credit allocation year.--Any housing
credit dollar amount allocated to any building for any
calendar year--
``(A) shall apply to such building for all taxable years in
the credit period ending during or after such calendar year,
and
``(B) shall reduce the aggregate housing credit dollar
amount of the allocating agency only for such calendar year.
``(3) Housing credit dollar amount for agencies.--
``(A) In general.--The aggregate housing credit dollar
amount which a housing credit agency may allocate for any
calendar year is the portion of the State housing credit
ceiling allocated under this paragraph for such calendar year
to such agency.
``(B) State ceiling initially allocated to state housing
credit agencies.--Except as provided in subparagraphs (D) and
(E), the State housing credit ceiling for each calendar year
shall be allocated to the housing credit agency of such
State. If there is more than 1 housing credit agency of a
State, all such agencies shall be treated as a single agency.
``(C) State housing credit ceiling.--The State housing
credit ceiling applicable to any State and any calendar year
shall be an amount equal to the sum of--
``(i) the unused State housing credit ceiling (if any) of
such State for the preceding calendar year,
``(ii) the greater of--
``(I) $1.75 multiplied by the State population, or
``(II) $2,000,000,
``(iii) the amount of State housing credit ceiling returned
in the calendar year, plus
``(iv) the amount (if any) allocated under subparagraph (D)
to such State by the Secretary.
For purposes of clause (i), the unused State housing credit
ceiling for any calendar year is the excess (if any) of the
sum of the amounts described in clauses (ii) through (iv)
over the aggregate housing credit dollar amount allocated for
such year. For purposes of clause (iii), the amount of State
housing credit ceiling returned in the calendar year equals
the housing credit dollar amount previously allocated within
the State to any development project which fails to meet the
10 percent test under section 42(h)(1)(E)(ii) on a date after
the close of the calendar year in which the allocation was
made or which does not become a qualified low-to-moderate
income development project within the period required by this
section or the terms of the allocation or to any development
project with respect to which an allocation is canceled by
mutual consent of the housing credit agency and the
allocation recipient.
``(D) Unused housing credit carryovers allocated among
certain states.--
``(i) In general.--The unused housing credit carryover of a
State for any calendar year shall be assigned to the
Secretary for allocation among qualified States for the
succeeding calendar year.
``(ii) Unused housing credit carryover.--For purposes of
this subparagraph, the unused housing credit carryover of a
State for any calendar year is the excess (if any) of the
unused State housing credit ceiling for such year (as defined
in subparagraph (C)(i)) over the excess (if any) of --
``(I) the unused State housing credit ceiling for the year
preceding such year, over
``(II) the aggregate housing credit dollar amount allocated
for such year.
``(iii) Formula for allocation of unused housing credit
carryovers among qualified states.--The amount allocated
under this subparagraph to a qualified State for any calendar
year shall be the amount determined by the Secretary to bear
the same ratio to the aggregate unused housing credit
carryovers of all States for the preceding calendar year as
such State's population for the calendar year bears to the
population of all qualified States for the calendar year. For
purposes of the preceding sentence, population shall be
determined in accordance with section 146(j).
``(iv) Qualified state.--For purposes of this subparagraph,
the term `qualified State' means, with respect to a calendar
year, any State--
``(I) which allocated its entire State housing credit
ceiling for the preceding calendar year, and
``(II) for which a request is made (not later than May 1 of
the calendar year) to receive an allocation under clause
(iii).
``(E) Special rule for states with constitutional home rule
cities.--For purposes of this subsection--
``(i) In general.--The aggregate housing credit dollar
amount for any constitutional home rule city for any calendar
year shall be
[[Page S6614]]
an amount which bears the same ratio to the State housing
credit ceiling for such calendar year as--
``(I) the population of such city, bears to
``(II) the population of the entire State.
``(ii) Coordination with other allocations.--In the case of
any State which contains 1 or more constitutional home rule
cities, for purposes of applying this paragraph with respect
to housing credit agencies in such State other than
constitutional home rule cities, the State housing credit
ceiling for any calendar year shall be reduced by the
aggregate housing credit dollar amounts determined for such
year for all constitutional home rule cities in such State.
``(iii) Constitutional home rule city.--For purposes of
this paragraph, the term `constitutional home rule city' has
the meaning given such term by section 146(d)(3)(C).
``(F) State may provide for different allocation.--Rules
similar to the rules of section 146(e) (other than paragraph
(2)(B) thereof) shall apply for purposes of this paragraph.
``(G) Population.--For purposes of this paragraph,
population shall be determined in accordance with section
146(j).
``(H) Cost-of-living adjustment.--
``(i) In general.--In the case of a calendar year after
2002, the $2,000,000 and $1.75 amounts in subparagraph (C)
shall each be increased by an amount equal to--
``(I) such dollar amount, multiplied by
``(II) the cost-of-living adjustment determined under
section 1(f )(3) for such calendar year by substituting
`calendar year 2001' for `calendar year 1992' in subparagraph
(B) thereof.
``(ii) Rounding.--
``(I) In the case of the $2,000,000 amount, any increase
under clause (i) which is not a multiple of $5,000 shall be
rounded to the next lowest multiple of $5,000.
``(II) In the case of the $1.75 amount, any increase under
clause (i) which is not a multiple of 5 cents shall be
rounded to the next lowest multiple of 5 cents.
``(4) Portion of state ceiling set-aside for certain
development projects involving qualified nonprofit
organizations.--
``(A) In general.--Not more than 90 percent of the State
housing credit ceiling for any State for any calendar year
shall be allocated to development projects other than
qualified low-to-moderate income development projects
described in subparagraph (B).
``(B) Development projects involving qualified nonprofit
organizations.--For purposes of subparagraph (A), a qualified
low-to-moderate income development project is described in
this subparagraph if a qualified nonprofit organization is to
materially participate (within the meaning of section 469(h))
in the development and operation of the development project
throughout the compliance period.
