[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 5]
[Senate]
[Pages 6061-6071]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



             THE NONRESIDENT INCOME TAX FREEDOM ACT OF 2001

  Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce 
a bill called ``The Nonresident Income Tax Freedom Act of 2001.''
  My legislation would prohibit a state from imposing income taxes on 
income earned within such state by nonresidents of such state.
  Simply put, my bill bans state income taxes levied on nonresident 
workers.
  I am sure that every American has studied the Boston Tea Party.
  In 1776, the 13 American colonies refused to pay unjust taxes and 
declared their independence from Britain.
  The resulting American revolution was a revolution of ideas and 
together the 13 colonies created a government which derived its just 
authority from the consent of the governed.
  In 1764, Britain imposed the Sugar Act on the American colonies, that 
tax was followed by the Stamp Act and the Townshend Revenue Act.
  The Stamp Act was essentially a paper tax of less than one cent, but 
this tax inspired the formation of the Sons of Liberty, who burned the 
stamps in protest of the tax.
  A tea tax was imposed on the American colonies of less than one cent, 
but this tax motivated Bostonians to protest the tax in the Boston Tea 
Party.
  The result of these British taxes were that Americans openly rebelled 
in order to fight those unjust taxes.
  I am not comparing the current situation to the American revolution, 
but I am proposing legislation consistent with the theme of the 
American Revolution--No taxation without representation.
  When a citizen from New Hampshire goes to work in Massachusetts or 
Maine or Vermont and pays their income tax, it is not reciprocated. We 
don't have an income tax. We don't tax them. They don't live in that 
State, and, therefore, I don't believe they should pay that tax.
  My bill will grant Federal protection for nonresident taxpayers and 
prohibit this taxation without representation.
  I hope my colleagues will look carefully at this regardless of the 
tax situation in their own States. The State of Oklahoma, or the State 
of New Hampshire, or any other State has a perfect right to tax its 
citizens in whatever way the citizens allow their elected 
representatives. But the question is, Should the citizens of Wyoming or 
some other State tell another State what taxes they should pay on their 
citizens?
  The problem exists today where workers from one State are being taxed 
by others, and these taxpayers have no vote. They have no say and no 
recourse into how their income tax money is spent. Approximately 90,000 
from New Hampshire go to Massachusetts and work. The taxes are 
collected from them for Massachusetts income taxes. They have no 
recourse. They have to pay those taxes.
  As a matter of fact, New Hampshire residents pay over $200 million in 
income taxes to Maine, Massachusetts, and Vermont, all of which have 
income taxes. New Hampshire doesn't. In 1999, Vermont imposed an income 
tax on 10,840 New Hampshire residents and raised $10.2 million in 
revenue off the backs of New Hampshire workers who had nothing to say 
about it, nor could they do anything about it.
  In 1998, Massachusetts levied an income tax on 89,336 New Hampshire 
residents and raised $184 million, again, off the residents of New 
Hampshire.
  And finally, in Maine, in 1998, 8,219 New Hampshire residents were 
taxed and $9.3 million was raised in revenue.
  This is taxation without representation. I am not trying to start 
another Revolutionary War here, but it is not fair. I believe that 
whether you have an income tax or not in your State, the issue is 
really should you be able to levy an income tax against another citizen 
who lives in another State.
  In New Hampshire, we have always had a keen interest in taxes, as a 
matter of fact, a keen interest in less taxes. One of the greatest 
Governors in the history of our State, Gov. Meldrim Thomson, passed 
away last Thursday at the age of 89. Mel Thomson was a hero to many of 
us in the antitax movement. His campaign theme, when he ran for 
Governor three times, was ``ax the tax.'' And that he did. He fought 
taxes and cut taxes time and time again in our State. He helped our 
State to assume that true ``live free or die'' tradition that is so 
popular and so well known.
  It is a strength that New Hampshire politicians have not allowed a 
State income tax to be levied on the hard-working residents of that 
State. People still do not understand it. They come to me and say: How 
can you do this without an income tax? How do you get

[[Page 6062]]

