[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 2]
[Senate]
[Pages 1617-1627]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. WYDEN (for himself and Mr. Burns):
  S. 285. A bill to amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to 
authorize the use of State revolving loan funds for construction of 
water conservation and quality improvements; to the Committee on 
Environment and Public Works.
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, 25 years after enactment of the Clean Water 
Act, we still have not achieved the law's original goal that all our 
nation's lakes, rivers and streams would be safe for fishing and 
swimming.
  After 25 years, it's time for the next generation of strategies to 
solve our remaining water quality problems. We need to give States new 
tools to overcome the new water quality challenges they are now facing.



  The money that has been invested in controlling water pollution from 
factories and upgrading sewage treatment plants has gone a long way to 
controlling these urban pollution sources. In most cases, the remaining 
water quality problems are no longer caused by pollution spewing out of 
factory pipes. Instead, they are caused by runoff from a myriad of 
sources ranging from farm fields to city streets and parking lots.
  In my home State of Oregon, more than half of our streams don't fully 
meet water quality standards. And the largest problems are 
contamination from runoff and meeting the standards for water 
temperature.
  In many cases, conventional approaches will not solve these problems. 
But we can achieve water temperature standards and obtain other water 
quality benefits by enhancing stream flows and improving runoff 
controls.
  A major problem for many streams in Oregon and in many other areas of 
the Western United States is that water supplies are fully appropriated 
or over-appropriated. There is currently no extra water to spare for 
increased stream flows.
  We can't create new water to fill the gap. But we can make more water 
available for this use through increased water conservation and more 
efficient use of existing water supplies.
  The key to achieving this would be to create incentives to reduce 
wasteful water use.
  In the Western United States, irrigated agriculture is the single 
largest user of water. Studies indicate that substantial quantities of 
water diverted for irrigation do not make it to the fields, with a 
significant portion lost to evaporation or leakage from irrigation 
canals.
  In Oregon and other States that recognize rights to conserved water 
for those who conserve it, irrigators and other water users could gain 
rights to use conserved water while also increasing the amount of water 
available for other uses by implementing conservation and efficiency 
measures to reduce water loss.
  The Federal government can play a role in helping meet our nation's 
changing water needs. In many Western States, water supply problems can 
be addressed by providing financial incentives to help water users 
implement cost effective water conservation and efficiency measures 
consistent with State water law.
  And, we can improve water quality throughout the nation by giving 
greater flexibility to States to use Clean Water Act funds to control 
polluted runoff, if that's where the money is needed most.
  Today, I am pleased to be joined by my colleague, Senator Burns, in 
introducing legislation to authorize the Clean Water State Revolving 
Fund program to provide loans to water users to fund conservation 
measures or runoff controls. States would be authorized, but not 
required, to use their SRF funds for these purposes. Participation by 
water users, farmers, ranchers and other eligible loan recipients would 
also be entirely voluntary.
  The conservation program would be structured to allow participating 
users to receive a share of the water saved through conservation or 
more efficient use, which they could use in accordance with State law. 
This type of approach would create a win/win situation with more water 
available for both the conservers and for instream flows. And, by using 
the SRF program, the Federal seed money would be repaid over time and 
gradually become available to fund conservation or other measures to 
solve water quality problems in other areas.
  My proposal has the support of the Farm Bureau, Oregon water users, 
the Environmental Defense Fund, and the Oregon Water Trust.
  I urge my colleagues to support giving States greater flexibility to 
use their clean water funds for water conservation or runoff control 
when the State decides that is the best way to solve water quality 
problems and the water users voluntarily agree to participate.
  Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I am pleased today to join my colleague 
from Oregon, Senator Wyden, in introducing the Water Conservation and 
Quality Incentives Act. This bill aims to authorize the use of State 
revolving loan funds for construction of water conservation and quality 
improvements. Senator Wyden and I have worked together to bring some 
common sense improvements to the existing revolving fund program. One 
of the big changes we would like to see will encourage additional 
conservation of water resources by the many irrigation districts in the 
Nation. Every Montanan understands that water is the lifeblood of our 
State, and I am glad to be working on this bipartisan effort to more 
effectively use this vital resource.
  This bill will encourage water conservation by providing the 
opportunity for loans to be made to irrigation districts from the State 
revolving funds. These loans will be used to construct pipelines and 
develop additional conservation measures. In the West, irrigators are 
by far the largest water users. They use the water to produce the many 
agricultural products we enjoy in this country. Between the water 
source and the field, a large portion of the water used in irrigation 
is displaced due to seepage as the water flows through the canals and 
ditches. The water is not lost, since it seeps into the soil and 
assists in the overall soil moisture, but it makes for an inefficient 
system because it is not immediately available to the irrigator.
  One of the reasons this is damaging to producers is the fact that in 
most irrigation districts, irrigators pay for water that is released to 
them whether it makes it to the crop or not. Displacement of this water 
does not help a producer's bottom line. At a time when prices are low 
and markets are questionable, it is important that we give tools to the 
producer to make sure they have every opportunity to stay in business.
  Water saved under the proposal in this bill will not only assist the 
producer in water and cost savings, but will also make certain the 
future of water in the many rivers and streams in the west. Efficient 
irrigations systems make good environmental sense because the more 
water you have to pump out of a river, the less water there is left for 
the fish and animals that depend on it as part of their habitat.
  This bill creates a win-win situation both for water users and for 
the multiple users of water in our states, particularly Oregon and 
Montana. We have an opportunity here to do something useful and 
worthwhile for the irrigators and also for those who enjoy fishing, 
boating and other instream water uses. I thank Senator Wyden for his 
work on this measure and I am pleased to work with him on this issue of 
great importance.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mrs. FEINSTEIN:
  S. 286. A bill to direct the Secretary of Commerce to establish a 
program to make no-interest loans to eligible small business concerns 
to address economic harm resulting from shortages of, and increases in 
the price of, electricity and natural gas; to the Committee on Banking, 
Housing, and Urban Affairs.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I am very proud today to introduce 
legislation designed to help small businesses hurt by the power crisis 
in the Western United States.

[[Page 1618]]