``(C) Qualified nonprofit organization.--For purposes of
this paragraph, the term `qualified nonprofit organization'
means any organization if--
``(i) such organization is described in paragraph (3) or
(4) of section 501(c) and is exempt from tax under section
501(a),
``(ii) such organization is determined by the State housing
credit agency not to be affiliated with or controlled by a
for-profit organization; and
``(iii) 1 of the exempt purposes of such organization
includes the fostering of low-to-moderate income housing.
``(D) Treatment of certain subsidiaries.--
``(i) In general.--For purposes of this paragraph, a
qualified nonprofit organization shall be treated as
satisfying the ownership and material participation test of
subparagraph (B) if any qualified corporation in which such
organization holds stock satisfies such test.
``(ii) Qualified corporation.--For purposes of clause (i),
the term `qualified corporation' means any corporation if 100
percent of the stock of such corporation is held by 1 or more
qualified nonprofit organizations at all times during the
period such corporation is in existence.
``(E) State may not override set-aside.--Nothing in
subparagraph (F) of paragraph (3) shall be construed to
permit a State not to comply with subparagraph (A) of this
paragraph.
``(5) Buildings eligible for credit only if minimum long-
term commitment to low-to-moderate income housing.--
``(A) In general.--No credit shall be allowed by reason of
this section with respect to any building for the taxable
year unless a low-to-moderate income housing commitment is in
effect as of the end of such taxable year.
``(B) Low-to-moderate income housing commitment.--For
purposes of this paragraph, the term `low-to-moderate income
housing commitment' means any agreement between the taxpayer
and the housing credit agency--
``(i) which requires that the applicable fraction (as
defined in subsection (c)(1)(B)) for the building for each
taxable year in the compliance period will not be less than
the applicable fraction specified in such agreement,
``(ii) which allows individuals who meet the income
limitation applicable to the building under subsection (f)
(whether prospective, present, or former occupants of the
building) the right to enforce in any State court the
requirement of clause (i),
``(iii) which allows the taxpayer the right of first
refusal to purchase the building from the low-or-moderate
income individual to whom the taxpayer first sold the
building,
``(iv) which is binding on all successors of the taxpayer,
and
``(v) which, with respect to the property, is recorded
pursuant to State law as a restrictive covenant.
``(C) Allocation of credit may not exceed amount necessary
to support commitment.--The housing credit dollar amount
allocated to any building may not exceed the amount necessary
to support the applicable fraction specified in the low-to-
moderate income housing commitment for such building.
``(D) Effect of noncompliance.--If, during a taxable year,
there is a determination that a low-to-moderate income
housing agreement was not in effect as of the beginning of
such year, such determination shall not apply to any period
before such year and subparagraph (A) shall be applied
without regard to such determination if the failure is
corrected within 1 year from the date of the determination.
``(E) Development projects which consist of more than 1
building.--The application of this paragraph to development
projects which consist of more than 1 building shall be made
under regulations prescribed by the Secretary.
``(6) Special rules.--
``(A) Building must be located within jurisdiction of
credit agency.--A housing credit agency may allocate its
aggregate housing credit dollar amount only to buildings
located in the jurisdiction of the governmental unit of which
such agency is a part.
``(B) Agency allocations in excess of limit.--If the
aggregate housing credit dollar amounts allocated by a
housing credit agency for any calendar year exceed the
portion of the State housing credit ceiling allocated to such
agency for such calendar year, the housing credit dollar
amounts so allocated shall be reduced (to the extent of such
excess) for buildings in the reverse of the order in which
the allocations of such amounts were made.
``(C) Credit reduced if allocated credit dollar amount is
less than credit which would be allowable without regard to
sales convention, etc.--
``(i) In general.--The amount of the credit determined
under this section with respect to any building shall not
exceed the clause (ii) percentage of the amount of the credit
which would (but for this subparagraph) be determined under
this section with respect to such building.
``(ii) Determination of percentage.--For purposes of clause
(i), the clause (ii) percentage with respect to any building
is the percentage which--
``(I) the housing credit dollar amount allocated to such
building bears to
``(II) the credit amount determined in accordance with
clause (iii).
``(iii) Determination of credit amount.--The credit amount
determined in accordance with this clause is the amount of
the credit which would (but for this subparagraph) be
determined under this section with respect to the building if
this section were applied without regard to paragraph (2)(A)
of subsection (e).
``(D) Housing credit agency to specify applicable
percentage and maximum qualified basis.--In allocating a
housing credit dollar amount to any building, the housing
credit agency shall specify the applicable percentage and the
maximum qualified basis which may be taken into account under
this section with respect to such building. The applicable
percentage and maximum qualified basis so specified shall not
exceed the applicable percentage and qualified basis
determined under this section without regard to this
subsection.
``(7) Other definitions.--For purposes of this subsection--
``(A) Housing credit agency.--The term `housing credit
agency' means any agency authorized to carry out this
subsection.
``(B) Possessions treated as States.--The term `State'
includes a possession of the United States.
``(h) Definitions and special rules.--For purposes of this
section--
``(1) Compliance period.--The term `compliance period'
means, with respect to any building, the period of 5 taxable
years beginning with the 1st taxable year of the credit
period with respect thereto.
``(2) New building.--The term `new building' means a
building the original use of which begins with the taxpayer.
``(3) Existing building.--The term `existing building'
means any building which is not a new building.
``(4) Application to estates and trusts.--In the case of an
estate or trust, the amount of the credit determined under
subsection (a) and any increase in tax under subsection (j)
shall be apportioned between the estate or trust and the
beneficiaries on the basis of the income of the estate or
trust allocable to each.
