[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 116 (Monday, September 10, 2001)]
[Senate]
[Pages S9254-S9259]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
By Mr. HAGEL:
[[Page S9255]]
S. 1412. A bill to protect the property rights guaranteed by the
fifth amendment to the Constitution by requiring Federal agencies to
prepare private property taking impact analyses and by allowing
expanded access to Federal courts; to the Committee on Governmental
Affairs.
Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, America's property owners are increasingly
pressured by more and more burdensome government regulations and
restrictions. Federal agencies should comply with state and local laws
on property rights, and ensure that our Nation's policies are
implemented with minimal impact on property owners. Today, I am
reintroducing legislation that would help enforce the U.S.
Constitution's guarantee of private property rights.
The Private Property Rights Act would help protect land owners in two
ways. First, the bill would require the Federal Government to conduct
an economic impact analysis prior to taking any action that would
inhibit or restrict the use of private property. For the first time,
the government would be forced to determine in advance how its actions
will impact the property owner.
Second, when government does take private property or restricts land
use, the bill would allow landowners to plead their case in a Federal
District Court instead of forcing them to the U.S. Court of Federal
Claims. This means property owners could appeal any Federal taking of
their property in their home state, rather than Washington, D.C.
This bill has won the endorsement of the Nebraska Cattlemen, the
Nebraska Farm Bureau, and the Defenders of Property Rights. Their
letters of support are being submitted for the Record.
The Private Property Rights Act is commonsense legislation that will
return some justice to the system by reining in regulatory agencies, as
well as giving the property owner a voice in the process. This is the
fair thing to do. This is the right thing to do.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that additional material be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the additional material was ordered to be
printed in the Record, as follows:
September 6, 2001.
Hon. Chuck Hagel,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Hagel: The Nebraska Cattlemen applaud you for
reintroducing property rights protection legislation, The
Private Property Rights Act of 2001, in the 107th Congress.
The Association supported similar legislation (S. 246) in the
106th Congress and extends their support for your efforts
again this year.
The Private Property Rights Act of 2001 addresses a
phenomenon of federal and state government growth over the
past three decades--regulatory programs that creep into areas
and activities they were never envisioned to impact at their
creation. Wetland regulations and endangered or threatened
species designations are just two examples of how
``regulatory creep'' has begun to affect almost every
agricultural activity. A little closer to home, recent
efforts by EPA to identify the sun as a source of pollution
in the Platte River may only be overshadowed by more recent
efforts to list the prairie dog as a species threatened with
extinction.
Considering these examples, it has never been more
important for federal agencies to be required to conduct an
analysis of the effects of their actions on property rights.
As found in The Private Property Rights Act of 2001, agency
actions critical to public safety or law enforcement would be
exempt from this requirement. Finally, and most critically,
the legislation provides affected property owners an
opportunity to seek relief form federal agencies whose
actions result in a taking of private property rights through
a federal district court in their state--instead of forcing
them into the Federal Claims Court in Washington, DC.
The Private Property Rights Act of 2001 is a solid solution
to a growing problem--the increased impact that federal
regulations have on property rights guaranteed by the Fifth
Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The Nebraska Cattlemen
support this legislation and thank you for again taking a
leadership role on this important issue.
Sincerely,
Greg Ruehle,
Executive Vice President,
Nebraksa Cattlemen.
____
Nebraska Farm Bureau Federation,
Lincoln, NE, September 7, 2001.
Hon. Chuck Hagel,
Russell Senate Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Hagel: On behalf of the Nebraska Farm Bureau
Federation, I would like to offer our strong support for your
bill titled ``Private Property Rights' Act of 2001''
As Nebraska's largest farm organization, we have been a
long time supporter of legislative efforts to protect
property rights for landowners. For years farmers and
ranchers have seen their property rights erode through
various government actions and regulations. The problem is
only exacerbated by the fact the government has failed to
provide full and equitable compensation for the loss of the
use of property due to government actions.