  This bill authorizes funds for the Economic Development 
Administration to operate a revolving loan fund to assist small 
business owners in California and other States affected by the 
shortage.
  This fund will help dozens of small manufacturers with so-called 
``interruptible contracts'' that have been forced to lay off employees 
and, in many cases, close their doors.
  Interruptible contracts are defined as price discounts to users who 
agree to reduce consumption during peak demand periods.
  But while companies can withstand infrequent power interruptions, the 
fact is that California has been hit hard by the electricity crisis and 
the service interruptions have come far too frequently.
  Today, even small business owners who chose not to join the 
interruptible list--and opted instead to brave the higher gas and 
electric bills--have found the price spikes too much to handle.
  Sadly, many of these firms have discovered that they too are being 
forced to shut down because they can't pay their electricity bills. 
Here are a few examples of companies that have been affected:
  A small business owner in San Diego operating a fluff-and-fold 
laundry facility was forced to close when his December electricity bill 
jumped fourfold to $4,000. At this time last year, his monthly bill was 
roughly $1,000.
  The Saint-Gobain Calmar company--a plastics manufacturer in Los 
Angeles with roughly 300 employees--has been forced to stop production 
22 times in the past six months because of the business' 
``interruptible'' status. Although the company has been able to avoid 
layoffs up to now, the owners say the outlook is not good.
  Another example is the McKoen and Associates potato-flake plant in 
Tulelake, California. The owner of the facility says he may be forced 
to lay off about 100 employees permanently due to the mandatory shut 
downs.
  While all California companies, both large and small, are feeling the 
crunch of the power shortage, smaller firms are taking a larger hit 
because these companies pay a larger percentage of their budgets to 
energy and gas bills.
  Small businesses, classified as those with 500 workers or fewer, 
employ 37 percent of the California's total workforce.
  This current power drain has led to higher costs for businesses 
throughout the Northwest.
  Some aluminum and paper manufacturers in Washington and Oregon have 
already been forced out of business--and they are not alone.
  The bill I am introducing today authorizes $25 million for a 
revolving no-interest loan fund to be operated by the Economic 
Development Administration.
  The bill allows small businesses, as defined by the Small Business 
Administration to be eligible for loans if their monthly gas or 
electric bills are at least double what they were a year ago.
  If a company's gas bill, for example, was $4,000 in the months of 
January, February, and March 2001 and the company averaged only $2,000 
in January, February, and March 2000, that company is eligible for a 
loan.
  The legislation will allow small business customers of the Pacific 
Gas and Electric Company, Southern California Edison, or San Diego Gas 
and Electric who are not covered by a State-mandated cap to apply for 
the no-interest loans to stave off lay offs, re-hire employees, and 
keep their facilities up and running.
  Small business that were covered by a State cap on energy expenses 
will not be eligible for the loan program.
  The bill is designed to help both small business owners who opted for 
the ``interruptible list'' and those who tried to brave the cost spikes 
and failed.
  The legislation will not affect those who are not covered by a State 
mandated program that caps retail electric commodity rates.
  I believe this measure will be of great assistance to the hundreds of 
small businesses in the Western region that are facing skyrocketing 
costs for power.
  I urge my colleagues to join me on this important legislation to help 
keep these hard working businessmen and women from being forced to lay 
off employees and close their doors.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mrs. FEINSTEIN (for herself and Mrs. Boxer):
  S. 287. A bill to direct the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to 
impose cost-of-service based rates on sales by public utilities of 
electric energy at wholesale in the western energy market; to the 
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I rise today to introduce a bill to direct the 
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to institute cost-of-service based 
rates with a reasonable rate of return on energy produced in the 
western energy market.
  I had planned on introducing this bill as an amendment to the 
pipeline safety bill but I understand that the chairman of the Energy 
and Natural Resources Committee, Senator Murkowski and the ranking 
member of that committee, Senator Bingaman, would be amendable to 
scheduling a hearing on this bill before the end of the month, if the 
legislation is introduced as a stand-alone bill rather than as an 
amendment to the pipeline safety bill.
  After the hearing, I intend to exercise my right under the rules of 
the committee to ask that the chairman put this bill on the schedule 
for mark-up.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. I remain concerned about the energy crisis that is 
affecting not just California but other Western states as well. I am 
willing to hold a hearing on your legislation during the week of 
February 26, right after the Senate recess.
  I cannot commit to a markup of the bill, but I expect that the 
Senator's legislation will be given its due consideration by the 
committee in a timely manner.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. The situation in California is very serious. It is now 
affecting not only the price and supply of electricity in California 
but the price and supply of electricity throughout the West. It poses a 
grave danger to the economy of the nation as a whole. The State of 
California is doing what it can to cope with this crisis. It is past 
time for the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to use its existing 
authority to bring wholesale prices under control.
  I commend the Senator from California, Senator Feinstein, for her 
initiative in crafting the bill, and the chairman of the Energy 
Committee, Senator Murkowski, for agreeing to give us a hearing on it.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. SESSIONS (for himself, Mr. Graham, Mr. Bingaman, Mr. 
        Frist, Mr. Gramm, Mr. Hutchinson, Mr. Murkowski, Mr. Breaux, 
        Mr. Shelby, Ms. Collins, Mr. Helms, Mr. Inhofe, Mr. Roberts, 
        Mr. Santorum, and Ms. Landrieu):
  S. 289. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide 
additional tax incentives for education; to the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the concept of 
prepaid tuition plans and why they are so critically important to 
America's families. As a parent who has put two children through 
college and who has another currently enrolled in college, I know 
firsthand that America's families are struggling to meet the rising 
cost of higher education. In fact, American families accrued more 
college debt in the 1990's than during the previous three decades 
combined. The reason is twofold: the Federal Government subsidizes 
student debt with interest rate breaks and penalizes educational 
savings by taxing the interest earned on those savings.
  In recent years, however, many families have tackled rising tuition 
costs by taking advantage of prepaid college tuition and savings plans. 
These plans allow families to purchase tuition credits years in 
advance. Families are able to pay for their child's future college 
education at today's price. Currently, 48 states have or are in the 
process of creating a tuition savings or prepaid tuition plan. These 
plans are extremely popular with parents, students, and alumni. They 
make it easier for families to save for college, while at the

[[Page 1619]]

same time taking the uncertainty out of the future cost of college.
  My home State of Alabama was one of the first in the nation to 
establish a prepaid college tuition plan. Nearly 50,000 Alabamians are 
currently enrolled in the Prepaid Alabama College Tuition Plan. 
Families across the State of Alabama are setting aside a few dollars 
each month to pay for the future college education of their child. 
Alabama is not the only success story, 18,000 children have been 
enrolled in the College Savings Iowa plan.
  Mr. President, 2,500 families in Montana are saving for their child's 
college education through the Montana Family Education Savings Program:
  13,000 are enrolled in the Alaska Advance College Tuition Plan; 
100,000 are participating in the Texas Tomorrow Fund; 7,000 children 
have accounts in the West Virginia Prepaid College Plan; 38,000 have 
joined the Maine Next Generation College Investing Plan; over 10,000 
parents have contracts in the Mississippi Prepaid Affordable College 
Tuition Program for their children.
  As you can see, people across the country are wisely taking advantage 
of these plans. Congress has supported participating families by 
expanding the scope of the prepaid tuition plans and by deferring the 
taxes on the interest earned until the student goes off to college. I 
believe that we must go one step further. That is why today, I along 
with Senators Bob Graham, Collins, Bingaman, Phil Gramm, Frist, Breaux, 
Shelby, Helms, Inhofe, Tim Hutchinson, Santorum, Murkowski, Landrieu, 
and Roberts are introducing the Collegiate Learning and Student 
Savings, CLASS, Act.
  This is a common sense piece of legislation that will make the 
interest earned on all education tuition savings plans completely tax-
free. Currently, the interest earned by families saving for college is 
taxed twice. Families are taxed on the income when they earn it, and 
then again on the interest that accrues from the savings. We strongly 
believe that this trend must no longer continue.
  In order to provide families a new alternative, the CLASS Act will 
provide tax-free treatment to all tuition savings plans. This 
bipartisan piece of legislation is sound education policy and tax 
policy that provides incentives for savings rather than bureaucratic 
solutions. It is a small tax break--estimated at less than $200 million 
over 5 years--but the CLASS Act will give families an extra incentive 
to be prudent savers for their children's education. Indeed, this small 
tax relief plan could produce billions in savings for college in the 
years to come. Many individuals have questioned whether these plans 
will benefit all types of students.
  Let me say this, it is wrong to assume that tuition savings and 
prepaid plans benefit mainly the wealthy. In fact, the track record of 
existing state prepaid plans indicates that working, middle-income 
families, not the rich, benefit the most from prepaid plans. For 
example, in 1996 families with an annual income of less than $35,000 
purchased 62 percent of the prepaid tuition contracts offered by the 
State of Pennsylvania. In the same year, 71 percent of the 600,000 
families participating in the Florida Prepaid College Program had an 
income of less than $50,000. It is clear this plan is helping middle 
income families save for college.
  In 1995, the average monthly contribution to a family's college 
savings account in Kentucky was $43. These families in Kentucky are 
putting a few dollars aside each month to save for their child's 
education. Tax-free treatment for tuition savings plans must become 
law. We passed this legislation as part of a larger tax bill last 
Congress. However, it was vetoed by President Clinton.
  President Bush articulated his support for this plan during the 
campaign. The time to act is now. This is not expensive, and the small 
cost will produce a huge benefit. I encourage my colleagues to work 
with me to push for passage of this common sense piece of legislation.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I am proud to join Senator Sessions and my 
other Senate colleagues in launching an initiative to increase 
Americans' access to college education. Today, we are introducing the 
Collegiate Learning and Student Savings Act. This bill extends tax-free 
treatment to all state sponsored prepaid tuition plans and state 
savings plans. This legislation also gives prepaid tuition plans 
established by private colleges and universities tax-deferred treatment 
in 2001, and tax-exempt status by 2005.
  Prepaid college tuition and savings programs have flourished at the 
State level in the face of spiraling college costs. According to the 
College Board, between 1980 and 2000, the cost of going to a four-year 
college has increased 115 percent above the rate of inflation. The 
cause of this dramatic increase in tuition is the subject of 
significant debate. But whether these increases are attributable to 
increased costs to the universities, reductions in state funding for 
public universities, or the increased value of a college degree, the 
fact remains that financing a college education has become increasingly 
difficult.
  In response to higher college costs the States have engineered 
innovative ways to help its families afford college. Michigan 
implemented the first prepaid tuition plan in 1986. Florida followed in 
1988. Today 49 States have either implemented or are in the process of 
implementing prepaid tuition plans or state education savings plans.
  Prepaid college tuition plans allow parents to pay prospectively for 
their children's higher education at participating universities. States 
pool these funds and invest them in a manner that will match or exceed 
the pace of educational inflation. This ``locks in'' current tuition 
and guarantees financial access to a future college education. In 1996, 
Congress acted to ensure that the tax on the earnings in these state-
sponsored programs is tax-deferred.
  Mr. Sessions and I believe the 107th Congress must move to make these 
programs completely tax free. Students should be able to enroll in 
college without the fear of incurring a significant tax liability just 
because they went to school. The legislation extends this same tax 
treatment to private college prepaid programs beginning in 2005.
  We believe that these programs should be tax free for numerous 
reasons. First, prepaid tuition and savings programs help middle income 
families afford a college education. Florida's experience shows that it 
is not higher income families who take most advantage of these plans. 
It is middle income families who want the discipline of monthly 
payments. They know that they would have a difficult time coming up 
with funds necessary to pay for college if they waited until their 
child enrolled. In Florida, more than 70 percent of participants in the 
state tuition program have family income of less than $50,000. Second, 
Congress should make these programs tax free in order to encourage 
savings and college attendance. Finally, for most families, these plans 
simply represent the purchase of service to be provided in the future. 
The accounts are not liquid, and the funds are transferred from the 
state directly to the college or university. The imposition of a tax 
liability on earnings represents a substantial burden, because the 
student is required to find other means of generating the funds to pay 
the tax.
  I am pleased to have this opportunity to join my colleagues in 
introducing this bill which makes a college education easier to obtain.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. DODD (for himself and Mr. Shelby):
  S. 290. A bill to increase parental involvement and protect student 
privacy; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Student Privacy 
Protection Act with my friend and colleague from Alabama, Senator 
Shelby. Senator Shelby recently asked me to join him as a co-chair of 
the Congressional Privacy Caucus and I am pleased that we are today 
introducing legislation to help protect the privacy of one of America's 
most vulnerable groups-- our students.
  A recent GAO report confirms that more and more, schools are being 
perceived by some not just as centers for