along? We do it through frugality and responsibility and taking care of 
the hard-earned dollars of our taxpayers.
  As recently as last week, my friends in the New Hampshire State House 
defeated a sales tax proposal. I congratulate them for it. The 
Republican-led legislature knocked down a 2.5-percent sales tax which 
would have helped Maine, Massachusetts, and Vermont to discourage their 
State citizens from coming across the border to shop because we would 
have begun to get our States equalized in their taxes.
  We have this great tradition in New Hampshire of less taxes, less 
spending, and fiscal responsibility. That is why I was pleased and 
proud just today--and I know the Presiding Officer's rating is high up 
in this rating; and I will check the rating--I was pleased today to be 
told the National Taxpayers Union ranked me No. 7 in the Senate for 
fiscal responsibility on cutting spending, cutting taxes, and cutting 
regulations. It is an award of which I am very proud. But it is not so 
much me; it is tradition in New Hampshire.
  If you advocate those sales taxes, if you advocate those income 
taxes, if you advocate more taxes, you won't be reelected. There are a 
lot of people who said, let's have a sales or income tax, and they have 
been defeated and have not been heard from since, and many of them had 
to leave town.
  I think it is rather unfortunate Governor Thomson passed away at the 
very time President Bush--a man who Governor Thompson admired, and 
President Bush admired Governor Thompson as well; it was reciprocal--
but at the very time President Bush is proposing a $1.6 trillion tax 
cut for the American people, the man who led the ``ax the tax'' fight 
in New Hampshire has passed away. So President Bush has picked up the 
torch from Governor Thomson, and New Hampshire is proud of that.
  I am proud of President Bush's budget proposal to provide the typical 
family of four paying income taxes $1,600 in tax relief.
  John Marshall said: ``The power to tax is the power to destroy.'' 
Taxes have to be used responsibly. As I said today, when I was asked 
about the National Taxpayers Union rating, it does not mean we do not 
spend money. We do spend money. We have a responsibility to spend money 
for our military, for those in need, or whatever. But we have to spend 
it responsibly. I think that is the key issue.
  The taxers in New Hampshire's neighboring States are very clever. 
They impose the income tax on New Hampshire residents without any fear 
whatsoever of any political retaliation. It is really cowardice. The 
officials there tax citizens from my State of New Hampshire who go into 
Massachusetts to work, and they cannot vote. They cannot vote. They do 
not have any say about it. What can they do about it? It is not fair. 
We ought to change it. I say that with respect to my colleagues no 
matter what the tax status of your own State is. Tax all you want in 
your State, but do not tax people from another State. And I think that 
is fair.
  Today's average taxpayer faces a combined Federal, State, and local 
burden of nearly 50 percent of their income. I think that is a little 
too much. It is time for a change. This is one small way to help New 
Hampshire citizens, as I know so many are trying to help all of our 
citizens with tax cuts at the national level.
  So I ask my colleagues to support George W. Bush's tax cut and my tax 
fairness initiative to give certainly New Hampshire citizens and all 
Americans a little boost for their pocketbooks, so they can spend some 
money the way they would like to spend it, to have it in their pockets. 
That $200 million in the pockets of taxpayers in New Hampshire can be 
used for a lot of things they would like to use it for, including 
college education, health care, putting money away for a rainy day, or 
whatever.
  I close by saying, my bill amends chapter 4 of title 4 of the U.S. 
Code to add a provision that says, ``a State or political subdivision 
thereof may not impose a tax on income earned within such State or 
political subdivision by non-residents of such State.'' In other words, 
if they are not your citizens, then you cannot tax them with an income 
tax. It explicitly allows a State, however--and this is a very 
important point--if two States want to enter into a voluntary compact 
or agreement to tax one another--if the two States agree--they can do 
that. There is an exception for that if the two States agree.
  This is consistent with the theme of ``no taxation without 
representation'' because residents who become angry at politicians who 
vote for income tax compacts can vote the offending politician out of 
office. That is why it is good.
  I look forward to pressing hard on this and getting the attention of 
my colleagues. It is my hope I can be a part of the President's push to 
restore reason and good sense to the Federal tax law.
  I ask my colleagues to support me on the Nonresident Income Tax 
Freedom Act of 2001 to help thousands of New Hampshire citizens who are 
treated unfairly by taxation without representation.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. CONRAD (for himself, Ms. Snow, Mr. Reid, Mr. DeWine, Mr. 
        Rockfeller, and Mr. Johnson):
  S. 762. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow a 
credit against income tax for information technology training expenses 
and for other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, during the final months of the 106th 
Congress, the Senate and House completed action on the American 
Competitiveness in the 21st Century Act which will respond to the 
shortage of skilled IT workers and help ensure our nation's continued 
growth and leadership in the information technology field. Congress 
increased the cap on the number of H1B visas available for foreign 
workers with high-tech skills to fill the job vacancies in information 
technology in the US.
  As important as action by Congress to permit companies to hire 
foreign-born skilled IT workers is, this legislation by itself will not 
address our long-term IT worker needs. Throughout the recent debate on 
the IT worker shortage, I have urged that we focus our efforts on IT 
training and partnerships between the business and education 
communities. Many excellent partnerships between the IT community, 
state and local government, high schools, and colleges and universities 
that provide individuals of all ages with education and training 
opportunities in information technology are already underway.
  Partnerships include ExplorNet, a non-profit organization working 
with local community and school officials to train educators and 
students to rebuild computers; e-learning opportunities for IT training 
through more than 100 community colleges nationwide, including Bismarck 
State College; Cisco Systems Training Academies in many school 
districts; AOL/Time Warner Foundation's ``Time to Read'' literacy 
program; Green Thumb and Microsoft working with seniors to improve 
their IT skills; Great Plains Software's, Fargo, ND, partnership with 
Valley City State University; and Texas Instruments sponsored training 
for educators to improve technology skills in the classroom. These are 
excellent examples of the IT and education communities working together 
to meet the growing demand for information technology skills.
  Although these partnerships are helping to train individuals to fill 
many IT job vacancies, these educational opportunities cannot keep pace 
with the demand for workers with advanced technical skills--a demand 
that continues for the long term despite our current economic slowdown 
and recent layoffs in the IT sector. Furthermore, continuing to rely on 
foreign workers who obtain H1B visas is not the answer to our shortage 
of skilled IT professionals.
  A report of 685 companies released by the Information Technology 
Association of America ITAA, on April 2, 2001, confirms this continuing 
demand for