Your bill would take a giant step forward by providing some
protection for landowners' property rights. By requiring
federal agencies to prepare private property taking impact
analyses and by allowing expanded access to Federal courts,
the bill would certainly help prevent or reduce the loss of
private property rights. Government should be forced to
determine in advance how its actions would impact the
property owner and this bill would put those necessary
requirements in place.
In Nebraska, the Endangered Species Act and wetland
regulations have decreased the use or value on many privately
held acres by farmers and ranchers. This legislation would go
a long way towards putting some fairness back into the system
by making agencies think twice before they act on rules that
impact private property rights and by giving property owners
a voice in the process.
Nebraska farmers and ranchers appreciate your support for
private property rights and your introduction of this bill.
Sincerely,
Bryce P. Neidig,
President.
____
Defenders of Property Rights,
Washington, DC, September 6, 2001.
Re: Introduction of the Private Property Fairness Act.
Hon. Chuck Hagel,
Russell Senate Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Hagel: It has come to the attention of our
organization that you are to shortly re-introduce the Private
Property Fairness Act of 1999 [formerly S. 246]. As this
country's only public interest legal foundation dedicated
exclusively to the protection of private property rights,
Defenders of Property Rights commends your efforts to pass
this valuable piece of legislation. We would be happy to
assist you in your efforts to pass this piece of legislation.
As you noted when you introduced S. 246 on January 20,
1999, ``. . . the law of takings is not yet settled to the
satisfaction of most Americans.'' Our membership includes
scores of individual property owners across this nation--in
courts from coast to coast--whose constitutionally protected
rights to ownership, use and enjoyment of property are or
have been unconstitutionally denied them, we can attest to
the accuracy of your observation. Sadly, Defenders of
Property Rights can report that there are fewer `satisfied'
Americans now, than when we began our efforts nearly a dozen
years ago. We can state without exaggeration that while
individual cases of regulatory takings of property without
just compensation are increasing, the operative effect of
regulations now threatens the very existence of entire
regions of rural America.
Like you, Defenders of Property Rights acknowledges the
need for the rational application of this nation's
environmental laws to protect our natural resources. However,
when government policy and regulation unconstitutionally
deprive individuals or businesses of their private property
rights, then just and adequate compensation is
constitutionally required. However, as you correctly noted in
your January 20, 1999 statement, the cost of bearing too many
of the impacts of regulatory takings are shouldered by the
few. And, you rightly stated, ``This is not fair.'' We could
not agree more. We would also add that it is not
constitutional.
We believe that enactment of the successor to The Private
Property Fairness Act would arrest the continued diminishment
of what the Framers of our Constitution considered a
fundamental right--property rights. Additionally, we believe
that your legislation will impose reasonable restraints on
governmental agencies that will add a measure of calculated
seriousness to their decisions to destroy private property.
Finally, we are encouraged to note that your bill would
dramatically increase the forums available to private
property owners who seek redress when their property rights
are diminished or taken.
In short, Defenders of Property Rights is delighted to
register its support for your proposed legislation. The
fundamental importance of property rights is one of the
animating principles of our form of government. Moreover, we
are enormously encouraged by your leadership on this
important issue. We look forward to working with you on this
valuable piece of legislation.
Yours truly,
Nancie G. Marzulla,
President.
______
By Mr. LUGAR (for himself and Mr. Harkin):
S. 1413. A bill to amend the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development
Act to permit borrowers and grantees to use certain rural development
loans
[[Page S9256]]
and grants for other purposes under certain circumstances; to the
Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.
Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation amending
the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act to allow the Secretary
of Agriculture to approve changes to the original purpose for which a
USDA Rural Development grant or loan was made when requested by a
recipient.