``(i) Recapture of credit.--If--
``(1) as of the close of any taxable year in the compliance
period, the amount of the qualified basis of any building
with respect to the taxpayer is less than
``(2) the amount of such basis as of the close of the
preceding taxable year,
then the taxpayer's tax under this chapter for the taxable
year shall be increased by the credit recapture amount
determined under rules similar to the rules of section 42(j).
``(j) Application of at-risk rules.--For purposes of this
section, rules similar to the rules of section 42(k) shall
apply.
[[Page S6615]]
``(k) Certifications and other reports to Secretary.--
``(1) Certification with respect to 1st year of credit
period.--Following the close of the 1st taxable year in the
credit period with respect to any qualified low-to-moderate
income building, the taxpayer shall certify to the Secretary
(at such time and in such form and in such manner as the
Secretary prescribes)--
``(A) the taxable year, and calendar year, in which such
building was first sold after being placed in service,
``(B) the adjusted basis and eligible basis of such
building as of the beginning of the credit period,
``(C) the maximum applicable percentage and qualified basis
permitted to be taken into account by the appropriate housing
credit agency under subsection (g),
``(D) the election made under subsection (f) with respect
to the qualified low-to-moderate income housing development
project of which such building is a part, and
``(E) such other information as the Secretary may require.
In the case of a failure to make the certification required
by the preceding sentence on the date prescribed therefor,
unless it is shown that such failure is due to reasonable
cause and not to willful neglect, no credit shall be
allowable by reason of subsection (a) with respect to such
building for any taxable year ending before such
certification is made.
``(2) Annual reports to the Secretary.--The Secretary may
require taxpayers to submit an information return (at such
time and in such form and manner as the Secretary prescribes)
for each taxable year setting forth--
``(A) the qualified basis for the taxable year of each
qualified low-to-moderate income building of the taxpayer,
``(B) the information described in paragraph (1)(C) for the
taxable year, and
``(C) such other information as the Secretary may require.
The penalty under section 6652(j) shall apply to any failure
to submit the return required by the Secretary under the
preceding sentence on the date prescribed therefor.
``(3) Annual reports from housing credit agencies.--Each
agency which allocates any housing credit amount to any
building for any calendar year shall submit to the Secretary
(at such time and in such manner as the Secretary shall
prescribe) an annual report specifying--
``(A) the amount of housing credit amount allocated to each
building for such year,
``(B) sufficient information to identify each such building
and the taxpayer with respect thereto, and
``(C) such other information as the Secretary may require.
The penalty under section 6652(j) shall apply to any failure
to submit the report required by the preceding sentence on
the date prescribed therefor.
``(l) Responsibilities of housing credit agencies.--
``(1) Plans for allocation of credit among development
projects.--
``(A) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
this section, the housing credit dollar amount with respect
to any building shall be zero unless--
``(i) such amount was allocated pursuant to a qualified
allocation plan of the housing credit agency which is
approved by the governmental unit (in accordance with rules
similar to the rules of section 147(f)(2) (other than
subparagraph (B)(ii) thereof)) of which such agency is a
part,
``(ii) such agency notifies the chief executive officer (or
the equivalent) of the local jurisdiction within which the
building is located of such development project and provides
such individual a reasonable opportunity to comment on the
development project,
``(iii) a comprehensive market study of the housing needs
of low- and moderate-income individuals in the area to be
served by the development project is conducted before the
credit allocation is made and at the developer's expense by a
disinterested party who is approved by such agency, and
``(iv) a written explanation is available to the general
public for any allocation of a housing credit dollar amount
which is not made in accordance with established priorities
and selection criteria of the housing credit agency.
``(B) Qualified allocation plan.--For purposes of this
paragraph, the term `qualified allocation plan' means any
plan--
``(i) which sets forth selection criteria to be used to
determine housing priorities of the housing credit agency
which are appropriate to local conditions,
``(ii) which also gives preference in allocating housing
credit dollar amounts among selected development projects
to--
``(I) development projects serving the lowest income
owners, and
``(II) development projects which are located in qualified
census tracts (as defined in section 42(d)(5)(C)) and the
development of which contributes to a concerted community
revitalization plan, and
``(iii) which provides a procedure that the agency (or an
agent or other private contractor of such agency) will follow
in monitoring for noncompliance with the provisions of this
section and in notifying the Internal Revenue Service of such
noncompliance which such agency becomes aware of and in
monitoring for noncompliance with habitability standards
through regular site visits.
``(C) Certain selection criteria must be used.--The
selection criteria set forth in a qualified allocation plan
must include--
``(i) development project location,
``(ii) housing needs characteristics,
``(iii) development project characteristics, including
whether the development project includes the use of existing
housing as part of a community revitalization plan,
``(iv) populations with special housing needs,
``(v) low-to-moderate income housing waiting lists, and
``(vi) populations of individuals with children.
``(2) Credit allocated to building not to exceed amount
necessary to assure development project feasibility.--
``(A) In general.--The housing credit dollar amount
allocated to a development project shall not exceed the
amount the housing credit agency determines is necessary for
the financial feasibility of the development project and its
viability as a qualified low-to-moderate income development
project throughout the compliance period.
``(B) Agency evaluation.--In making the determination under
subparagraph (A), the housing credit agency shall consider--
``(i) the sources and uses of funds and the total financing
planned for the development project,
``(ii) any proceeds or receipts expected to be generated by
reason of tax benefits,
``(iii) the percentage of the housing credit dollar amount
used for development project costs other than the cost of
intermediaries, and
``(iv) the reasonableness of the developmental and
operational costs of the development project.
Clause (iii) shall not be applied so as to impede the
development of development projects in hard-to-develop areas.
``(C) Determination made when credit amount applied for and
when building sold.--
``(i) In general.--A determination under subparagraph (A)
shall be made as of each of the following times:
``(I) The application for the housing credit dollar amount.