[[Page 6063]]

skilled IT workers. The ITAA assessment of the current IT job market, 
although reporting a significant decline in the demand for IT workers 
because of the economic slowdown, confirms there are thousands of 
positions that employers are not able to fill because firms are unable 
to find workers with the necessary technical skills. The study 
estimates there are currently 425,000 vacancies in the IT field for 
skilled technical positions. Harris Miller, president, of ITAA, 
remarked, ``. . . hiring has by no means halted for IT workers, rather, 
demand still far exceeds supply in this market. Miller continues to 
encourage individuals to pursue advanced technical education programs. 
He remarked, ``this is actually the time to prepare yourself.''
  Mr. President, in response to this continuing long-term demand for 
skilled IT workers, I am introducing legislation, the Technology 
Education and Training Act of 2001, TETA, to provide a tax credit for 
businesses offering IT training and to enable individuals enrolled in 
certified IT training to take advantage of the Hope Scholarship and 
Lifetime Learning Credits. This legislation is similar to a bill that I 
introduced in the 106th Congress, and I am particularly pleased that 
Senator Snowe is joining me again in this bipartisan effort as the 
principal cosponsor. Also joining me as cosponsors are Senators Reid, 
DeWine, Rockefeller, and Johnson, colleagues who have taken leadership 
roles in focusing attention on the importance of information technology 
for our economy and encouraging IT education and partnerships.
  I am honored that this legislation is also endorsed by a broad 
coalition of IT, business and educational organizations, including 
Computing Technology Industry Association, CompTIA, the Technology 
Workforce Coalition, the American Society for Training and Development, 
the Information Technology Association of America, the Information 
Technology Training Association, the Career College Association, the 
National Association of Computer Consultant Businesses, Cisco Systems, 
Novell, Compaq Computer Corporation, Gateway and Microsoft.
  Under our legislation, businesses would receive a credit against 
taxes equal to 100 percent of the first $1,500 of information 
technology training expenses for non-degree IT skills certification on 
behalf of a current or prospective employee. The credit would increase 
to $2,000 if the training program is offered in an empowerment zone, an 
enterprise community, an area declared a disaster zone, a school 
district with 50 percent or more of students participating in the 
school lunch program, a tribal community, a rural enterprise community, 
involves a small business with 200 or fewer employees or involves an 
individual with a disability.
  Additionally, this legislation would amend current law regarding the 
Hope Scholarship and Lifetime Learning Credits to permit individuals 
enrolled in non-degree IT training programs and not attending a Title 
IV institution to be eligible to apply for the Hope Scholarship or 
Lifetime Learning Credit. Under current law, individuals are not 
eligible to take advantage of the Hope Scholarship or the Lifetime 
Learning Credits unless the programs are offered through a Title IV 
higher education or proprietary institution.
  In order to qualify for the Hope Scholarship or Lifetime Learning 
Credit, the IT training program must lead to certification in an IT 
skill similar to programs offered by Cisco, Microsoft, Novell, and 
CompTIA. Under the proposed changes in the Technology Education and 
Training Act, the certification offered by the commercial information 
technology training provider must be approved by the Secretary of 
Treasury in consultation with an Information Technology Training 
Certification Board.
  The shortage of skilled information technology workers will continue 
to be a major concern for all sectors of our economy despite the 
current economic slowdown and the recent layoffs in the IT sector. Our 
continued growth and leadership in formation technology will depend on 
a sufficient number of highly trained workers. Additionally, as 
economies around the world rebound and countries, particularly in Asia, 
develop their own high-tech corridors, it will be difficult to continue 
to recruit high-tech workers from these countries to meet the needs of 
our own economy.
  Rather than continue our dependency on the H1B program, I believe 
that encouraging partnerships between the IT and education communities 
and authorizing additional incentives for businesses and individuals to 
take advantage of IT skills training offers a more reasonable approach 
to meeting our long-term high-tech worker needs. The Technology 
Education and Training Act authorizes important initiatives to respond 
to this critical shortage. I welcome additional cosponsors of this 
legislation and urge my colleagues on the Senate Finance Committee to 
support the proposed changes in TETA during consideration of tax 
legislation in the 107th Congress.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of this legislation along with 
statements of endorsement for the Technology Education and Training Act 
from the Technology Workforce Coalition, the Information Technology 
Association of America, and the American Society for Training and 
Development be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                 S. 762

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Technology Education and 
     Training Act of 2001''.

     SEC. 2. CREDIT FOR INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY TRAINING PROGRAM 
                   EXPENSES.

       (a) In General.--Subpart B of part IV of subchapter A of 
     chapter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by 
     adding at the end the following:

     ``SEC. 30B. INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY TRAINING PROGRAM EXPENSES.