[[Page 1620]]

learning, but as centers for commercial research. Our children should 
be instilled with knowledge, not mined for knowledge on their 
commercial preferences and interests. Schools are there to help 
children grow up to be good citizens--not to provide a captive audience 
for market researchers and major advertisers.
  Our bill is simple--it provides parents and their children with 
modest, appropriate, privacy protections from market research in 
schools that would gather personal information about students, during 
school hours, for purely commercial purposes. It does not ban 
advertising, nor does it ban market research. It simply requires that, 
before a researcher can start asking a young student to provide 
personal information, that researcher must obtain parental consent or 
its equivalent.
  Surely, that is not too much to ask. If someone came to your home and 
started to ask your child about his or her age, gender, neighborhood, 
food preferences, and entertainment preferences, surely you would want 
to know the purpose of such questions before deciding whether to 
consent to them. We think parents and children are entitled to no less 
consideration just because a child is in school.
  This is part of a larger phenomenon that is familiar to anyone who 
has walked through a school in the past few years--the stunning 
increase in commercial advertising in schools. Gone are the days when 
commercial advertising simply meant the local hardware store's name on 
the basketball scoreboard or the local dry-cleaner's name on the 
football scoreboard.
  Schools, teachers and their students are daily barraged with 
commercial messages aimed at influencing the buying habits of children 
and their parents. A 1997 study from Texas A&M, estimated that 
children, age 4 to 12, spent more than $24 billion themselves and 
influenced their parents to spend $187 billion.
  One major spaghetti sauce firm has encouraged science teachers to 
have their students test different sauces for thickness as part of 
their science classes. A cable television channel in New Jersey had 
elementary school students fill our a 27-page booklet called ``My All 
About Me Journal'' as part of a marketing survey. In one school, a 
student was suspended for wearing a Pepsi T-shirt on the school's Coke 
Day. In another, credit card applications were sent home with 
elementary school students for their parents and the school collected a 
fee for every family that signed up.
  Advertisers focus on students and schools for the same reason Willie 
Sutton robbed banks--because that's where the money is. And many 
schools enter into commercial contracts with advertisers because, as 
the GAO found, they are strapped for cash. Schools often are faced with 
two poor choices--provide computers, books, and other educational and 
recreational equipment with commercial advertising, or not at all.
  The bill that Senator Shelby and I offer today does not second guess 
the hard decisions that school administrators are making each and every 
day. Nor does it ignore the fact that business leaders often are the 
strongest advocates for school improvement and the greatest benefactors 
of the educational process. What it does is address what the GAO report 
considers to be perhaps the most troubling form of commercial activity 
in schools--the ``growing phenomenon'' of market research.
  According to GAO, ``none of the education officials we interviewed 
said schools were appropriate venues for market research. . . .'' 
Nevertheless, none of the districts surveyed by GAO had policies 
specifically addressing market research and the GAO found that this 
activity is widespread. One firm alone has conducted market research in 
more than 1,000 schools.
  Another company, which since has discontinued these activities, 
provided computers to 1,800 schools, about 8.6 percent of all U.S. 
secondary schools. In exchange, the company was allowed to advertise to 
and ask questions of students using these computers. There are other 
examples. Suffice it to say that this is a practice that not only is 
inappropriate in the opinion of education officials, but is unknown to 
many parents. Nearly half of parents in a recent survey were not aware 
that websites can collect personal information about students without 
their knowledge.
  This bill would return to parents the right to protect their 
children's privacy. It's simple, it's modest, it contains appropriate 
exceptions, and it's our hope that it will become law together with 
other educational reforms being considered by this Congress.
  Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I rise today with my colleague Senator 
Dodd to introduce the ``Student Privacy Protection Act''. This 
legislation is intended to ensure that parents have the ability to 
protect their children's privacy by requiring that anyone who wishes to 
collect data for commercial purposes from kids in school must first 
seek and obtain parental permission.
  The need for this legislation stems from the fact that a large number 
of marketing companies are going into classrooms and using class time 
to gather personal information about students and their families for 
commercial gain. In many cases, parents are not even aware that these 
companies have entered their children's school, much less that they are 
exploiting them in the one place they should be the safest, their 
classroom.
  Our legislation builds on a long line of privacy legislation to 
protect kids, such as the Family Educational Rights Act, the Children's 
Online Privacy Protection Act and the Protection of Pupil Rights Act. 
The goal of these laws, as is the case with our legislation, is to 
ensure that the privacy of children is protected and that their 
personal information cannot be collected and/or disseminated without 
the prior knowledge, and in most cases, consent of the parents.
  We understand that schools today are financially strapped and many of 
these companies offer enticing financial incentives to gain access. Our 
goal is not to make it more difficult for schools to access the 
educational materials and the computers that they so desperately need. 
Rather our goal is to ensure that the details of these arrangements are 
disclosed and that parents are allowed to participate in the decision-
making process.
  The bottom line here is that parents have a right and a 
responsibility to be involved in their children's education. Much of 
what is occurring now is being done at the expense of the parents' 
decision making authority because schools are allowing companies direct 
access to students. This legislation enhances parental involvement by 
giving them an opportunity to decide for themselves who does and does 
not get access to their children during the school day.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. THOMPSON (for himself, Mr. Frist, Mrs. Hutchison, and Mr. 
        Gramm):
  S. 291. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow a 
deduction for State and local sales taxes in lieu of State and local 
income taxes and to allow the State and local income tax deduction 
against the alternative minimum tax; to the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation that 
will address an inequity in the tax code that affects the citizens of 
my state and citizens of other states that do not have a state income 
tax. Tennesseans are discriminated against under federal tax laws 
simply because our state choose to raise revenue primarily through a 
sales tax instead of an income tax. My bill would end this inequity by 
allowing taxpayers to deduct either their state and local sales taxes 
or their state and local income taxes on their federal tax forms, but 
not both. My bill would also ensure that Tennesseans who benefit from 
this deduction would not be caught under the federal alternative 
minimum tax, AMT, by allowing individuals to deduct their state and 
local taxes paid when computing their AMT tax liability.
  Under current law, individuals who itemize their deductions for 
federal tax purposes are only permitted to deduct state and local 
income taxes and property taxes paid. State and local sales