``(II) The allocation of the housing credit dollar amount.
``(III) The date the building is first sold after having
been placed in service.
``(ii) Certification as to amount of other subsidies.--
Prior to each determination under clause (i), the taxpayer
shall certify to the housing credit agency the full extent of
all Federal, State, and local subsidies which apply (or which
the taxpayer expects to apply) with respect to the building.
``(m) Regulations.--The Secretary shall prescribe such
regulations as may be necessary or appropriate to carry out
the purposes of this section, including regulations--
``(1) dealing with--
``(A) development projects which include more than 1
building or only a portion of a building,
``(B) buildings which are sold in portions,
``(2) providing for the application of this section to
short taxable years,
``(3) preventing the avoidance of the rules of this
section, and
``(4) providing the opportunity for housing credit agencies
to correct administrative errors and omissions with respect
to allocations and record keeping within a reasonable period
after their discovery, taking into account the availability
of regulations and other administrative guidance from the
Secretary.
``(n) Termination.--Clause (ii) of subsection (g)(3)(C)
shall not apply to any amount allocated after December 31,
2004.''.
(b) Current Year Business Credit Calculation.--Section
38(b) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to
current year business credit) 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:
``(14) the home ownership credit determined under section
42A(a).''.
(c) Limitation on Carryback.--Subsection (d) of section 39
of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to carryback
and carryforward of unused credits) is amended by adding at
the end the following:
``(10) No carryback of home ownership credit before
effective date.--No amount of unused business credit
available under section 42A may be carried back to a taxable
year beginning on or before the date of the enactment of this
paragraph.''.
(d) Conforming Amendments.--
(1) Section 55(c)(1) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986
is amended by inserting ``or subsection (i) or (j) of section
42A'' after ``section 42''.
(2) Subsections (i)(c)(3), (i)(c)(6)(B)(i), and (k)(1) of
section 469 of such Code are each amended by inserting ``or
42A'' after ``section 42''.
(3) Section 772(a) of such Code is amended by striking
``and'' at the end of paragraph (10), by redesignating
paragraph (11) as paragraph (12), and by inserting after
paragraph (10) the following:
``(11) the home ownership credit determined under section
42A, and''.
(4) Section 774(b)(4) of such Code is amended by inserting
``, 42A(i),'' after ``section 42(j)''.
[[Page S6616]]
(e) 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 inserting after the item
relating to section 42 the following:
``Sec. 42A. Low-to-moderate income home ownership credit.''.
(f) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to expenditures made in taxable years beginning
after the date of the enactment of this Act.
SEC. 3. PARTIAL EXCLUSION OF GAIN FROM SALE OF LOW-TO-
MODERATE INCOME HOUSING.
(a) In General.--Part III of subchapter B of chapter 1 of
the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to items
specifically excluded from gross income) is amended by
redesignating section 139 as section 140 and inserting after
section 138 the following new section:
``SEC. 139. CERTAIN GAIN FROM SALE OF LOW-TO-MODERATE INCOME
HOUSING.
``(a) In General.--Gross income shall not include the gain
from the sale of any low-to-moderate income building made
during the taxable year and with respect to which the
taxpayer is allowed a credit under section 42A.
``(b) Limitation.--The amount of gain which may be taken
into account under subsection (a) with respect to the sale of
a low-to-moderate income building shall not exceed $10,000
for each low-to-moderate income unit in such building.''.
(b) Conforming Amendment.--The table of sections for part
III of subchapter B of chapter 1 of such Code is amended by
striking the item relating to section 139 and inserting the
following new items:
``Sec. 139. Certain gain from sale of low-to-moderate income housing.
``Sec. 140. Cross references to other Acts.''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply sales in taxable years beginning after the date
of the enactment of this Act.
SEC. 4. EXPANSION OF REHABILITATION CREDIT.
(a) Credit Applicable to Buildings at Least 50 Years Old.--
Subparagraph (B) of section 47(c)(1) of the Internal Revenue
Code of 1986 (relating to qualified rehabilitated building is
amended to read as follows:
``(B) Building must be at least 50 years old.--In the case
of a building other than a certified historic structure, a
building shall not be a qualified rehabilitated building
unless the building was first placed in service before the
date which is at least 50 years before the date such building
is placed in service for purposes of the credit under this
section.''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section
shall apply to property placed in service after the date of
the enactment of this Act.
______
By Mr. TORRICELLI (for himself and Mr. Dayton):
S. 1082. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to expand
the expensing of environmental remediation costs; to the Committee on
Finance.
Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I rise to introduce a bill that is
intended to build upon a bi-partisan effort that has spanned over a
decade culminating with the passage of S. 350. In August of 1997, this
body approved a potentially significant brownfield tax incentive. This
tax incentive referred to as the ``expensing'' provision allowed new
owners of these contaminated sites to write off clean-up costs from
their taxes in the year they are deducted. Despite this stride forward
there have been issues pertaining to the provision that have
represented barriers to re-development efforts.
The barriers which have thwarted re-development efforts have been:
(1) the sunset of the bill contributed to uncertainty associated with
the time needed to clean-up, obtain financing and re-develop these
properties; (2) the exclusion of petroleum related products and
pesticides from the definition of ``hazardous substances'' which
required that the treatment of these clean up costs as (non-deductable)
capital expenditures rather than expenses; and (3) the recapturing as
ordinary income, at the time of sale, qualified environmental
remediation expenses that have received exemptions.
My bill will eliminate the sunset provision. Eliminating the sunset
for this expensing provision would be a major stride forward. Obtaining
sufficient financing for brownfield re-development is generally
difficult enough without the specter of a looming sunset.
Petroleum products in the form of fuel oil, heating oil or gasoline
and pesticides are quite often found at these brownfield sites.