       ``(a) General Rule.--In the case of a taxpayer engaged in a 
     trade or business during the taxable year, there shall be 
     allowed as a credit against the tax imposed by this chapter 
     for such taxable year an amount equal to 100 percent of 
     information technology training program expenses of the 
     taxpayer and any employee of the taxpayer paid or incurred by 
     the taxpayer during such taxable year.
       ``(b) Limitation.--
       ``(1) In general.--The amount of information technology 
     training program expenses with respect to any individual 
     which may be taken into account under subsection (a) for the 
     taxable year shall not exceed $1,500.
       ``(2) Increase in credit amount for participation in 
     certain programs and for certain individuals.--The dollar 
     amount in paragraph (1) shall be increased (but not above 
     $2,000) by the amount of information technology training 
     program expenses paid or incurred by the taxpayer--
       ``(A) with respect to a program operated--
       ``(i) in an empowerment zone or enterprise community 
     designated under part I of subchapter U or a renewal 
     community designated under part I of subchapter X,
       ``(ii) in a school district in which at least 50 percent of 
     the students attending schools in such district are eligible 
     for free or reduced-cost lunches under the school lunch 
     program established under the National School Lunch Act,
       ``(iii) in an area designated as a disaster area by the 
     Secretary of Agriculture or by the President under the 
     Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act in the taxable 
     year or the 4 preceding taxable years,
       ``(iv) in a rural enterprise community designated under 
     section 766 of the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and 
     Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 
     1999,
       ``(v) in an area designated by the Secretary of Agriculture 
     as a Rural Economic Area Partnership Zone,
       ``(vi) in an area over which an Indian tribal government 
     (as defined in section 7701(a)(40)) has jurisdiction, or
       ``(vii) by an employer who has 200 or fewer employees for 
     each business day in each of 20 or more calendar weeks in the 
     current or preceding calendar year, or
       ``(B) in the case of an individual with a disability.
       ``(c) Information Technology Training Program Expenses.--
     For purposes of this section--
       ``(1) In general.--The term `information technology 
     training program expenses' means expenses paid or incurred by 
     reason of the participation of the taxpayer (or any employee 
     of the taxpayer) in any information technology training 
     program if such expenses lead to an industry-accepted 
     information technology certification for the participant. 
     Such term shall only include includes expenses paid for in 
     connection with course

[[Page 6064]]

     work and certification testing which is essential to 
     assessing skill acquisition.
       ``(2) Information technology training program.--The term 
     `information technology training program' means a program for 
     an industry-accepted information technology certification--
       ``(A) by any information technology trade association or 
     corporation, and
       ``(B) which--
       ``(i) is provided for the employees of such association or 
     corporation, or
       ``(ii) involves--

       ``(I) employers, and
       ``(II) State training programs, school districts, 
     university systems, higher education institutions (as defined 
     in section 101(b) of the Higher Education Act of 1965), or 
     certified commercial information technology training 
     providers.

       ``(3) Certified commercial information technology training 
     provider.--
       ``(A) In general.--The term `certified commercial 
     information technology training provider' means a private 
     sector organization providing an information technology 
     training program which leads to an approved information 
     technology industry certification for the participants.
       ``(B) Approved industry certification.--For purposes of 
     paragraph (1), an information technology industry 
     certification shall be considered approved if such 
     certification is approved by the Secretary, in consultation 
     with the Information Technology Training Certification 
     Advisory Board.
       ``(d) Denial of Double Benefit.--No deduction or credit 
     under any other provision of this chapter shall be allowed 
     with respect to information technology training program 
     expenses taken into account for the credit under this 
     section.
       ``(e) Certain rules made applicable.--For purposes of this 
     section, rules similar to the rules of section 45A(e)(2) and 
     subsections (c), (d), and (e) of section 52 shall apply.
       ``(f) Application With Other Credits.--The credit allowed 
     by subsection (a) for any taxable year shall not exceed the 
     excess (if any) of--
       ``(1) the regular tax for the taxable year reduced by the 
     sum of the credits allowable under the subpart A and the 
     previous sections of this subpart, over
       ``(2) the tentative minimum tax for the taxable year.''.
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections for subpart 
     B of part IV of subchapter A of chapter 1 of the Internal 
     Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:

``Sec. 30B. Information technology training program expenses.''.
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to amounts paid or incurred in taxable years 
     beginning after December 31, 2001.

     SEC. 3. INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY TRAINING CERTIFICATION 
                   ADVISORY BOARD.

       (a) Establishment.--There is established an Information 
     Technology Training Certification Advisory Board (in this 
     section referred to as the ``Board'').
       (b) Membership.--The Board shall be composed of not more 
     than 15 members appointed by the Secretary of the Treasury 
     from among individuals--
       (1) associated with information technology certification 
     and training associations and businesses; and
       (2) who are not officers or employees of the Federal 
     Government.
       (c) Meetings.--The Board shall meet not less often than 
     annually.
       (d) Chairperson.--
       (1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), the Board shall 
     elect a Chairperson from among its members.
       (2) Chairperson.--The chairperson shall be an individual 
     who is a member of an information technology industry trade 
     association.
       (e) Duties.--The Board shall develop a list of information 
     technology industry certifications, for approval by the 
     Secretary of the Treasury, that qualify the provider of the 
     certification as a certified commercial information 
     technology training provider under section 30B(c)(3) of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as added by section (2)(a).
       (f) Submission of List.--Not later than October 1, 2001, 
     and each year thereafter, the Board shall submit the list 
     required under subsection (e) to the Secretary of the 
     Treasury.
       (g) Board personnel matters.--
       (1) Compensation of members.--Each member of the Board 
     shall serve without compensation.
       (2) Travel expenses.--Each member of the Board shall be 
     allowed travel expenses, including per diem in lieu of 
     subsistence, at rates authorized for employees of agencies 
     under subchapter I of chapter 57 of title 5, United States 
     Code, while away from their homes or regular places of 
     business in the performance of services for the Board.
       (h) Termination of the Board.--Section 14(b) of the Federal 
     Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.) shall not apply to the 
     Board.

     SEC. 4. HOPE SCHOLARSHIP AND LIFETIME LEARNING CREDITS 
                   INCLUDE TECHNOLOGY TRAINING CENTERS.