[[Page 1621]]

taxes are not deductible. Therefore, residents of nine states are 
treated differently from residents of states that have an income tax. 
Seven states--Texas, Wyoming, Alaska, Florida, South Dakota, 
Washington, and Nevada--have no state income tax. Two states--Tennessee 
and New Hampshire--only impose an income tax on interest and dividends, 
but not wages.
  Prior to 1986, taxpayers were permitted to deduct all of their state 
and local taxes paid, including income, sales and property taxes, when 
computing their federal tax liability. The ability to deduct all state 
and local taxes is based on the principle that levying a tax on a tax 
is unfair.
  In 1986, however, Congress made dramatic changes to the tax code. The 
Tax Reform Act of 1986 significantly reduced federal tax rates on 
individuals. In exchange for these lower rates, Congress broadened the 
base of income that is taxed by eliminating many of the deductions and 
credits that previously existed in the code, including the deduction 
for state and local sales taxes. The deduction for state and local 
income taxes, however, was retained.
  The 1986 Act also tightened the alternative minimum tax rules. The 
AMT is a separate, complicated tax system that was originally intended 
to ensure that wealthy taxpayers could not use the tax code's many 
deductions and credits to completely zero out their federal tax 
liability. However, each year more and more middle income individuals 
are being caught under the AMT who were never intended to be affected 
by it. Under current law, individuals are not permitted to deduct their 
state and local taxes when computing their alternative minimum tax 
liability. This is a major factor pushing Americans under the AMT. By 
allowing individuals to deduct state and local taxes under the AMT, my 
bill will ensure that restoring equity in this area will not push more 
Tennesseans under the AMT. It makes no sense to me to give Tennesseans 
a tax cut on the one hand, then take it away with the other.
  I believe that our federal tax laws should be neutral with respect to 
the treatment of state and local taxes. As I have said, that is not the 
case now. The current tax code is biased in favor of states that raise 
revenue through an income tax. The current tax code is also needlessly 
complex. There is widespread agreement among tax experts that the AMT 
is a primary cause of complexity in the tax code and should be 
repealed. I strongly support comprehensive reform of the tax code that 
will address issues such as neutrality, fairness and simplicity. As we 
work to reform the overall tax code, restoring equality in these areas 
and should be a part of the discussion.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. CLELAND (for himself and Mr. Wyden):
  S. 292. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to expand 
the enhanced deduction for corporate donations of computer technology 
to senior centers and community centers; to the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. CLELAND. Mr. President, the U.S. Department of Commerce's latest 
report on Internet access in the U.S. is out. According to the 
Department's Falling Through the Net: Toward Digital Inclusion, 
published last October, more Americans than ever have Internet access 
and own computers.
  The number of Americans using the Internet jumped to 116.5 million in 
August 2000, 31.9 million more Americans than were online in December 
1998. And groups that have traditionally been digital ``have nots'' are 
making significant gains, according to the Commerce report's findings. 
Almost 39 percent of rural households, for example, now have Internet 
connections, a 75 percent increase over the last 20 months. The report 
found that African American households are now more than twice as 
likely to have Internet access at home than they were 20 months ago. 
Similarly, Internet access in Hispanic households has also nearly 
doubled and now stands at 23.6 percent. And more Americans at every 
income level have Internet access in their homes, especially at the 
middle income levels. Today, two out of every three households earning 
more than $50,000 have Internet connections.
  Although more Americans than ever are connected to the Internet, the 
report concludes that a ``digital divide'' still exists ``between those 
with different levels of income and education, different racial and 
ethnic groups, old and young, single and dual-parent families, and 
those with and without disabilities.'' According to the Commerce 
Department report, for example, more than three-fourths of all 
households earning in excess of $75,000 use the Internet at home, while 
less than one-fifth of the households with incomes of under $15,000 do. 
In some cases, the digital divide has even expanded over the last 20 
months. The gap in Internet access rates between African American 
households and the nation as a whole is now 18 percent--3 percent more 
than in December 1998. And the gap in Internet access between Hispanic 
households and the national average is 17.9 percent--4.3 percent more 
than it was 20 months ago.
  Increasing numbers of Americans are using the Internet to vote, shop, 
pay bills, take education courses, and acquire new skills. It is 
therefore becoming more and more critical that all Americans have the 
tools necessary for full participation in the Information Age economy. 
Access to these tools is essential to ensure that our economy continues 
to grow and that in the future no one is left behind.
  A viable alternative for many of these under-served individuals is 
Internet access outside the home, and statistics show that computer use 
at schools, libraries, and other public access points such as community 
centers is on the rise. Today I am joined by my distinguished 
colleague, Senator Wyden, in introducing the Community Technology 
Assistance Act. Currently, the special enhanced tax deduction exists in 
the case of computer equipment donated to elementary and secondary 
schools and public libraries. Our bill would expand this tax incentive 
to include computer donations to community and senior centers as well. 
Consider the many high-profile technology and Internet related 
companies, such as Microsoft, Intel and AmericaOnline, that have 
donated computer equipment and web access to schools and universities 
across America. Our bill would encourage companies and individuals to 
invest in their community and jump start efforts to help bridge the 
digital divide in rural and low-income areas everywhere.
  In addition, we know a digital divide exists between seniors and the 
population as a whole. In fact, the October 2000 Commerce Department 
report found that individuals over the age of 50 are among the least 
likely to be connected to the Internet, with an Internet use rate of 
less than 30 percent. Internet access at senior centers offers older 
Americans a promising opportunity. According to the National 
Association of State Units on Aging, eight states have conducted 
surveys on computer and on-line access at their senior centers. 
Pennsylvania reports, for example, that while more than 250 of their 
650 senior centers are linked to the Internet, many more need 
computers. West Virginia indicates that every center that has opened a 
computer training program presently has a waiting list. In an informal 
survey, Georgia reports that no more than half of the state's 
approximately 200 senior centers have computers available for 
participant use--and ``that would be a generous estimate.'' Clearly, 
the need is there to increase the availability of 21st Century 
technology to America's senior citizens.
  In a society that increasingly relies on computers and the Internet 
to deliver information and enhance communication, we need to ensure 
that all Americans have access to the fundamental tools of the 
Information Age. As the Commerce Department report concludes, there is 
still much more to be done to make certain that we close the gap 
between the digital ``haves'' and ``have nots" and ensure that everyone 
is included in the 21st Century economy. The Community Technology 
Assistance Act is a positive step in creating digital opportunity for 
all Americans.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the 
Record.

[[Page 1622]]

  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 292

       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 ``Community Technology 
     Assistance Act''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       Congress finds the following:
       (1) From December 1998 to August 2000, the share of 
     Americans using the Internet jumped by over 35 percent, from 
     32.7 percent to 44.4 percent, according to the recent United 
     States Department of Commerce report, Falling Through the 
     Net: Toward Digital Inclusion. If growth continues at that 
     rate, more than half of all Americans will be using the 
     Internet by the middle of this year, the report projects.
       (2) Although more Americans than ever are connected to the 
     Internet, the most recent data show that a ``digital divide'' 
     still exists between those with different levels of income 
     and education, different racial and ethnic groups, old and 
     young, single and dual parent families, and those with and 
     without disabilities, according to the United States 
     Department of Commerce.
       (3) Although both African Americans and Hispanic Americans 
     have shown gains in Internet access over the past 20 months, 
     still only about 16 percent of Hispanic Americans and just 
     under 19 percent of African Americans use the Internet at 
     home, compared to a third of the United States population as 
     a whole.
       (4) The gap in Internet access rates between African 
     American households and the national average is 18 percent; 3 
     percent more than in December 1998 and the gap in Internet 
     access between Hispanic American households and the national 
     average is 17.9 percent; 4.3 percent more than it was in 
     1998.
       (5) Individuals over 50 years old are among the least 
     likely to be Internet users, with an Internet use rate of 
     less than 30 percent. However, individuals in this age group 
     are almost 3 times as likely to be Internet users if they are 
     in the labor force than if they are not.
       (6) Less than 1 in 5 individuals living in households with 
     incomes of less than $15,000 were Internet users in August 
     2000. In contrast, 7 out of 10 individuals living in 
     households with incomes of at least $75,000 had Internet 
     access.
       (7) Schools, libraries, and other public access points, 
     such as community centers, continue to serve those groups 
     that do not have access at home.
       (8) Of those States that have surveyed computer access at 
     senior centers, many report a need for computer and software 
     acquisition.

     SEC. 3. ENHANCED DEDUCTION FOR CORPORATE DONATIONS OF 
                   COMPUTER TECHNOLOGY TO SENIOR CENTERS AND 
                   COMMUNITY CENTERS.

       (a) Expansion of Computer Technology Donations to Senior 
     Centers and Community Centers.--Section 170(e)(6)(B)(i)(II) 
     of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to qualified 
     computer contribution) is amended by striking ``or'' at the 
     end of subclause (II) and by inserting after subclause (III) 
     the following:

       ``(IV) a multipurpose senior center (as defined in section 
     102(35) of the Older Americans Act of 1965 (42 U.S.C. 
     3002(35)), as in effect on the date of the enactment of the 
     Community Technology Assistance Act which is described in 
     section 501(c)(3) and exempt from tax under section 501(a) 
     for use by individuals who have attained 60 years of age to 
     improve job skills in computers, or
       ``(V) a nonprofit or governmental community center, 
     including any center within which an after-school or 
     employment training program is operated,''.