The Rural Community Advancement Program, as established under the Con
Act, consists of separate accounts to provide funding for rural
community facilities, rural waste and water utilities, and rural
business and cooperative development. In the 1996 Farm Bill, we
provided State Directors of Rural Development with the authority to
transfer up to 25 percent of funds allocated to one of those accounts
for a State in a fiscal year to any of the other accounts for which
funds were allocated for the State in that fiscal year. This
flexibility allows a State to adjust funding among the accounts to meet
changing circumstances. For example, in a given year a State may have
greater demand for financial assistance for rural community facilities
than for rural business development, and the authority we granted in
1996 would allow a State the flexibility to address that change in
demand.
The flexibility provided by the 1996 Farm Bill, however, extended
only to prospective funding. It did not cover changes to loan and grant
purposes needed by a community after a loan or grant has been made. Any
post-award change to the grant or loan purpose would require return to
USDA of any unspent grant or loan funds, or reimbursement to the
Federal Government for its proportionate financial interest in any
property acquired with the loan or grant funds.
Communities in Pennsylvania, Oregon, and Oklahoma have faced this
dilemma when they have sought to provide space in grant-funded
industrial parks to businesses that were too large to qualify under the
terms of their Rural Business Enterprise Grant but that otherwise would
have been eligible for a Rural Development Business and Industry loan.
An Indiana community has unused property in its grant-funded industrial
park that it now would like to use for a critically needed police
station and water tower. USDA has no authority to allow any of these
communities to change the authorized use for the land for which the
grant or loan originally was made.
The measure I offer today would allow the Secretary to approve these
types of requests. Under the bill, a community could request the
Secretary to approve a change in the rural development purpose for
previously awarded grants and loans to another rural development
purpose authorized under the Con Act. A change in purpose could be
requested only for property acquired with such funds, or for the
proceeds from sale of property acquired with such funds.
This measure would not require the Secretary to approve requests. It
simply allows the Secretary to be fair and reasonable in considering
requests by communities to alter the original purpose of the grant or
loan. The beneficiary of such a change would not reap any financial
windfall from such a change at the expense of the Federal government.
The Federal government would retain its financial interest in any
property used for the new purpose approved by the Secretary.
We all know how the needs of communities change over time due to
economic development and demographic change. This measure allows the
Secretary to be fair and reasonable in considering requests by
communities to alter the original purpose of a grant or loan in
response to such changes. I am hopeful my colleagues will join me in
supporting this legislation.
______
By Mr. CRAIG:
S. 1414. A bill to provide incentives for States to establish and
administer periodic testing and merit pay programs for elementary
school and secondary school teachers, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Parent and
Teacher Achievement Act of 2001. We spent much of the spring debating
the Federal Government's role in education, and in the end we passed a
bill which gives a lot of money to the education establishment. Now,
however, it is time to work on a policy that addresses what we can do
for parents and teachers, and how we can let them keep some of their
money so they can start improving education from the ground up.
This bill has many important provisions, but the most important is
the tax credit for parents and relatives to use for education expenses.
They can use this credit for any expenses they incur when they spend
money on their children's education, such as school supplies,
computers, private tutors, or other such expenses. This credit can also
be used by parents who home school as well as to help offset tuition at
private schools. This is not a voucher program nor is it a government
subsidy for private schools. This tax credit is simply the Federal
Government recognizing that parents know best how to educate their
children. As education researcher Andrew Coulson has said, ``. . .
parents have consistently made better education choices for their own
children than state-appointed experts have made on their behalf.'' The
Federal Government should not penalize them by taxing the money parents
spend to further that education. It should be pointed out that this
credit would also apply to relatives of students if they contribute
money towards educational expenses. We all know that grandparents and
aunts and uncles do a lot to contribute to children's education. It is
only appropriate to recognize those efforts, too.
The idea of the type of tax credit contained in this bill has been
picking up steam recently, and many think tanks, such as the Cato
Institute, the Mackinac Center, and the Buckeye Institute, have issued
reports on tuition tax credits which clearly illustrate their benefits.