       (a) In General.--Section 25A(f)(2) of the Internal Revenue 
     Code of 1986 (relating to eligible educational institution) 
     is amended to read as follows:
       ``(2) Eligible educational institution.--The term `eligible 
     educational institution' means--
       ``(A) an institution--
       ``(i) which is described in section 101(b) of the Higher 
     Education Act of 1965, and
       ``(ii) which is eligible to participate in a program under 
     title IV of such Act, or
       ``(B) a certified commercial information technology 
     training provider (as defined in section 30B(c)(3)).''.
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--The second sentence of section 
     221(e)(2) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by 
     striking ``section 25A(f)(2)'' and inserting ``section 
     25A(f)(2)(A)''.
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 
     2001.
                                  ____



                               Technology Workforce Coalition,

                                                    Arlington, VA.
     For Immediate Release

        Senate Introduces Tax Credit To Ease IT Worker Shortage

       Washington, April 24, 2001.--Help may soon be available for 
     companies suffering from a shortage of skilled IT workers. On 
     Tuesday, the United States Senate introduced the ``Technology 
     Education and Training Act (TETA) of 2001,'' which gives 
     individuals and employers tax credits of up to $2,000 for IT 
     training expenses. Sponsored by Senators Kent Conrad (D-ND), 
     Olympia Snowe (R-ME), Mike DeWine (R-OH), and Harry Reid (D-
     NV), TETA works to help individuals get needed IT training, 
     thus easing America's IT worker shortage.
       ``Headlines may scream out high-tech layoffs, but the plain 
     fact is that IT jobs are going empty because there are not 
     enough skilled people to fill them,'' noted Grant Mydland, 
     Director of the Technology Workforce Coalition. Mydland 
     applauded the bill's introduction and urged Congress' quick 
     consideration and passage of TETA.
       Essentially, TETA:
       Provides a tax credit of up to $1,500 for IT training 
     expenses paid by employers
       Amends the HOPE and Lifetime Learning tax credits so 
     individuals can better access IT training courses at all of 
     the available institutions and training centers
       Allows tax credits of up to $2,000 for small businesses, as 
     well as for people residing in and companies operating in 
     empowerment zones and other qualified areas
       ``Nearly half of all IT jobs that will be created in 2001 
     will remain vacant,'' Mydland added. ``IT drives our economy. 
     TETA gives individuals and companies the necessary 
     educational tools to meet America's rapidly evolving IT 
     needs. The Senate should be congratulated for its foresight 
     in addressing a significant challenge to U.S. prosperity and 
     growth.''
                                  ____


  Summary of the Technology Education and Training Act (TETA) of 2001

 Introduced by Senators Kent Conrad (D-ND), Olympia Snowe (R-ME), Mike 
 DeWine (R-OH), Harry Reid (D-NV), and Representatives Jerry Weller (R-
                        IL) and Jim Moran (D-VA)

       Provides a tax credit for 100% of the first $1,500 of 
     information technology training expenses paid for by an 
     employer.
       Amends the HOPE and Lifetime Learning tax credits to make 
     it easier for individuals to use these tax credits for 
     information technology training expenses.
       The training program must result in certification.
       The allowed credit would be $2,000 for small businesses and 
     all companies or individuals in enterprise zones, empowerment 
     zones, and other qualified areas.


                    why this tax credit is necessary

       According to a 1999 Comp TIA Workforce Study, as a result 
     of unfilled IT positions, the U.S. economy lost $105.5 
     billion in spending that would have gone to salaries and 
     training, this reduced household income by $37.2 billion.
       An estimated 268,740 (10%) of IT service and support 
     positions went unfilled in 1999, resulting in $4.5 billion 
     per year in lost worker productivity.
       ITAA study released April 2, 2001, predicts a shortage of 
     425,000 of the 900,000 new IT workers needed in 2001.


                      a public-private partnership

       Allows the private sector to determine who, what, where and 
     how to train workers.
       Helps individuals seek the training they need to enter or 
     re-enter the IT workforce.
       Fills the IT worker pipeline with thousands of new and 
     retrained skilled IT workers.
       Helps cities all across America fill thousands of available 
     IT jobs.
                                  ____



             The Information Technology Association of America

     For Immediate Release, April 24, 2001.

                ITAA Praises IT Training Tax Credit Bill

       Arlington, VA.--The Information Technology Association of 
     America (ITAA) today hailed the Technology Education and 
     Training Act of 2001 introduced by Senators Kent Conrad, 
     Olympia Snowe, Mike DeWine and Harry Reid as a vital step 
     toward a permanent fix of the current high-tech workers 
     shortage in the U.S.