       (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to contributions made after December 31, 2001.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. HARKIN (for himself, Mr. Durbin, Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Dorgan, 
        and Mr. Kennedy):
  S. 293. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide 
a refundable tax credit against increased residential energy costs and 
for other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Home Energy 
Assistance Tax Act with Senators Durbin, Clinton, Dorgan, and Kennedy.
  The rising cost of utility bills has reached near crisis proportions 
in my home state and in states across this country. Right now, millions 
of Americans are being buried by massive home heating bills. And if we 
don't do something soon, a lot of people are going to be left out in 
the cold.
  This winter has been an especially cold one. As a result, demand for 
natural gas is way up, and prices have skyrocketed.
  In the past few months, I've gotten phone calls and letters from 
people all across Iowa telling me about their outrageous heating bills. 
A man in West Des Moines told me that while his gas bill was $189.87 in 
December--it jumped to $601.67 in January.
  A couple in Duncombe said that their $79 gas bill in December was 
followed by a $330 gas bill in January--even though they never paid 
more than $120 a month last year.
  And a man from Merrill told me that his bill was $575 this month and 
$475 last month, even though it was never higher than $280 last year.
  This man and his wife receive $1,300 a month for Social Security--
$100 of which goes for Medicare and $300 for Medicare supplement. After 
food and other expenses, they just don't have enough left to pay their 
utility bills.
  Heating bills this high force people to make the kind of sacrifices 
that no one should have to make. A recent survey showed that 20 percent 
of the Iowa residents who asked for LIHEAP assistance went without 
medical care because of high heating bills. 12.3 percent went without 
food. 7.4 percent didn't pay their rent or make their house payment.
  The bottom line here is that people are struggling, and they need our 
help to keep from freezing in their homes this winter.
  That's why I believe that we should take the following three steps 
immediately:
  First, we've got to provide more emergency funds for the Low Income 
Home Energy Assistance Program or LIHEAP. Many low income and elderly 
people simply cannot afford $300 and $400 and $500 heating bills. We 
also need to increase the income limits on who can receive LIHEAP 
assistance.
  Second, bills have gotten so high that even middle income Americans 
are struggling--we've got to find a way to help them pay their energy 
utility bills as well. That's why I am introducing the Home Energy 
Assistance Tax Act to give taxpayers a 50 percent tax credit for the 
difference between their utility bills this winter compared to last 
winter.
  This credit will also cover the estimated increased costs of heating 
a home from heating oil or propane. It will not cover the first $100 in 
increased costs. It will not benefit high-income tax-payers. The credit 
is phased out for those making more than $100,000. However, this credit 
will be refundable so that people with low incomes could still receive 
it.
  One key problem with using the tax code to provide assistance is that 
people do not normally see its benefit until after they file their next 
tax return and receive a refund. However, taxpayers can reduce their 
payroll withholding by the amount of this credit and get the money 
quickly. So this credit can provide quick and meaningful help.
  The bill--much like a measure introduced by Senator Bob Smith--will 
also propose tax credits for energy efficient new homes and energy 
efficient heating, air conditioning and water-heating appliances. It 
will also provide tax benefits for similar energy conservation by 
businesses.
  Energy efficiency is crucial for quelling our home heating crisis. By 
helping people conserve energy, we reduce consumption and help them 
lower their heating bills. And when we reduce the demand that has 
driven prices up, we restore balance to the market and lower prices for 
everyone. Also, when we use less fuel, we create less air pollution and 
reduce our dependence on foreign sources. So energy efficiency tax 
credits are a win-win-win solution.
  I am also joining Senator Kerry in introducing a separate bill today 
that will provide some relief for small business owners by allowing 
them to acquire low interest emergency.
  I am, of course, fully aware that high gas prices have spurred new 
drilling which should eventually increase supply and bring prices back 
down. But this could take years. People are being hammered by high 
heating bills right now, and we need to act now to help our 
constituents.
  No one should be left out in the cold this winter. I hope that we can 
come together in the next few weeks and pass important legislation to 
help keep America warm.

[[Page 1623]]

  I urge that the Senate consider and pass this measure.
  I ask unanimous consent that a fact sheet be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                 Home Energy Assistance Tax Act (HEAT)

     Exactly what is covered? Who is covered? What is covered?
       Provides a refundable 50 percent credit from the first 
     utility bill covering a period starting in November till the 
     one ending during March this year minus a similar period last 
     winter. This is a one time benefit.
       Who: All taxpayers who have a principal residence and who 
     have energy utility costs this winter that are more than $100 
     more than last year's costs. There is a phase out of benefits 
     for those with higher incomes stating at $75,000 adjusted 
     gross income. The benefit is completely phased out at 
     $100,000.
       What: All energy utility bills plus any fuel used to heat 
     the home like heating oil or propane.
       It covers bills that people are responsible for, not 
     including LIHEAP and other government payments. A renter 
     benefits if they are responsible for their bills.
     How easy is this going to be for people to figure out?
       Utilities can very easily supply customers with the total 
     bills for the period from a year ago. Then all they need to 
     do is subtract.
       For those who use a bulk purchased fuel such as heating oil 
     or propane to heat their homes: There will be an estimated 
     average cost for each county determined by: (1) The number of 
     degree days in the two years from November 15 to May 15; (2) 
     the difference in the price of the fuel used this winter and 
     last, and (3) the amount needed to heat an average home. That 
     figure would be used to cover the cost of that fuel in 
     addition to the other energy utility bills.
       The IRS would calculate this number, getting their numbers 
     from NOAA, DOE and HUD.
     What about those who just bought their home?
       They would be allowed to use a government estimate of the 
     average increase for their county.
                                   ____
                                 
      By Mr. SANTORUM (for himself and Mr. Kohl):
  S. 294. A bill to amend the Agricultural Market Transition Act to 
establish a program to provide dairy farmers a price safety net for 
small- and medium-sized dairy producers; to the Committee on 
Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.
  Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to 
assist our nation's dairy farmers. I represent a state where 
agriculture is the number one industry--dairy being the leading sector, 
and ranks fourth in national dairy production. Agriculture has, and 
continues to be, the backbone of our rural communities and our social 
character. While heated debates and regional politics have eclipsed 
opportunities to pass meaningful dairy legislation, I feel strongly 
that we must forge consensus in order to assist our nation's dairy 
families.
  I am pleased to have joining me in this effort my colleague from 
Wisconsin Senator Herb Kohl. While I am grateful for the opportunity to 
work with Senator Kohl on an issue of great importance to both of our 
home states, it unfortunately signals that our nation's dairy industry 
continues to grapple with difficult economic times.
  Senator Kohl and I worked together over the past year to forge a 
consensus plan that addresses the concerns of dairy farmers nationwide. 
For far too long, regional politics have plagued efforts to achieve a 
fair and equitable national dairy policy. As a result, milk pricing has 
become increasingly complex and overly prescriptive. Given that dairy 
farmers have been receiving the lowest price for their milk in more 
than twenty years, I feel strongly that Congress needs to step to the 
plate and offer a fair and responsible solution.
  The National Dairy Farmers Fairness Act has two major goals: (1) 
Create a dairy policy that is equitable for farmers in all regions of 
the country; and (2) provide more certainty for farmers in the prices 
they receive for their milk. To accomplish these goals, this 
legislation creates a safety net for farmers by providing supplemental 
assistance when milk prices are low. Specifically, a sliding scale 
payment is made based upon the previous year's price for the national 
average of Class III milk. In short, the payment rate to farmers is 
highest when the prices they received were the lowest. In order to be 
eligible, a farmer must have produced milk for commercial sale in the 
previous year, and would be compensated on the first 26,000 
hundredweight of production. All dairy producers would be eligible to 
participate under this scenario.
  Without a doubt, our dairy pricing policy is flawed. Many solutions--
modest to sweeping--have been proposed, discussed, and debated on the 
Senate floor yet final agreement among interested parties has eluded us 
for years. Considering that we will begin laying the groundwork for 
reauthorization of the Farm Bill over the next year, the time for 
consensus is now.
  I am committed to preserving the viability of Pennsylvania's dairy 
farmers. This legislative proposal represents the strong concern and 
interest of mine to find a middle ground in the often heated debate on 
dairy policy. I am pleased to join with Senator Kohl in this effort, 
and I believe it sends a strong signal that compromise can be achieved 
even on the most contentious of issues.
  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. 294

       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 ``National Dairy Farmers 
     Fairness Act of 2001''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       Congress finds that--
       (1) dairy farm families of the United States are enduring 
     an unprecedented financial crisis;
       (2) the price of raw milk sent to the market by the dairy 
     farm families has fallen to the levels received in 1978; and
       (3) the number of family-sized dairy operations has 
     decreased by almost 75 percent in the last 2 decades, with 
     some States losing nearly 10 percent of their dairy farmers 
     in recent months.

     SEC. 3. DAIRY FARMERS PROGRAM.

       Chapter 1 of subtitle D of the Agricultural Market 
     Transition Act (7 U.S.C. 7251 et seq.) is amended by adding 
     at the end the following:

     ``SEC. 153. DAIRY FARMERS PROGRAM.