A tax credit of this type has also begun to be enacted in the real
world. Arizona has had an education tax credit for a few years, and it
has proven to be remarkably successful. The Canadian province of
Ontario also recently enacted a tax credit of this type.
Of course, a tax credit is only available to people who pay taxes,
but my bill also benefits low income individuals. To address the needs
of these people, I have included a provision in this bill which would
give individuals or corporations a tax credit when they donate money to
organizations which give scholarships to lower income students. This
would allow funds to go to private organizations so they award
scholarships, while avoiding any church/state entanglements which
concern so many who oppose vouchers. The state of Arizona has had
success with this program, too.
Another important tax component contained in this bill is one which
allows teachers to take a credit for money spent on school supplies for
their students. Nobody goes into teaching to get rich; they do it
because they recognize their job is one of the most important in this
Nation, preparing our youth for the future. And though teachers do not
receive lavish salaries, many of them spend considerable sums for
school supplies for their students. It is only fair that the Federal
Government should not tax this money. The bill also contains a
provision that would allow teachers and other school staff a tax
deduction for expenses they incur while improving their education or
job skills. Our teachers need to be the best trained teachers in the
world, and we should encourage this all we can.
The final section of this bill would empower teachers by allowing the
Secretary of Education to give grants to States and school districts
which set up merit pay systems in schools and implement teacher testing
programs, as long as those states also have a continuing education
requirement as part of their teacher certification process. It also has
a provision which clarifies any Department of Education regulations and
says that federal funds can be used for merit pay systems and for
teacher testing programs. If States and school districts find the need
to use their funds for these programs, the Federal Government should
not tie them up in red tape and prevent them from meeting their needs
as they see them. We all know that local educators have a much better
view of the needs they encounter, and we in Washington
[[Page S9257]]
should give them as much freedom as possible to meet those needs.
By enacting this bill, the U.S. Senate will be making a firm
commitment to helping parents and teachers achieve education success.
Parents in this country need to have as much freedom as possible to
choose the ways in which their children will be educated, and this bill
is a modest step in that direction. To complement the efforts of
parents, though, we need to have teachers who are the most qualified
and the most able to meet the needs of the children parents send to
them every day. Encouraging states to implement merit pay and teacher
testing, and allowing teachers to have a credit for their educational
expenses, will go a long way towards making this a reality.
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. 1414
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 ``Parent and Teacher
Achievement Act of 2001''.
SEC. 2. STATE INCENTIVES FOR TEACHER TESTING AND MERIT PAY.
(a) Amendments.--Title II of the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6601 et seq.) is amended--
(1) by redesignating part E as part F;
(2) by redesignating sections 2401 and 2402 as sections
2501 and 2502, respectively; and
(3) by inserting after part D the following:
``PART E--STATE INCENTIVES FOR TEACHER TESTING AND MERIT PAY
``SEC. 2401. STATE INCENTIVES FOR TEACHER TESTING AND MERIT
PAY.
``(a) State Awards.--From funds made available under
subsection (b) for a fiscal year, the Secretary shall make an
award to each State that--
``(1) administers a test to each elementary school and
secondary school teacher in the State, with respect to the
subjects taught by the teacher, every 3 to 5 years;
``(2) has an elementary school and secondary school teacher
compensation system that is based on merit; and
``(3) requires elementary school and secondary school
teachers to earn continuing education credits as part of a
State recertification process.
``(b) Available Funding.--Notwithstanding any other
provision of law, the amount of funds that are available to
carry out this section for a fiscal year is 50 percent of the
amount of funds appropriated to carry out this title that are
in excess of the amount so appropriated for fiscal year 2001,
except that no funds shall be available to carry out this
section for any fiscal year for which--
``(1) the amount appropriated to carry out this title
exceeds $600,000,000; or
``(2) each of the several States is eligible to receive an
award under this section.