[[Page 6065]]

       The bill would allow employers a $1500 credit against 
     income tax for expenses incurred by high technology job 
     training programs for employees, and a $2000 credit for small 
     businesses or all companies in enterprise zones or 
     empowerment zones. ITAA believes the bill would encourage 
     companies to go the extra mile in training U.S. workers for 
     high tech jobs.
       ``Tax credits for business to train and retrain workers 
     mean more high-paying, high-tech jobs for American workers,'' 
     said ITAA President Harris N. Miller. ``The current high 
     vacancy rate for IT jobs represents thousands of missed 
     opportunities for American workers, and the impact of failing 
     to address this shortage can be felt as we see more jobs 
     shipped overseas. This bill is sound public policy.''
       ITAA is the industry leader in combating the high-tech 
     worker shortage. In its latest study of the demand for IT 
     workers, When Can You Start?, ITAA found that the number of 
     needed IT positions in the U.S. had declined to 900,000 for 
     2001, with an expected vacancy rate of 425,000. While 
     substantially lower than in 2000, the study shows that demand 
     for approximately skilled high tech workers persists.
       The Information Technology Association of America (ITAA) 
     provides global public policy, business networking, and 
     national leadership to promote the continued rapid growth of 
     the IT industry. ITAA consists of over 500 direct corporate 
     members throughout the U.S., and a global network of 41 
     countries' IT associations. The Association plays the leading 
     role in issues of IT industry concern including information 
     security, taxes and finance policy, digital intellectual 
     property protection, telecommunications competition, 
     workforce and education, immigration, online privacy and 
     consumer protection, government IT procurement, human 
     resources and e-commerce policy. ITAA members range from the 
     smallest IT start-ups to industry leaders in the Internet, 
     software, IT services, ASP, digital content, systems 
     integration, telecommunications, and enterprise solution 
     fields.
                                  ____

                                          The American Society for


                                     Training and Development,

                                                   Alexandria, VA.
     For Immediate Release

 ASTD Endorses the Technology Education and Training Act (TETA) of 2001

       Alexandria, VA, April 24.--The American Society for 
     Training & Development (ASTD) today congratulated Senator 
     Kent Conrad (D-ND) and other leading members of the U.S. 
     Senate and House of Representatives for introducing the 
     Technology Education & Training Act (TETA) of 2001.
       The legislation would provide a tax credit for 100% of the 
     first $1,500 of IT training expenses paid for by an employer. 
     It also amends the HOPE and Lifetime Learning tax credits to 
     make it easier for individuals to use these tax credits for 
     IT training expenses.
       ``Given the shortage of skilled IT workers, the Technology 
     Education & Training Act of 2001 will go a long way toward 
     filling the gap and providing access to additional training 
     opportunities offered by higher education institutions and 
     training providers,'' said Tina Sung, President & CEO of 
     ASTD. ``Training is the key to preparing and maintaining a 
     strong workforce.''
       ASTA's data shows that organizations that make the 
     investment in training are more financially successful. In a 
     study of 575 U.S.-based publicly traded firms during 1996, 
     1997, and 1998, ASTD found that companies that invested $680 
     more in training per employee than the average company in the 
     study improved their Total Shareholder Return (TSR) the next 
     year by six percentage points.
       Founded in 1944, ASTD is the world's premiere professional 
     association in the field of workplace learning and 
     performance. ASTD's membership includes more than 70,000 
     professionals in organizations from every level of the field 
     of workplace learning and performance in more than 100 
     countries. Its leadership and members work in more than 
     15,000 multinational corporations, small and medium sized 
     businesses, government agencies, colleges, and universities.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mrs. FEINSTEIN (for herself, Mr. Smith of Oregon, Mr. 
        Bingaman, Mrs. Murray, Ms. Cantwell, and Mr. Lieberman):
  S. 764. A bill to direct the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to 
impose just and reasonable load-differentiated demand rates or cost-of-
service based rates on sales by public utilities of electric energy at 
wholesale in the western energy market, and for other purposes; to the 
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, by now we know that there will not be 
enough electricity supply to meet demand in California this summer and 
that there will be significant rolling blackouts.
  As the peak summer demand for power in the State kicks in over the 
next few months, the crisis is only going to deepen, and we may see 
electricity prices in California and the Northwest reach unprecedented 
levels.
  And without intervention by the Federal Government, the price gouging 
that has occurred over the past 6 months will almost certainly 
continue.
  In fact, it looks like California will spend 10 times more for power 
in 2001 than it spent in 1999, an increase from $7 billion to $70 
billion.
  And I predict that if left unchecked, these price spikes will spread 
to other states as well.
  But despite the severity and scope of this crisis, the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, FERC, has failed to take necessary steps to 
address the problem.
  Since last August, I have called upon FERC to impose a temporary 
wholesale price cap or cost of service-based rates on energy prices in 
the Western market.
  But FERC, an agency whose sole mission is to regulate the energy 
market, has refused to act. Today, we introduce this legislation to 
force FERC to do its job.
  Some have argued that a bill to control energy prices would remove 
incentives for companies to build additional energy generation, 
exacerbating the situation.
  While I agree that we desperately need new supply, I believe that a 
price cap would provide temporary price stability and reliability until 
the market returns to normal.
  And quite frankly, I think that with prices for power 10 times more 
than they were in 1999, there is more than enough incentive for 
suppliers to sell into the Western market.
  With cost of service based rates, energy suppliers would generate 
significant profits and be guaranteed a reasonable rate of return.
  With wholesale price caps, companies would be able to decide for 
themselves whether it is profitable to produce at a given price.
  In fact, the energy crisis we are now experiencing is marked much 
more by the withholding of energy supply from the market than an 
unwillingness to build additional generation.
  In fact, California expects to have 20,000 additional megawatts on 
line by 2004, enough power for 20 million additional people.
  But because it takes 2-3 years to site new power generation, not 
enough energy can be brought online in time to help the situation this 
summer.
  Price controls, if done right, could actually bring more power into 
the market.
  Indeed, the temporary cost-based rates and/or the regional price cap 
that Senator Smith and I are proposing will eliminate that incentive. 
Thus, generators would have no reason to withhold power to the market.
  With that said, let me talk briefly about what this bill would do: 
The bill requires FERC to set either a temporary price cap or cost of 
service based rates (with a reasonable rate of return). And make no 
mistake this bill is temporary; it is intended to get us through two 
summers. In order to qualify, a state must allow its utilities to 
recover costs from ratepayers and a state must pass electricity rates 
onto ratepayers. Though a state regulatory authority would still 
determine the manner in which wholesale rates are passed onto 
consumers. In addition, the bill directs FERC to end the temporary 
suspension of the natural gas transportation rate cap. Even today the 
price of natural gas in Southern California is about 3 times the cost 
in neighboring San Juan, New Mexico, $13 Decatherm vs. $4.50 Decatherm. 
The bill directs FERC to require that anyone selling natural gas in a 
bundled transaction into California to disclose the commodity and 
transportation components of the price. When a company purchases both 
the transportation and commodity components of natural gas, there is no 
reporting requirement as to the price of each transaction. The bill 
also requires that all future orders to sell natural gas or electricity 
to an affected state must include a reasonable assurance of payment.
  I am deeply disappointed that FERC will not do its job and protect 
consumers and businesses in the West.
  It is my hope that FERC will reconsider its opposition to price caps 
or