       ``(a) Definitions.--In this section:
       ``(1) Applicable fiscal year.--The term `applicable fiscal 
     year' means each of fiscal years 2001 through 2008.
       ``(2) Class III milk.--The term `Class III milk' means milk 
     classified as Class III milk under a Federal milk marketing 
     order issued under section 8c of the Agricultural Adjustment 
     Act (7 U.S.C. 608c), reenacted with amendments by the 
     Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937.
       ``(b) Payments.--For each applicable fiscal year, the 
     Secretary shall make a payment to producers on a farm that, 
     during the applicable fiscal year, produced milk for 
     commercial sale, in the amount obtained by multiplying--
       ``(1) the payment rate for the applicable fiscal year 
     determined under subsection (c); by
       ``(2) the payment quantity for the applicable fiscal year 
     determined under subsection (d).
       ``(c) Payment Rate.--
       ``(1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), the payment 
     rate for a payment made to producers on a farm for an 
     applicable fiscal year under subsection (b) shall be 
     determined as follows:

``If the average price received by producers in the United States for 
    Class III milk during the preceding fiscal year was (per 
The payment rate for a payment made to producers on a farm for the 
    applicable fiscal year under subsection (b) shall be (per 
    hundredweight)--
  $10.50 or less................................................50 ....

  $10.51 through $11.00.........................................42 ....

  $11.01 through $11.50.........................................34 ....

  $11.51 through $12.00.........................................26 ....

  $12.01 through $12.50.........................................18.....

       ``(2) Increased payment rate.--If the producers on a farm 
     produce during an applicable fiscal year a quantity of all 
     milk that is not more than the quantity of all milk produced 
     by the producers on the farm during the preceding fiscal 
     year, the payment rate for a payment to the producers on the 
     farm for the applicable fiscal year under paragraph (1) shall 
     be increased as follows:

``If the average price received by producers in the United States for 
    Class III milk during the preceding fiscal year was (per 
The payment rate for a payment made to the producers on the farm for 
    the applicable fiscal year under paragraph (1) shall be increased 
    by (per hundredweight)--
  $10.50 or less................................................30 ....

  $10.51 through $11.00.........................................26 ....

  $11.01 through $11.50.........................................22 ....

  $11.51 through $12.00.........................................18 ....

  $12.01 through $12.50.........................................14.....

       ``(d) Payment Quantity.--
       ``(1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), the quantity 
     of all milk for which the producers on a farm shall receive a 
     payment for

[[Page 1624]]

     an applicable fiscal year under subsection (b) shall be equal 
     to the quantity of all milk produced by the producers on the 
     farm during the applicable fiscal year.
       ``(2) Maximum quantity.--The quantity of all milk for which 
     the producers on a farm shall receive a payment for an 
     applicable year under subsection (b) shall not exceed 26,000 
     hundredweight of all milk.
       ``(e) Commodity Credit Corporation.--The Secretary shall 
     carry out the program authorized by this section through the 
     Commodity Credit Corporation.''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. KERRY (for himself, Mr. Lieberman, Ms. Snowe, Mr. 
        Bingaman, Ms. Landrieu, Mr. Johnson, Mr. Domenici, Mr. Levin, 
        Mr. Wellstone, Mr. Jeffords, Mr. Harkin, Mr. Schumer, Mrs. 
        Clinton, Mr. Kohl, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Baucus, Ms. 
        Collins, Mr. Smith of New Hampshire, Mr. Dodd, Mr. Chafee, and 
        Mr. Bayh):
  S. 295. A bill to provide emergency relief to small businesses 
affected by significant increases in the prices of heating oil, natural 
gas, propane, and kerosene, and for other purposes; to the Committee on 
Small Business.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce legislation that 
helps to address the significant price increase of heating fuels and 
the adverse impact those prices are having on our 24 million small 
businesses and the self-employed. I thank my colleagues who are 
cosponsors. Senators Lieberman, Snowe, Bingaman, Landrieu, Johnson, 
Domenici, Levin, Wellstone, Jeffords, Harkin, Schumer, Clinton, Kohl, 
Edwards, Leahy, Baucus, and Collins.
  As so many of my colleagues know, many small businesses are dependent 
upon heating oil, propane, kerosene and natural gas. They are dependent 
either because they sell or distribute the product, or because they use 
it to heat their facilities or as part of their business. The 
significant and unforseen rise in the price of these fuels over the 
past two years, compounded by cold snaps and slowed economic conditions 
this winter, threatens their economic viability.
  The financial falter or failure of small businesses has the potential 
to extend far beyond the businesses themselves, and we simply can't 
afford that. Jobs alone make this a reason to mitigate the small 
business disruptions or failures because they provide more than 50 
percent of private-sector jobs. And the self-employed, who largely work 
out of their homes, and number 16 million according to the National 
Association for the Self-Employed, NASE, represent more than 7 percent 
of the nation's workforce.
  My bill, the Small Business Energy Emergency Relief Act of 2001, 
would provide emergency relief, through affordable, low-interest Small 
Business Administration Disaster loans, to small businesses adversely 
affected by, or likely to be adversely affected by, significant 
increases in the prices of four heating fuels--heating oil, propane, 
kerosene, and natural gas.
  Who are these business owners? They are the self-employed who work 
out of their homes and can't turn down the thermostat to 55 degrees 
while they are at the office from 8 am to 6 pm. They are the home 
heating oil distributers who see the price of their inventory skyrocket 
beyond the reach of their credit lines and cash flows. They are the 
Mom-and-Pop stores, local restaurants and corner cafes that need to 
keep a warm place for folks to enjoy. They are the small day-cares for 
children and nursing homes for the elderly.
  According to Department of Energy statistics, the cost of heating 
fuel has been highly volatile in recent years. For example,
  The cost of heating oil nationally climbed 72 percent from February 
1999 to February 2000.
  The cost of natural gas nationally climbed 27 percent from September 
1999 to September 2000.
  And the cost of propane climbed 54 percent from January 2000 to 
January 2001.
  While these national fluctuations capture the larger market trends, 
they do not demonstrate how some localities have been even harder hit 
by unpredictable and sudden price spikes because of a greater 
dependence on a single fuel, insufficient inventories, distribution 
problems and other reasons. Last year in New England, for example, the 
threat of a relatively common cold winter snap put such serious 
pressure on the insufficient supply of heating oil that Massachusetts 
declared a state of emergency. With consumers at the mercy of a 
market--need up and supply down--the price of heating oil soared. In a 
matter of weeks, the average price per gallon of heating oil fuel went 
up 60 percent, from $1.12 to $1.79. When operating costs rise 
gradually, small businesses have time to plan and adjust their pricing 
and operations accordingly. Rapid shifts in operating costs, however, 
can disrupt a small company's business plans causing short-term cash 
flow difficulties. It is the kind of volatility that can make planning 
month to month as difficult as planning year to year.
  Here's the situation. For those businesses in danger of or suffering 
from significant economic injury caused by crippling increases in the 
costs of heating fuel, they need access to capital to mitigate or avoid 
serious losses. However, commercial lenders typically won't make loans 
to these small businesses because they often don't have the increased 
cash flow to demonstrate the ability to repay the loan. In fact, the 
Massachusetts Oilheat Council in Wellesley Hills, which is a state 
trade association that represents the heating oil industry, and whose 
members deliver more than 60 percent of the heating oil to homes and 
businesses across the state, retailers of heating oil faced not only 
``stretched credit lines'' but even ``negative cash flows.'' Who is 
going to give you a loan when you have a negative cash flow?
  To exacerbate the situation, banks have tightened their lending to 
small businesses by 45 percent over the past three months. According to 
the Federal Reserve Board's quarterly survey on lending practices that 
was released Monday, February 5th, banks surveyed said they have 
tightened credit to small businesses, particularly on riskier loans, by 
making borrowing more expensive and requiring customers to have less 
outstanding debt. They have changed their lending policies because they 
are concerned about ``a less favorable or more uncertain economic 
outlook . . . and a reduced tolerance for risk.'' While the banks say 
that only a handful of borrowers canceled their plans under the 
stricter lending policies, I think the Federal Reserve Board's survey 
reinforces the need for this legislation.
  You see, Mr. President, commercial lenders are unlikely to make the 
type of loans we're talking about without an added incentive, such as a 
Federal loan guarantee. And last year I supported that approach to help 
small businesses deal with the heating oil problem by enlisting the 
SBA, its lending partners, and relevant trade associations to use and 
publicize the SBA 7(a) government guaranteed loan program to make loans 
to affected small businesses. In the 7(a) loan program, the bank makes 
the loan, and the SBA guarantees 75 to 80 percent so that if the 
borrower can't repay the loan, the bank isn't on the hook for every 
outstanding dollar.
  I wrote to the SBA. I called the Massachusetts Bankers Association, 
and I called individual bank presidents and asked them to use this tool 
for affected small businesses and to aggressively market the 
availability of the 7(a) loans and SBA's other programs. Some of the 
publications helped to spread the word, including the Boston Business 
Journal and the Boston Herald. It was a real team effort.
  While tapping into the SBA's guaranteed loan programs was helpful for 
some, and one part of the solution, the heating fuel price spike has 
turned out to be more than a one-year anomaly and so there is a need to 
go a step further--we need to make capital accessible to even more 
small businesses. We can do that through the SBA's Economic Injury 
Disaster Loans.
  Economic injury disaster loans give affected small business necessary 
working capital until normal operations resume, or until they can 
restructure or change the business to address the market changes. These 
are direct loans, made through the SBA, at