``(c) Award Amount.--A State shall receive an award under
this section in an amount that bears the same relation to the
total amount available for awards under this section for a
fiscal year as the number of States that are eligible to
receive such an award for the fiscal year bears to the total
number of all States so eligible for the fiscal year.
``(d) Use of Funds.--Funds provided under this section may
be used by States to carry out the activities described in
section 2207.
``(e) Definition of State.--In this section, the term
`State' means each of the 50 States and the District of
Columbia.''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection (a)
shall take effect on October 1, 2001.
SEC. 3. TEACHER TESTING AND MERIT PAY.
(a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
law, a State may use Federal education funds--
(1) to carry out a test of each elementary school or
secondary school teacher in the State with respect to the
subjects taught by the teacher; or
(2) to establish a merit pay program for the teachers.
(b) Definitions.--In this section, the terms ``elementary
school'' and ``secondary school'' have the meanings given the
terms in section 14101 of the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 8801).
SEC. 4. NONREFUNDABLE CREDIT FOR ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY
SCHOOL EXPENSES.
(a) In General.--Subpart A of part IV of subchapter A of
chapter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to
nonrefundable personal credits) is amended by inserting after
section 25B the following new section:
``SEC. 25C. CREDIT FOR ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY SCHOOL
EXPENSES.
``(a) Allowance of Credit.--In the case of an individual,
there shall be allowed as a credit against the tax imposed by
this chapter for the taxable year an amount equal to the
qualified elementary and secondary education expenses (within
the meaning of section 530(b)(4)) with respect to one or more
qualifying students which are paid or incurred by the
individual during such taxable year.
``(b) Limitations.--
``(1) Maximum credit.--The credit allowed by subsection (a)
for any taxable year shall not exceed $1000 per qualifying
student.
``(2) Maximum tuition expenses.--The tuition expenses which
may be taken into account in determining qualified elementary
and secondary education expenses for any taxable year shall
not exceed $500 per qualifying student.
``(c) Qualifying Student.--For purposes of this section,
the term ``qualifying student'' means a dependent (within the
meaning of section 152) or a relative of the taxpayer who is
enrolled in school (as defined in section 530(b)(4)(B)) on a
full-time basis. For purposes of the preceding sentence, the
term `relative' means an individual bearing a relationship to
the taxpayer which is described in any of paragraphs (1)
through (8) of section 152(a).
``(d) Denial of Double Benefit.--No deduction or exclusion
shall be allowed under this chapter for any expense for which
credit is allowed under this section.
``(g) Election To Have Credit Not Apply.--A taxpayer may
elect to have this section not apply for any taxable year.''.
(b) Conforming Amendment.--The table of sections for
subpart A of part IV of subchapter A of chapter 1 of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by inserting after
the item relating to section 25B the following new item:
``Sec. 25C. Credit for elementary and secondary school expenses.''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31,
2001.
SEC. 5. CREDIT FOR CONTRIBUTIONS FOR THE BENEFIT OF
ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY SCHOOLS.
(a) In General.--Subpart B of part IV of subchapter A of
chapter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to
other credits) is amended by adding at the end the following
new section:
``SEC. 30B. CREDIT FOR CONTRIBUTIONS FOR THE BENEFIT OF
ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY SCHOOLS.
``(a) Allowance of Credit.--There shall be allowed as a
credit against the tax imposed by this chapter for the
taxable year an amount equal to 75 percent of the qualified
charitable contributions of the taxpayer for the taxable
year.
``(b) Maximum Credit.--
``(1) Individuals.--In the case of a taxpayer other than a
corporation, the credit allowed by subsection (a) for any
taxable year shall not exceed $500 ($1,000 in the case of a
joint return).
``(2) Corporations.--In the case of a corporation, the
credit allowed by subsection (a) shall not exceed $100,000.
``(c) Qualified Charitable Contribution.--For purposes of
this section--
``(1) In general.--The term `qualified charitable
contribution' means, with respect to any taxable year, the
aggregate amount allowable as a deduction under section 170
(determined without regard to subsection (d)(1)) for cash
contributions to a school tuition organization.