Unfortunately, ``hazardous substance'' as it relates to brownfields
does not include these particular substances. Therefore, the exclusion
of substances commonly found at brownfields increases the costs of
brownfield re-development significantly. This bill will expand the
definition of hazardous items to include petroleum and pesticides.
In an effort to give true value to brownfields tax incentives, this
bill will repeal the recapture provision related to brownfield tax
incentives, section 193 e. Currently, any qualified environmental
remediation expenditure which has been deducted is subject to recapture
as ordinary income when sold or otherwise disposed. Because the tax
liability for ordinary income is taxed higher, there is no incentive to
redevelop contaminated sites and then sell the property for beneficial
use. The repeal of this exclusion will give developers an opportunity
to realize their tax incentives if they intend to sell property shortly
after redevelopment.
The passage of the expensing provisions and the recently passed S.
350 represent critical steps in enhancing the public/private
partnership in brownfield re-development but more must be done. An
effective partnership will utilize tax incentives to help attract
affordable private investment. Using tax incentives to overcome capital
shortages, in the marketplace, to achieve greater public benefits, is a
proven formula for success. This can reverse negative trends and start
new constructive trends.
______
By Ms. MIKULSKI (for herself, Mr. Bingaman, Mrs. Murray, and Mr.
Inouye):
S. 1083. A bill to amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to
exclude clinical social worker services from coverage under the
Medicare skilled nursing facility prospective payment system; to the
Committee on Finance.
Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Clinical
Social Work Medicare Equity Act of 2001. I am proud to sponsor this
legislation that will ensure that clinical social workers can receive
Medicare reimbursement for the mental health services they provide in
skilled nursing facilities. This bill will give clinical social workers
parity with other mental health providers who are exempted from the
Medicare Part B Prospective Payment System.
Since my first days in Congress, I have been fighting to protect and
strengthen the safety net for our Nation's seniors. Making sure that
seniors have access to quality, affordable mental health care is an
important part of this fight. I know that millions of seniors are not
receiving the mental health services they need. For example, depression
effects nearly 6 million seniors, but only one-tenth ever get treated.
This is unacceptable. Protecting seniors' access to clinical social
workers can help make sure that our most vulnerable citizens get the
quality, affordable mental health care they need.
Clinical social workers, much like psychologists and psychiatrists,
treat and diagnose mental illnesses. In fact, clinical social workers
are the primary mental health providers for many nursing home
residents. But unlike other mental health providers, clinical social
workers often cannot bill directly for the important services they
provide to their patients. This bill will correct this inequity and
make sure clinical social workers are paid for the valuable services
they provide.
Before the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, clinical social workers
billed Medicare Part B directly for mental health services provided in
nursing facilities to each patient they served. Under the new
Prospective Payment System, services provided by clinical social
workers are lumped, or ``bundled,'' along with the services of other
health care providers for the purposes of billing and payments.
Psychologists and psychiatrists, however, were exempted from this new
system and continue to bill Medicare directly. This bill would exempt
clinical social workers, like their mental health colleagues, from the
Prospective Payment System, and would make sure that clinical social
workers are paid for the services they provide to patients in skilled
nursing facilities. The Medicare, Medicaid, and SCHIP Benefits
Improvement and Protection Act addressed some of these concerns, but
this legislation would remove the final barrier to ensuring that
clinical social workers are treated fairly and equitably for the care
they provide.
This bill is about more than paperwork and payment procedures. This
bill is about equal access to Medicare payments for the equal and
important
[[Page S6617]]
work done by clinical social workers. And it is about making sure our
Nation's most vulnerable citizens have access to quality, affordable
mental health care. Without clinical social workers, many nursing home
residents may never get the counseling they need when faced with
illness or the loss of a loved one. I think we can do better by our
Nation's seniors, and I'm fighting to make sure we do.
The Clinical Social Work Medicare Equity Act of 2001 is strongly
supported by the National Association of Social Workers and the
Clinical Social Work Federation. I look forward to the Senate's support
of this important legislation.
______
By Mr. DURBIN (for himself, Mr. DeWine, and Mr. Feingold):
S. 1084. A bill to prohibit the importation into the United States of
diamonds unless the countries exporting the diamonds have in place a
system of controls on rough diamonds, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on Finance.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I am introducing a bill today, along with
Senator DeWine and Senator Feingold, to cut off the source of income
that is fueling horrendous conflicts in Sierra Leone, Angola, and the
Democratic Republic of Congo, the illicit trade in conflict diamonds.
The brutal wars in these African Nations may be thousands of miles
away, but the source of the funds that buy the weapons may be as close
as your ring finger. Our legislation says, if you can't prove to U.S.
Customs agents that your diamonds are legitimate, take your business
and your diamonds somewhere else.
I am pleased that the diamond industry and the human rights community
are united in their support for this bill. They met many times with our
staffs to work out a compromise that everyone is enthusiastically
supporting.
We can and must do more than look with horror at the pictures of
children with missing hands, arms or legs. We must take a strong stand
that says to the world that this nation, which purchases 65 percent of
the world's diamonds, will not buy the diamonds that fund rebels and
terrorists.
American consumers who purchase diamonds for some happy milestone in
their lives, like an engagement, wedding, or anniversary, must be
assured that they are buying a diamond from a legitimate, legal, and
responsible source.
Setting up a system that would allow American consumers to have
confidence that they are buying ``clean'' diamonds would also serve our
local jewelers and diamond retailers.
It is hard to imagine today that diamonds could become unfashionable,
but if consumers associate diamonds with guerrillas who hack off the
arms of children, instead of the joyous life events that are now
associated with the gemstones, the diamond industry in our country
could suffer a sharp decline.
The jewelers in our local malls and downtown shops do not want to
support rebels and terrorists in Africa any more than consumers do.
This legislation aims to protect our local merchants, as well as cut
off funds to African rebels.