[[Page 6066]]

cost-based rates. Price caps or cost-based rates may be the only way to 
prevent the further transfer of wealth from the Western region to 
energy suppliers.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. BROWNBACK (for himself, Mr. Reid, Mr. Lugar, and Mr. 
        DeWine):
  S. 765. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide 
a carbon sequestration investment tax credit, and for other purposes; 
to the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text 
of the bill be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 765

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Carbon Sequestration 
     Investment Tax Credit Act''.

     SEC. 2. CARBON SEQUESTRATION INVESTMENT TAX CREDIT.

       (a) In General.--Subpart D of part IV of subchapter A of 
     chapter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to 
     business-related credits) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following new section:

     ``SEC. 45E. CARBON SEQUESTRATION INVESTMENT CREDIT.

       ``(a) Allowance of Credit.--
       ``(1) In general.--For purposes of section 38, in the case 
     of an eligible taxpayer's investment in a carbon 
     sequestration project approved by the implementing panel 
     under section 2 of the International Carbon Conservation Act, 
     the carbon sequestration investment credit determined under 
     this section for the taxable year is an amount equal to--
       ``(A) $2.50, multiplied by
       ``(B) the number of tons of carbon the implementing panel 
     determines was sequestrated in such project during the 
     calendar year ending with or within such taxable year, 
     multiplied by
       ``(C) the percentage of the total investment in such 
     project which is represented by the investment in such 
     project which is attributable, directly or indirectly, to the 
     eligible taxpayer, as determined by the implementing panel.
       ``(2) Aggregate dollar limitation.--The credit determined 
     under paragraph (1) for any taxable year, when added to any 
     credit allowed to the eligible taxpayer with respect to the 
     such project in any preceding taxable year, shall not exceed 
     50 percent of the investment attributable to the eligible 
     taxpayer with respect to such project through such taxable 
     year.
       ``(b) Annual Limitation on Aggregate Credit Allowable.--
       ``(1) In general.--The amount of the carbon sequestration 
     investment credit determined under subsection (a) for any 
     taxable year, when added to all such credits allowed to all 
     eligible taxpayers with respect to the such project for such 
     taxable year shall not exceed the credit dollar amount 
     allocated to such project under this subsection by the 
     implementing panel for the calendar year ending with or 
     within such taxable year.
       ``(2) Time for making allocation.--An allocation shall be 
     taken into account under paragraph (1) only if it is made not 
     later than the close of the calendar year in which the carbon 
     sequestration project proposal with respect to such project 
     is approved by the implementing panel under section 2 of the 
     International Carbon Conservation Act.
       ``(3) Aggregate credit dollar amount.--The aggregate credit 
     dollar amount which the implementing panel may allocate for 
     any calendar year is equal to $200,000,000.
       ``(e) Eligible Taxpayer; Implementing Panel.--For purposes 
     of this section--
       ``(1) Eligible taxpayer.--A taxpayer is eligible for the 
     credit under this section with respect to a carbon 
     sequestration project if such taxpayer has not elected the 
     application of sections 3 and 4 of the International Carbon 
     Conservation Act with respect to such project.
       ``(2) Implementing panel.--The term `implementing panel' 
     means the implementing panel established under section 2 of 
     such Act.
       ``(f) Recapture of Credit In Certain Cases.--
       ``(1) In general.--If, at any time during the 30-year 
     period of a carbon sequestration project, there is a 
     recapture event with respect to such project, then the tax 
     imposed by this chapter for the taxable year in which such 
     event occurs shall be increased by the credit recapture 
     amount.
       ``(2) Credit recapture amount.--For purposes of paragraph 
     (1)--
       ``(A) In general.--The credit recapture amount is an amount 
     equal to the recapture percentage of all carbon sequestration 
     investment credits previously allowable to an eligible 
     taxpayer with respect to any investment in such project that 
     is attributable to such taxpayer.
       ``(B) Recapture percentage.--The recapture percentage shall 
     be 100 percent if the recapture event occurs during the first 
     10 years of the project, 66\2/3\ percent if the recapture 
     event occurs during the second 10 years of the project, 33\1/
     3\ percent if the recapture event occurs during the third 10 
     years of the project, and 0 percent if the recapture event 
     occurs at any time after the 30th year of the project.
       ``(3) Recapture event.--For purposes of paragraph (1), 
     there is a recapture event with respect to a carbon 
     sequestration project if--
       ``(A) the eligible taxpayer violates a term or condition of 
     the approval of the project by the implementing panel at any 
     time,
       ``(B) the eligible taxpayer adopts a practice which the 
     implementing panel has specified in its approval of the 
     project as a practice which would tend to defeat the purposes 
     of the carbon sequestration program, or
       ``(C) the eligible taxpayer disposes of any ownership 
     interest arising out of its investment that the implementing 
     panel has determined is attributable to the project, unless 