``(2) School tuition organization.--
``(A) In general.--The term `school tuition organization'
means any organization which--
``(i) is described in section 170(c)(2),
``(ii) allocates at least 90 percent of its gross income
and contributions and gifts to elementary and secondary
school scholarships, and
``(iii) awards scholarships to any student who is eligible
for free or reduced cost lunch under the school program
established under the Richard B. Russell National School
Lunch Act.
``(B) Elementary and secondary school scholarship.--The
term `elementary and secondary school scholarship' means any
scholarship excludable from gross income under section 117
for expenses related to education at or below the 12th grade.
``(d) Special Rules.--
``(1) Denial of double benefit.--No deduction shall be
allowed under this chapter for any contribution for which
credit is allowed under this section.
``(2) Application with other credits.--The credit allowable
under subsection (a) for any taxable year shall not exceed
the excess (if any) of--
``(A) the regular tax for the taxable year, reduced by the
sum of the credits allowable under subpart A and the
preceding sections of this subpart, over
``(B) the tentative minimum tax for the taxable year.
``(3) Controlled groups.--All persons who are treated as
one employer under subsection (a) or (b) of section 52 shall
be treated as 1 taxpayer for purposes of this section.
``(e) Election To Have Credit Not Apply.--A taxpayer may
elect to have this section not apply for any taxable year.''.
(b) Conforming Amendment.--The table of sections for
subpart B of part IV of subchapter A of chapter 1 of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by adding at the end
the following new item:
``Sec. 30B. Credit for contributions for the benefit of elementary and
secondary schools.''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31,
2001.
SEC. 6. CREDIT TO ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY SCHOOL TEACHERS
WHO PROVIDE CLASSROOM MATERIALS.
(a) In General.--Subpart B of part IV of subchapter A of
chapter 1 of the Internal
[[Page S9258]]
Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to other credits), as amended
by section 4(a), is amended by adding at the end the
following new section:
``SEC. 30C. CREDIT TO ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY SCHOOL
TEACHERS WHO PROVIDE CLASSROOM MATERIALS.
``(a) Allowance of Credit.--In the case of an eligible
educator, there shall be allowed as a credit against the tax
imposed by this chapter for the taxable year an amount equal
to the qualified elementary and secondary education expenses
which are paid or incurred by the taxpayer during such
taxable year.
``(b) Maximum Credit.--The credit allowed by subsection (a)
for any taxable year shall not exceed $1,000.
``(c) Definitions.--
``(1) Eligible educator.--The term `eligible educator'
means an individual who is a teacher, instructor, counselor,
principal, or aide in a school (as defined in section
530(b)(4)(B)) for at least 900 hours during a school year.
``(2) Qualified elementary and secondary education
expenses.--The term `qualified elementary and secondary
education expenses' means expenses for books, supplies (other
than nonathletic supplies for courses of instruction in
health or physical education), computer equipment (including
related software and services) and other equipment, and
supplementary materials used by an eligible educator in the
classroom.
``(d) Special Rules.--
``(1) Denial of double benefit.--No deduction shall be
allowed under this chapter for any expense for which credit
is allowed under this section.
``(2) Application with other credits.--The credit allowable
under subsection (a) for any taxable year shall not exceed
the excess (if any) of--
``(A) the regular tax for the taxable year, reduced by the
sum of the credits allowable under subpart A and the
preceding sections of this subpart, over
``(B) the tentative minimum tax for the taxable year.
``(e) Election To Have Credit Not Apply.--A taxpayer may
elect to have this section not apply for any taxable year.''.
(b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections for subpart
B of part IV of subchapter A of chapter 1 of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986, as amended by section 4(b), is amended
by adding at the end the following new item:
``Sec. 30C. Credit to elementary and secondary school teachers who
provide classroom materials.''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31,
2001.