I heard from a jeweler in my hometown of Springfield, Illinois, Bruce
Lauer, President of the Illinois Jewelers Association, who wrote:
The use of diamond profits to fund warfare and atrocities
in parts of Africa is abhorrent to all of us. The system
created by your bill to bar U.S. imports of conflict stones
will allow retail jewelers to be confident that the diamonds
and diamond jewelry they sell have no part in the violence
and suffering that are prevalent in Sierra Leone, Angola, or
other conflict areas.
As the owner of Stout & Lauer Jewelers in Springfield, I
know first hand the importance of diamonds to my customers. A
diamond is a very special purchase symbolizing love,
commitment and joy. It should not be tarnished with doubt. .
..We want to be able to assure our customers unequivocally
that the diamonds in our stores come from legitimate sources.
What carnage are these conflicts in Africa causing? The photos of
maimed and mutilated men, women, and children in Sierra Leone are the
most visible results of the terror tactics by the Revolutionary United
Front, RUF. This rebel group has also used murder and rape, pressed
children into becoming soldiers, and caused a mass movements of
refugees as people flee the terror. The Congressional Research Service
has released some conflict-related statistics for the Sierra Leone,
Angola, and the Democratic Republic of Congo. I would like to repeat
some of them for the Record: Out of a population of more than 5 million
people, there are approximately 490,000 refugees from Sierra Leone in
neighboring countries and anywhere from 500,000 to 1.3 million
internally displaced people. Estimates of the numbers of people who
have died in the conflict range from 20,000 to 50,000. More than 5,000
children have fought in direct combat roles, with 5,000 more used in
supporting roles. There are no figures on how many people lost limbs or
were otherwise mutilated, but World Vision reports that there are 2,000
amputees in just one camp in Freetown.
In the long conflicts in Angola and Democratic Republic of Congo,
DRC, diamonds have been a contributing factor. The United Nations
recently issued a report showing that the conflict in the DRC has
become increasingly resource driven, as parties illegally exploit
diamonds and other mineral wealth, including tantilite, the mineral now
in high demands for cell phones and other electronic devices.
Last year the United States worked with the international community
and the diamond industry to stem the flow of conflict diamonds. The
United Nations has taken action to ban the conflict diamond trade and
recommended that a ``simple and workable international certification
scheme for rough diamonds be created.''
The United States also participated in May 2000 in the
Technical Forum on Diamonds, which became known as the ``Kimberley
Process'' after the city in South Africa where the group met, along
with representatives from other countries, the diamond industry, and
non-governmental organization. The group recommended the establishment
of an international export regime like the one set up in the bill I
introduce today. However, since that time negotiations on setting up
such a system have slowed. I believe that this bill will help spur
action to complete negotiations and set up a system to track and
certify diamond exports.
The bill that I am introducing today with Senator DeWine and Senator
Feingold is similar to H.R. 918, introduced by Congressman Tony Hall
and Congressman Frank Wolf in the House. But our bill also incorporates
some changes that represent a compromise that the diamond industry and
the human rights community were able to come together to support. The
bill was also written to be compliant with US obligations in the World
Trade Organization, WTO.
Among other provisions, the bill does the following: The bill
requires diamond imports--including rough, polished, and jewelry--to
come from a ``clean stream'' and spells out the details of this system
(which may be superceded by an international agreement if the United
States is a party to it). Implementation of any system shall be
monitored by US agencies and a presidential advisory commission, which
include human rights advocates and representatives of the diamond
industry.
Violators will be subject to civil and criminal penalties, including
confiscation of contraband. Significant violators' US assets may be
blocked. Proceeds from penalties and the sale of diamonds seized as
contraband shall be used to help war victims, through humanitarian
relief and micro-credit development projects.
Diamond-sector projects in countries that fail to adopt a system of
controls shall not be eligible for loan guarantees or other assistance
of the US Export-Import Bank or OPIC.
The bill provides waiver authority to the President under limited
circumstances, and spells out the process for determining them under
what limited conditions, the President may delay applicability of the
law to a ``cooperating'' country. In issuing such a waiver, the
President must report to Congress on that country's progress toward
establishing a system of controls and concluding an international
agreement. Criteria for determining whether a country is cooperating
must be developed with public input.
The bill requires no action by the Treasury Secretary or Customs
Service that would contradict the United States' obligations to the
World Trade
[[Page S6618]]
Organization, as it finds in a dispute proceeding. If another country
successfully challenges the United States at the WTO, Congress intends
for the United States to bring its actions into conformity with its WTO
obligations.
Both the President and the General Accounting Office are to report as
to the system's effectiveness and on which countries are implementing
it.
The bill encourages the diamond industry to contribute to
financially-strapped African countries that may have difficulty bearing
the costs of setting up a system of controls, and authorizes $5 million
of assistance from the United States to do the same.
I ask my colleagues to join with us in cosponsoring the bill we
introduce today and take a positive step in ending the bloody violence
fueled by the sale of conflict diamonds.
______
By Mr. WELLSTONE:
S. 1085. A bill to provide for the revitalization of Olympic sports
in the United States; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, the foremost responsibility given to
the United States Olympic Committee when it was created by Congress is
to obtain for this country ``the most competent representation possible
in each event of the Olympic Games.'' However, in too many sports, the
USOC is decidedly disadvantaged in achieving that goal. A key reason
for the USOC's difficulty is that our colleges and universities are
eliminating many of their teams in those sports each year. Colleges and
universities have been the traditional route to participation in the
Olympic Games in these non-revenue sports, but many of America's
prospective participants in the Olympic Games are having opportunities
blocked as these programs disappear.