[[Page 1625]]

subsidized interest rates, of 4 percent or less, versus the current 
Federally guaranteed lending rate of Prime + 2\1/4\ percent, 10\3/4\ 
percent on Monday. Paying 4 percent versus almost 11 percent in 
interest makes a big difference to that small business owner. Further, 
SBA tailors the repayment of each economic injury disaster loan to each 
borrower's financial capability, enabling them to avoid the robbing 
Peter to pay Paul syndrome, as they juggle bills.
  Clearly, these loans are much more affordable for the already 
struggling small businesses, and, since time is of the essence, the 
infrastructure is already in place to quickly distribute the loans. SBA 
delivers disaster loans through four specialized Disaster Area Offices 
located in New York, Georgia, Texas and California. In addition, the 70 
SBA District Offices can help small businesses learn the program and 
direct the paperwork to the disaster offices. And there are the Small 
Business Development Centers in every state, with a network of more 
than 1,000 service locations, the Business Information Centers, and the 
Women's Business Centers to help small businesses seeking information 
about and applying for these loans.
  Building on the SBA's Disaster Loan Program so that small businesses 
adversely affected by the heating fuel prices are eligible to apply for 
economic injury loans complements our efforts last year. I encourage 
SBA's lending partners to continue to publicize and provide guaranteed 
loans to affected small businesses. It creates a comprehensive approach 
to helping small businesses across the nation get the assistance they 
need, and gives us one more way to assist in the success of our small 
businesses. And again, economic injury disaster loans are a reasonable 
approach to the problem.
  By providing assistance in the form of loans which are repaid to the 
Treasury, the SBA disaster loan program helps reduce the Federal 
emergency and disaster costs, compared to other forms of disaster 
assistance, such as grants.
  On practical terms, SBA considers economic injury to be when a small 
business is unable, or likely to be unable, to meet its obligations as 
they mature or to pay its ordinary and necessary operating expenses. To 
be eligible to apply for an economic injury loan, you must be a small 
business, you must have used all reasonably available funds, and you 
must be unable to obtain credit elsewhere.
  Under this program, the disaster must be declared by the President, 
the SBA Administrator, or a governor at the discretion of the 
Administrator. Small businesses will have six months to apply from 
November 1, 2000 or, for future disasters, from the day a disaster is 
declared.
  This legislation will help those who have nowhere else to turn. We've 
got the tools at the SBA to assist them, and I believe it's more than 
justified, if not obligatory, to use the economic injury disaster loan 
program to help these small businesses.
  The volatile price jumps of heating fuels are tied to international 
factors relating to larger energy issues--among them the supply and 
demand of crude oil--and therefore beyond the control of small business 
owners. While you have scholars and industry experts making 
prognostications about whether the price spikes were temporary or here 
for the long haul, I have grown weary of long-term prognostications. As 
Yogi Berra is alleged to have said, ``Predictions are always difficult, 
especially about the future.''
  I believe small business owners can be cautious and budget for the 
proverbial rainy day, but I think it is unreasonable to expect that 
they can anticipate, and afford to budget enough money to cover price 
jumps of 60 to 100 percent. And who can predict the weather, 
particularly cold snaps during historically mild winter conditions? 
These price spikes are largely unforeseeable, even though there will 
always be the people who say, ``I told you so.''
  Introducing this legislation is only a first step. We need to 
consider it in Committee, Congress to pass it, and the President to 
sign if before it is too late to help struggling small business owners. 
I thank Senator Bond for his cooperation on this legislation, 
particularly his willingness to expedite judicious consideration by the 
Small Business Committee.
  I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. SBA's programs make 
recovery affordable, and with the right support, can help mitigate the 
cost of significant economic disruption in your states caused when 
affected small businesses falter or fail, leading to job lay-offs and 
unstable tax bases.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and a letter to 
Aida Alvarez be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                 S. 295

       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 ``Small Business Energy 
     Emergency Relief Act of 2001''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       The Congress finds that--
       (1) a significant number of small businesses in the United 
     States use heating oil, natural gas, propane, or kerosene to 
     heat their facilities and for other purposes;
       (2) a significant number of small businesses in the United 
     States sell, distribute, market, or otherwise engage in 
     commerce directly related to heating oil, natural gas, 
     propane, and kerosene; and
       (3) sharp and significant increases in the price of heating 
     oil, natural gas, propane, or kerosene--  
       (A) disproportionately harm small businesses dependent on 
     those fuels or that use, sell, or distribute those fuels in 
     the ordinary course of their business, and can cause them 
     substantial economic injury;
       (B) can negatively affect the national economy and regional 
     economies;
       (C) have occurred in the winters of 1983-1984, 1988-1989, 
     1996-1997, and 1999-2000; and
       (D) can be caused by a host of factors, including global or 
     regional supply difficulties, weather conditions, 
     insufficient inventories, refinery capacity, transportation, 
     and competitive structures in the markets, causes that are 
     often unforeseeable to those who own and operate small 
     businesses.

     SEC. 3. SMALL BUSINESS ENERGY EMERGENCY DISASTER LOAN 
                   PROGRAM.

       Section 7(b) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 636(b)) 
     is amended by inserting after paragraph (3) the following:
       ``(4)(A) In this paragraph--
       ``(i) the term `heating fuel' means heating oil, natural 
     gas, propane, and kerosene; and
       ``(ii) the term `sharp and significant increase' shall have 
     the meaning given that term by the Administrator, in 
     consultation with the Secretary of Energy.
       ``(B) The Administration may make such disaster loans, 
     including revolving lines of credit, either directly or in 
     cooperation with banks or other lending institutions through 
     agreements to participate on an immediate or deferred basis, 
     to assist a small business concern that has suffered or that 
     is likely to suffer substantial economic injury as the result 
     of a sharp and significant increase in the price of heating 
     fuel.
       ``(C) A small business concern described in subparagraph 
     (B) shall be eligible to apply for assistance under this 
     paragraph beginning on the date on which the sharp and 
     significant increase in heating fuel cost occurs, as 
     determined by the Administration, and ending 6 months after 
     that date.
       ``(D) Any loan or guarantee extended pursuant to this 
     paragraph shall be made at the same interest rate as economic 
     injury loans under paragraph (2).
       ``(E) No loan may be made under this paragraph, either 
     directly or in cooperation with banks or other lending 
     institutions through agreements to participate on an 
     immediate or deferred basis, if the total amount outstanding 
     and committed to the borrower under this subsection would 
     exceed $1,500,000, unless such applicant constitutes a major 
     source of employment in its surrounding area, as determined 
     by the Administration, in which case the Administration, in 
     its discretion, may waive the $1,500,000 limitation.
       ``(F) For purposes of assistance under this paragraph--
       ``(i) a declaration of a disaster area shall be required, 
     and shall be made by the President or the Administrator; or
       ``(ii) if no declaration has been made pursuant to clause 
     (i), the Governor of a State in which a sharp and significant 
     increase in the price of heating fuel has occurred may 
     certify to the Administration that small business concerns 
     have suffered economic injury as a result of such increase 
     and are in need of financial assistance which is not 
     available on reasonable terms in that State, and upon receipt 
     of such certification, the Administration may make such loans 
     as would have been available under this paragraph if a 
     disaster declaration had been issued.''.

     SEC. 4. GUIDELINES.

       Not later than 30 days after the date of enactment of this 
     Act, the Administrator of the Small Business Administration 
     shall issue such guidelines as the Administrator determines 
     to be necessary to carry out this Act and the amendments made 
     by this Act.