SEC. 7. ADJUSTED GROSS INCOME DETERMINED BY TAKING INTO
ACCOUNT PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT EXPENSES OF
ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY SCHOOL TEACHERS.
(a) In General.--Section 62(a)(2) of the Internal Revenue
Code of 1986 (relating to certain trade and business
deductions of employees) is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``(D) Professional development expenses of elementary and
secondary school teachers.--The deductions allowed by section
162 which consist of expenses, not in excess of $1,500, paid
or incurred by an eligible educator (as defined section
30C(c)(1)) by reason of the participation of the educator in
professional development courses which are related to the
curriculum and academic subjects in which the educator
provides instruction or to the students for which the
educator provides instruction and which are part of a program
of professional development which is approved and certified
by the appropriate local educational agency (as defined by
section 14101 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act
of 1965, as in effect on the date of the enactment of this
subparagraph).''.
(b) Special Rules.--Section 62 of the Internal Revenue Code
of 1986 is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(d) Special Rules.--A deduction shall be allowed under
subsection (a)(2)(D) for expenses only to the extent the
amount of such expenses exceeds the amount excludable under
section 135, 529(c)(1), or 530(d)(2) for the taxable year.''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31,
2001.
______
By Mr. HATCH (for himself, Mr. Baucus, and Mr. Dodd):
S. 1415. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to enhance
book donations and literacy; to the Committee on Finance.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation
designed to clarify and enhance the charitable contribution tax
deduction for donations of excess book inventory for educational
purposes. I am pleased to be joined in this effort by my good friends
and colleagues Senators Baucus and Dodd. This proposal would simplify a
complex area of the current law and eliminate significant roadblocks
that now stand in the way of corporations with excess book inventory to
donating those books to schools, libraries, and literacy programs,
where they are much needed.
Unfortunately, our current tax law contains a major flaw when it
comes to the donation of books that are excess inventory for publishers
or booksellers. The tax benefits for donating such books to schools or
libraries are often no greater than those of sending the books to the
landfill. And, since it is generally cheaper and faster for a company
to simply send the books to the dump, rather than go through the
trouble and cost of finding donees, and of packing, storing, and
shipping the books, it often ends up being more cost effective and
easier for companies to truck the books to a landfill or recycling
center.
While there are provisions in the current law where a larger
deduction is available for the donation of excess books, many companies
have found that the complexity and uncertainty of dealing with the
requirements, regulations, and possible Internal Revenue Service
challenges of the higher deduction serve as a real disincentive to
making a contribution.
This is a sad situation, when one considers that many, if not most,
of these books would be warmly welcomed by schools, libraries, and
literacy programs.
The heart of the problem is that under the current law, the higher
deduction requires that the donated books be used only for the care of
the needy, the sick, or infants. This requirement makes it difficult
for schools to qualify as donees and also frequently prohibits
libraries and adult literacy programs from receiving such deductions.
This is because these schools, libraries, and literacy programs often
serve those who are not needy or are over the age of 18. Further
complicating the issue, the valuation of donated book inventory has
been the subject of ongoing disputes between taxpayers and the IRS. The
tax code should not contain obstacles that provide disincentives to
charitable donations of books that can enhance learning.
The bill we are introducing today addresses the obstacles of donating
excess book inventory by providing a simple and clear rule whereby any
donation of book inventory to a qualified school, library, or literacy
program is eligible for the enhanced deduction. This means that
booksellers and publishers would receive a higher tax benefit for
donating the books rather than throwing them away and would thus be
encouraged to go to the extra trouble and expense of seeking out
qualified donees and making the contributions.