As a former college wrestler and someone who continues to follow that
sport closely at the high school and college levels, I have noticed as
wrestling programs have been discontinued by colleges and universities
at a high rate in recent years. Too often, this occurs through a
process that leaves student-athletes with few options if they want to
continue wrestling at another institution. As a result of my concerns
about wrestling, the sport I know best, I worked with now-Speaker of
the House Dennis Hastert to include in the 1998 reauthorization of the
Higher Education Act a study by the General Accounting Office on
patterns in the addition and discontinuation of athletic teams at 4-
year colleges and universities. The study investigated the forces that
lead to team additions and discontinuations, as well as the processes
through which discontinuations have occurred. The report from that GAO
study was recently released. It both reaffirms what Speaker Hastert and
I already knew about the state of college-level wrestling. And it
demonstrates that wrestling, where 40 percent of teams have been
discontinued during the past two decades, is not alone. A number of
men's and women's sports have experienced a significant net decline in
the number of programs during the same period. There has been a 53-
percent decline in the number of women's gymnastics teams, a 10-percent
reduction in the number of women's field hockey teams and a 68-percent
decline in the number of men's gymnastics programs. Most pertinent is
the following fact: 16 of the sports that have lost teams during that
period, which is nearly all the sports that have lost teams, are
Olympic sports. In light of the Congressional directive contained in
USOC's authorizing legislation, a federal response is warranted.
Guided by the findings of the recent GAO report, the bill that I
introduce today, the Olympic Sports Revitalization Act, seeks to
counteract the problems faced by these 16 sports, plus three emerging
women's sports. The first group of 16 sports consists of the following:
women's gymnastics, women's and men's fencing, women's field hockey,
women's and men's archery, women's badminton, men's wrestling, men's
tennis, men's gymnastics, men's rifle/shooting men's outdoor track,
men's swimming, men's skiing, men's ice hockey, and men's water polo.
Also covered are the three emerging women's sports: synchronized
swimming, team handball, and equestrian. The bill would assist in
developing a competitive American Olympics program that spans the
spectrum of high- and low-profile sports. Because there is no single,
shared reason that each of these sports has faced difficulty in recent
years, the bill has four sections, each of which seeks to address an
obstacle to their vitality in the United States.
First, the GAO report indicates that in some cases, declining
interest in the sports is a key factor in decisions by colleges and
universities to eliminate their programs. We know that those who will
go on to become Olympians realize their talent and passion for their
sport at any early age which means they need to become interested at an
early age. Therefore, this bill establishes a grant program to assist
local community-based athletic programs in providing opportunities for
youngsters to participate in these sports. The bill authorizes funds
for the USOC itself and the national governing bodies in the sports
covered by the Act to award grants to community athletic organizations
to initiate and expand youth sporting opportunities. In particular, it
encourages a focus on providing such opportunities in communities where
the sport has not traditionally been available as an option for young
persons so that the pool of participants in the sport will expand.
Of course, relatively few of the young people that will participant
in these programs will ever become Olympians. But aside from building
interest in otherwise declining sports, these programs will provide
additional benefits for young men and women. My colleague from Alaska,
Senator Stevens, for whom the existing Olympic and Amateur Sport Act is
rightly named, has an ongoing commitment to enhancing the physical
fitness of Americans. This program offers fitness outlets that can put
young people on a path toward lifelong commitment to exercise and all
its physical and mental health benefits.
As someone who was given the opportunity to develop personally
through the challenge of wrestling, I also know how important
involvement in athletics is at an early age in building character.
Sports help youngsters develop some of the most important skills for
success in life: the ability to think strategically, the courage to
overcome fears, and the tact of being a good winner and, yes, a good
loser.
I encourage my colleagues to learn more about two existing community
sports programs that are exactly the type of locally-controlled
endeavors that this grant program is meant to promote. Peter Westbrook
grew up in the projects of Newark, New Jersey. He was lucky enough to
be introduced to fencing at an early age and by focusing on that sport,
he escaped the desperation of the environment in which he came of age.
Peter pursued the sport as he became older and he went on to win the
Bronze Medal in Men's Sabre at the 1984 Olympics in Los Angeles. Seven
years later, he began a non-profit program in New York City dedicated
to helping kids in the five boroughs of New York gain access to the
benefits that he has as a youngster in fencing. Over the past decade,
hundreds of inner-city kids have participated in the program.
Like the Peter Westbrook Foundation, the ``Beat the Streets'' program
begun in 1999 in inner-city Chicago is a model for the grant program to
be established by this legislation. ``Beat the Streets,'' a program
with which Speaker Hastert has been involved, focuses on mentoring
youngsters who typically would not have access to wrestling training.
The youngsters are coached in a number of wrestling techniques,
conditioning and nutrition. The program also focuses on developing
social and intellectual skills that go beyond the mat. ``Beat the
Streets'' has grown throughout Chicago and, working in coalition with
the YMCA, its advisory board recently began planning the expansion of
that program to other cities around the country. I hope that this
legislation can plan a role in the expansion of such an outstanding
program.
As I mentioned earlier, three women's emerging sports, that is,
Olympic sports that have not traditionally been an option for women in
this country--are also covered by the pertinent sections of this Act.
That makes sense because the fact that they are not fully established
sports means that the USOC faces a particular challenge in developing
the most competitive team possible in those sports.
[[Page S6619]]
The second section of the Olympic Sports Revitalization Act more
direct focuses on ensuring participation in the covered sports during
college. It does so by providing funding for scholarships in those
sports. College and university athletic programs that have discontinued
the non-revenue sports covered by this Act also cite budgetary strains
as a frequent reason for those decisions. While the GAO report cites
numerous cased where colleagues and unikversitues have successfully
maintained existing sports while adding new sports to meet the
interests and needs of women athlete, it is important to realize that
colleges and universities do face real financial contraints. This
portion of the Act would help protect existing non-revenue sports that
might otherwise be eliminated. Through this section's provision, the
USOC would be authorized to provide 4-year grants of between $25,000
and $50,000 annually to college athletic programs to provide
scholarship to student-athletes participating in the sports covered by
the Act. At any one school, a limit of three covered program could be
grant recipients at any one time. Schools would be required to maintain
the sport to continue to receive the grant money. This Olympic
Revitalization Scholarship grant program will reinforce the already
existing Bart Stupak Olympic Scholarship Program, also in the Higher
Education Act, which provides financial assistance to athletes who are
actually in training for the Olympic Games.