[[Page 1626]]



     SEC. 5. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       The amendments made by this Act shall apply to economic 
     injury suffered or likely to be suffered as the result of 
     sharp and significant increases in the price of heating fuel 
     occurring on or after November 1, 2000.
                                  ____

                                                      U.S. Senate,


                                  Committee on Small Business,

                                 Washington, DC, January 31, 2000.
     Hon. Aida Alvarez,
     Administrator, Small Business Administration,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Administrator Alvarez: I am writing to urge immediate 
     action on a critical problem facing small businesses in the 
     Northeast that deliver home heating oil. As you may know, the 
     price of home heating oil has increased dramatically in 
     recent weeks--as much as 80 to 100 percent in certain areas--
     creating a tremendous burden on the financial resources of 
     several small companies. Many of these businesses do not have 
     the credit lines or cash flow to compensate for the price 
     increase and are in dire need of assistance.
       As a general matter, home heating oil distributors develop 
     seasonal business plans, including credit lines, based on 
     anticipated oil prices, customer demand, customer repayment 
     schedules and obligations to repay suppliers. However, the 
     surge in heating oil prices exceeds what most businesses 
     could have possibly anticipated, and it has placed a 
     tremendous strain on several companies' cash-flow. 
     Compounding this problem is the fact that the repayment 
     schedules to pay suppliers is often considerably shorter than 
     the repayment schedules for customers. This problem is 
     becoming acute and is threatening the financial viability of 
     many small businesses in the home heating oil market place. 
     The financial failure of these small businesses has the 
     potential to extend far beyond the businesses themselves if 
     the delivery of the fuel to commercial and residential 
     consumers is disrupted.
       SBA, with its network of district offices in every state, 
     is uniquely situated to respond quickly to this situation. On 
     behalf of the businesses and consumers affected by this 
     current price spike, I ask that you immediately start working 
     with SBA-participating lenders in affected states to expedite 
     short-term loans to credit-worthy home heating oil dealers.
       Thank you for your immediate attention to this problem. I 
     am ready to facilitate this assistance in any way I can.
           Sincerely,
                                                    John F. Kerry.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Ms. COLLINS:
  S. 296. A bill to authorize the conveyance of a segment of the Loring 
Petroleum Pipeline, Maine, and related easements; to the Committee on 
Armed Services.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Loring 
Pipeline Reunification Act, a bill to authorize the conveyance of a 
segment of the Loring Petroleum Pipeline from the U.S. Air Force to the 
Loring Development Authority, LDA, in Limestone, ME. The LDA will soon 
control more than two-thirds of this pipeline as the result of a 
process that was initiated nearly 3 years ago. By conveying the 
remaining segment to the LDA with this bill and placing the pipeline 
under the control of one entity, its value will be maximized as will 
its ability to foster the economic development of northern Maine.
  The pipeline at issue originally was built to supply the Loring Air 
Base with fuel products critical to its mission. Prior to the base's 
closure in 1994, Defense Fuels, now known as the Defense Energy Support 
Center, DESC, would deliver fuel products by tanker to Searsport, where 
the line originates, and then pump them through the line to the base. 
For a period following the base closure, the Maine Air National Guard 
continued to use the Searsport to Bangor segment to supply their 
activities in Bangor. After a study by Defense Fuels, however, the Air 
National Guard changed their means of transporting fuel from pipeline 
to truck. Consequently, in 1999, the U.S. Air Force made the largest 
segment of the pipeline, which runs from Bangor to Limestone, available 
to LDA for reuse. The Air National Guard supports the reunification of 
this pipeline under LDA's control as does the Maine State Department of 
Transportation.
  In consideration of the large geographical expanse of my State, the 
often treacherous winter driving conditions, and the fuel shortages 
that have vexed the Northeast over the past two winters, I believe that 
the reunification and return to use of this pipeline would serve the 
public good in northern Maine. It would provide a safer and more 
efficient means of transporting fuel and, thereby improve the climate 
for manufacturing and processing plants currently considering new 
operations in the economically challenged area surrounding Limestone.
  It is also worth noting, that from a cost-avoidance perspective, my 
bill will save the U.S. taxpayer more than $100,000 which would 
otherwise be required to support the administrative disposal of this 
currently unused pipeline. By passing this bill, the Senate and, 
ultimately, the Congress can help expand the options and opportunities 
for Aroostook County.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. McCONNELL (for himself and Mr. Dodd):
  S. 298. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow 
non-itemizers a deduction for a portion of their charitable 
contributions, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text 
of the bill be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 298

       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 ``Giving Incentives for 
     Taxpayers Act''.

     SEC. 2. DEDUCTION FOR PORTION OF CHARITABLE CONTRIBUTIONS TO 
                   BE ALLOWED TO INDIVIDUALS WHO DO NOT ITEMIZE 
                   DEDUCTIONS.

       (a) In General.--Section 170 of the Internal Revenue Code 
     of 1986 (relating to charitable, etc., contributions and 
     gifts) is amended by redesignating subsection (m) as 
     subsection (n) and by inserting after subsection (l) the 
     following new subsection:
       ``(m) Deduction for Individuals Not Itemizing Deductions.--
       ``(1) In general.--In the case of an individual who does 
     not itemize the individual's deductions for the taxable year, 
     the amount allowable under subsection (a) shall be taken into 
     account as a direct charitable deduction under section 63.
       ``(2) Limitation.--The portion of the amount allowable 
     under subsection (a) to which paragraph (1) applies for the 
     taxable year shall not exceed $500 ($1,000 in the case of a 
     joint return).''
       (b) Direct Charitable Deduction.--
       (1) In general.--Section 63(b) of the Internal Revenue Code 
     of 1986 (relating to individuals who do not itemize their 
     deductions) is amended by striking ``and'' at the end of 
     paragraph (1), by striking the period at the end of paragraph 
     (2) and inserting ``, and'', and by adding at the end the 
     following new paragraph:
       ``(3) the direct charitable deduction.''
       (2) Definition.--Section 63 of such Code (relating to 
     taxable income defined) is amended by redesignating 
     subsection (g) as subsection (h) and by inserting after 
     subsection (f) the following new subsection:
       ``(g) Direct Charitable Deduction.--For purposes of this 
     section, the term `direct charitable deduction' means that 
     portion of the amount allowable under section 170(a) which is 
     taken as a direct charitable deduction for the taxable year 
     under section 170(m).''
       (3) Conforming amendment.--Section 63(d) of such Code 
     (defining itemized deductions) is amended by striking ``and'' 
     at the end of paragraph (1), by striking the period at the 
     end of paragraph (2) and inserting ``, and'', and by adding 
     at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(3) the direct charitable deduction.''
       (c) Time When Contributions Deemed Made.--Section 170(f) of 
     the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to disallowance 
     of deduction in certain cases and special rules) is amended 
     by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(10) Time when contributions deemed paid.--For purposes 
     of this section, in the case of an individual, a taxpayer 
     shall be deemed to have paid a charitable contribution on the 
     last day of the preceding taxable year if the contribution is 
     paid on account of such taxable year and is paid not later 
     than the time prescribed by law for filing the return for 
     such taxable year (not including extensions thereof).''
       (d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 
     2000.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. THOMAS (for himself, Mr. Craig, Mr. Crapo, Mr. Murkowski, 
        and Mr. Enzi):
  S. 301. A bill to amend the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 
to require that Federal agencies consult with state agencies and county 
and local governments on environmental impact statements; to the 
Committee on Environment and Public Works.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the State and 
Local

[[Page 1627]]

Government Participation Act of 2001 which would amend the National 
Environmental Policy Act, NEPA. This bill is designed to guarantee that 
federal agencies identify state, county and local governments as 
cooperating agencies when fulfilling their environmental planning 
responsibilities under NEPA.
  NEPA was designed to ensure that the environmental impacts of a 
proposed federal action are considered and minimized by the federal 
agency taking that action. It was supposed to provide for adequate 
public participation in the decision making process on these federal 
activities and document an agency's final conclusions with respect to 
the proposed action.
  Although this sounds simple and quite reasonable, NEPA has become a 
real problem in Wyoming and many states throughout the nation. A 
statute that was supposed to provide for additional public input in the 
federal land management process has instead become an unworkable and 
cumbersome law. Instead of clarifying and expediting the public 
planning process on federal lands, NEPA now serves to delay action and 
shut-out local governments that depend on the proper use of these 
federal lands for their existence.
  The State and Local Government Participation Act is designed to 
provide for greater input from state and local governments in the NEPA 
process. This measure would simply guarantee that state, county and 
local agencies be identified as cooperating entities when preparing 
land management plans under NEPA. Although the law already provides for 
voluntary inclusion of state and local entities in the planning 
process, too often, the federal agencies choose to ignore local 
governments when preparing planning documents under NEPA. 
Unfortunately, many federal agencies have become so engrossed in 
examining every environmental aspect of a proposed action on federal 
land, they have forgotten to consult with the folks who actually live 
near and depend on these areas for their economic survival.
  States and local communities must be consulted and included when 
proposed actions are being taken on federal lands in their state. Too 
often, federal land managers are more concerned about the comments of 
environmental organizations located in Washington, D.C. or New York 
City than the people who actually live in the state where the proposed 
action will take place. This is wrong. The concerns, comments and input 
of state and local communities is vital for the proper management of 
federal lands in the West. The State and Local Government Participation 
Act of 2001 will begin to address this troubling problem and guarantee 
that local folks will be involved in proposed decisions that will 
affect their lives.

                          ____________________