My home State of Utah, like the rest of the Nation, has a problem
with illiteracy. According to the National Institute for Literacy,
between 21 and 23 percent of the adult population of the United States,
about 44 million people, are only at Level 1 literacy, meaning they can
read a little but not well enough to fill out an application, read a
food label, or read a simple story to a child. Another 25 to 28 percent
of the adult population, or between 45 and 50 million people, are
estimated to be at Level 2 literacy, meaning they can usually can
perform more complex tasks such as comparing, contrasting, or
integrating pieces of information but usually not higher level reading
and problem-solving skills. Literacy experts tell us that adults with
skills at Levels 1 and 2 lack a sufficient foundation of basic skills
to function successfully in our society.
While this bill is not a cure-all for the tragedy of illiteracy, it
will increase access to books, both for adults and for children. Our
tax code should not encourage the destruction of perfectly good books
while schools, libraries, and literacy programs go begging for them.
The Senate is already on record in unanimous support of this bill.
During the floor debate on the Economic Growth and Tax Relief
Reconciliation Act of 2001, I offered this proposal as an amendment,
which was accepted without opposition. Unfortunately, the provision was
dropped in the conference with the House.
The Joint Committee on Taxation estimates this provision to decrease
revenues to the Treasury by $246 million over a ten year period. This
estimate helps demonstrate the extent of the value of the books that
are currently being discarded that could be utilized to help America's
adults and children.
I hope our colleagues will join us in supporting this bill. It is
wrong for our
[[Page S9259]]
tax code to encourage book publishers to send books to the landfill
instead of to the library. Let's correct this problem.
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. 1415
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. CONTRIBUTIONS OF BOOK INVENTORY.
(a) In General.--Section 170(e)(3) of the Internal Revenue
Code of 1986 (relating to certain contributions of ordinary
income and capital gain property) is amended by adding at the
end the following new subparagraph:
``(D) Special rule for contributions of book inventory for
educational purposes.--
``(i) Contributions of book inventory.--In determining
whether a qualified book contribution is a qualified
contribution, subparagraph (A) shall be applied without
regard to whether or not--
``(I) the donee is an organization described in the matter
preceding clause (i) of subparagraph (A), and
``(II) the property is to be used by the donee solely for
the care of the ill, the needy, or infants.
``(ii) Qualified book contribution.--For purposes of this
paragraph, the term `qualified book contribution' means a
charitable contribution of books, but only if the
contribution is to an organization--
``(I) described in subclause (I) or (III) of paragraph
(6)(B)(i), or
``(II) described in section 501(c)(3) and exempt from tax
under section 501(a) which is organized primarily to make
books available to the general public at no cost or to
operate a literacy program.''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section
shall apply to contributions made after the date of the
enactment of this Act.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise with my colleagues Senator Hatch and
Senator Baucus to introduce a measure to encourage book publishers to
donate excess inventory to schools, libraries, and literacy programs.
Currently, because of the TAX CODE's treatment of such donations, and
the cost of shipping books to schools and libraries, often it is more
economical for publishers to destroy books than to donate them. That is
as shocking as it is unacceptable.
Both the House and Senate versions of the education bills that
currently are in conference authorize nearly $1 billion dollars for
grants to State and local educational agencies for pre-reading or
reading programs for children from pre-kindergarten through 3rd grade.
I think it goes without saying that programs to teach kids to read
won't work unless they can provide kids with access to books. You can't
learn to read if you don't have anything to read.
That is why measures such as this, and the provision in the Senate's
education bill to help school libraries acquire up-to-date books and to
remain open for longer hours, are essential to the success of the
reading programs in both bills. This provision will increase children's
access to books, introduce them to whole new worlds of knowledge, and
enable them to read more at school, in libraries, and at home.
This is important, because in a recent study of 15 countries, the
United States was 12th in the percentage of 13- year-olds who read for
fun. Of course, reading for fun is valuable for its own sake, but it
also is an important indicator of academic achievement. For example,
students who read on their own do better on both math and reading
tests.
So, I believe that this provision is exactly the sort of good
bipartisan tax and public policy that we ought to be promoting in the
Senate, and I ask my colleagues to join Senators Hatch, Baucus, and
myself in supporting this bill.
____________________