The bill also seeks to ensure that, as they decide where they will
attend college, prospective student-athletes will be able accurately to
gauge the relative health of the sports programs at different schools
they may be considering. Present law requires that all 4-year colleges
and universities with athletic programs report to the Department of
Education the number of participants and coaches in all sports, as well
as further information regarding funding for their teams. This data,
particularly when examined over time, gives an excellent picture of the
health of the sport at that college. It also provides insight into the
continued vitality of the program during the period that the
prospective student-athlete would hope to participate in the sport. The
problem is that, while the Department of Education has collected this
required data, it is not readily available to the general public. The
Olympic Sports Revitalization Act would authorize funds and require
that the data over a several year period be posted on the Internet in a
usable format so that the student-athletes and those involved in their
college decision can have easy access to that information.
Finally, one of the most troubling findings in the GAO report is that
student-athletes are, quite often, given no forewarning that their
sport is being discontinued by the athletic program. They also have no
mechanism by which to appeal that decision. Generally, such decisions
by athletic programs go into effect immediately. In addition to defying
fairness, this reality means that student-athletes often have their
college athletic careers disrupted in a manner that makes it difficult
to stay on track for post-college amateur competition. The data in the
GAO report indicates that the stories I have heard about the
termination of wrestling programs in my home State of Minnesota and
around the country are part of a pattern in other similarly situated
sports. Therefore, the fourth section of the bill requires that
colleges and universities provide written justification for a decision
to discontinue a sport to team members. It also requires that a process
for appealing the team's termination be established.
We have a responsibility to field ``the most competent
representation'' possible in the Olympic games. Just as important, we
should do all we can to promote the continued vitality of a set of
sports that have proud traditions I our country and that have provided
health and character-development benefits for thousands of participants
through the years. To quote Pat Zilverberg, a constant guardian of the
sport of wrestling in my home state, from his letter supporting this
legislation: ``The opportunities to develop athletes and, subsequently,
good citizens, are at risk.'' This legislation would play a key role in
revitalizing these sports and I strongly encourage its adoption.
______
By Mr. CORZINE (for himself and Mr. Torricelli):
S. 1086. A bill to amend the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act to
permanently prohibit the conduct of offshore drilling on the outer
Continental Shelf in the Mid-Atlantic and North Atlantic planning
areas; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, today, along with Senator Torricelli, I
am introducing legislation, the Clean Ocean and Safe Tourism, COAST,
Anti-Drilling Act, to ban oil and gas drilling off the Mid-Atlantic and
Northern Atlantic coast.
The people of New Jersey, and other residents of States along the
Atlantic Coast, do not want oil or gas rigs anywhere near their
treasured beaches and fishing grounds. Such drilling poses serious
threats not to our environment, but to our economy, which depends
heavily on tourism along our shore.
Until recently, there was no reason to suspect that drilling was even
a remote possibility. Since 1982, a statutory moratorium on leasing
activities in most Outer Continental Shelf, OCS, areas has been
included annually in Interior Appropriations acts. In addition,
President George H.W. Bush declared a leasing moratorium on many OCS
areas on June 26, 1990 under section 12 of the OCS Lands Act. On June
12, 1998, President Clinton used the same authority to issue a
memorandum to the Secretary of the Interior that extended the
moratorium through 2012 and included additional OCS areas.
Given the long-standing consensus against drilling in these areas, I
was deeply disturbed to discover that on May 31, 2001, the Minerals
Management Service released a request for proposals, RFP, to conduct a
study of the environmental impacts of drilling in the Mid- and North-
Atlantic. The RFP noted that ``there are areas with some reservoir
potential, for example off the coast of New Jersey.'' In addition, the
RFP explained that the study would be conducted ``in anticipation of
managing the exploitation of potential and proven reserves.''
I believe that the RFP was not only inappropriate, but probably
illegal, and I was pleased when it was rescinded yesterday. However, I
remain concerned about the Administration's policy with respect to
offshore drilling. Although some Administration officials have
indicated that they support the existing moratoria on offshore
drilling, the President's energy plan and this recent proposed study
call the Administration's position into question. I have asked the
President to clarify his position on this issue, and I hope that he
will use his authority to endorse the existing moratoria.
In my view, however, it is time for Congress to act to resolve this
question once and for all. That is why I am introducing the COAST Anti-
Drilling Act. This bill would permanently ban drilling for oil, gas and
other minerals in the Mid- and North-Atlantic.
I look forward to working with my colleagues to enact this important
legislation. Doing so would ensure that the people of New Jersey and
neighboring States that they need not fear the specter of oil rigs off
their beaches.
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. 1086
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 ``Clean Ocean and Safe Tourism
Anti-Drilling Act'' or the ``COAST Anti-Drilling Act''.
SEC. 2. PROHIBITION OF OIL AND GAS LEASING IN CERTAIN AREAS
OF THE OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF.
Section 8 of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (43
U.S.C. 1337) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(p) Prohibition of Oil and Gas Leasing in Certain Areas
of the Outer Continental Shelf.--Notwithstanding any other
provision of this section or any other law, the Secretary of
the Interior shall not issue a lease for the exploration,
development, or production of oil, natural gas, or any other
mineral in--
``(1) the Mid-Atlantic planning area; or
``(2) the North Atlantic planning area.''.
[[Page S6620]]
____________________