     the implementing panel determines that such disposition will 
     not have any adverse effect on the carbon sequestration 
     project.
     If an event which otherwise would be a recapture event is 
     outside the control of the eligible taxpayer, as determined 
     by the implementing panel, such event shall not be treated as 
     a recapture event with respect to such taxpayer.
       ``(4) Special rules.--
       ``(A) Tax benefit rule.--The tax for the taxable year shall 
     be increased under paragraph (1) only with respect to credits 
     allowed by reason of this section which were used to reduce 
     tax liability. In the case of credits not so used to reduce 
     tax liability, the carryforwards and carrybacks under section 
     39 shall be appropriately adjusted.
       ``(B) No credits against tax.--Any increase in tax under 
     this subsection shall not be treated as a tax imposed by this 
     chapter for purposes of determining the amount of any credit 
     under this chapter or for purposes of section 55.
       ``(g) Disallowance of Double Benefit.--
       ``(1) Basis reduction.--The basis of any investment in a 
     carbon sequestration project shall be reduced by the amount 
     of any credit determined under this section with respect to 
     such investment.
       ``(2) Charitable deduction disallowed.--No deduction shall 
     be allowed to an eligible taxpayer under section 170 with 
     respect to any contribution which the implementing panel 
     certifies pursuant to section 2 of the International Carbon 
     Conservation Act to the Secretary constitutes an investment 
     in a carbon sequestration project that is attributable to 
     such taxpayer.
       ``(h) Certification to Secretary.--The implementing panel 
     shall certify to the Secretary before January 31 of each year 
     with respect to each eligible taxpayer which has made an 
     investment in a carbon sequestration project--
       ``(1) the amount of the carbon sequestration investment 
     credit allowable to such taxpayer for the preceding calendar 
     year,
       ``(2) whether a recapture event occurred with respect to 
     such taxpayer during the preceding calendar year, and
       ``(3) the credit recapture amount, if any, with respect to 
     such taxpayer for the preceding calendar year.
       ``(i) Regulations.--The Secretary shall prescribe such 
     regulations as may be appropriate to carry out this section, 
     including regulations--
       ``(1) which limit the credit for investments which are 
     directly or indirectly subsidized by other Federal benefits,
       ``(2) which prevent the abuse of the provisions of this 
     section through the use of related parties, and
       ``(3) which impose appropriate reporting requirements.''.
       (b) Credit Made Part of General Business Credit.--
       (1) In general.--Subsection (b) of section 38 of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by striking ``plus'' 
     at the end of paragraph (12), by striking the period at the 
     end of paragraph (13) and inserting ``, plus'', and by adding 
     at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(14) the carbon sequestration investment credit 
     determined under section 45E(a).''.
       (2) Limitation on carryback.--Subsection (d) of section 39 
     of such Code is amended by adding at the end the following 
     new paragraph:
       ``(10) No carryback of carbon sequestration investment 
     credit before january 1, 2002.--No portion of the unused 
     business credit for any taxable year which is attributable to 
     the credit under section 45E may be carried back to a taxable 
     year ending before January 1, 2002.''.
       (c) Deduction for Unused Credit.--Subsection (c) of section 
     196 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by 
     striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (7), by striking the 
     period at the end of paragraph (8) and inserting ``, and'', 
     and by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(9) the carbon sequestration investment credit determined 
     under section 45E(a).''.
       (d) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections for subpart 
     D of part IV of subchapter A of chapter 1 of the Internal 
     Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by adding at the end the 
     following new item:


[[Page 6067]]


``Sec. 45E. Carbon sequestration investment credit.''.
       (e) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to investments made after December 31, 2001.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. HUTCHINSON:
  S. 766. A bill to impose notification and reporting requirements in 
connection with grants of waivers of the limitation on certain 
procurements of the Department of Defense that is known as the Berry 
amendment, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Armed Services
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill 
I am introducing today be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 766

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

     SECTION 1. NOTIFICATION AND REPORTING REQUIREMENTS REGARDING 
                   WAIVER OF THE BERRY AMENDMENT LIMITATION.

       (a) Annual Report.--(1) After the end of each fiscal year, 
     the Secretary of Defense shall submit to Congress a report on 
     the waivers of the limitation on use of funds set forth in 
     section 9005 of Public Law 102-396 (popularly known as the 
     ``Berry amendment'') that were granted under any provision of 
     law during that fiscal year for procurements made by the 
     Defense Logistics Agency for the military departments.
       (2) The report for a fiscal year shall include the 
     following:
       (A) The number of waivers.
       (B) For each waiver--
       (i) the reasons for the waiver;
       (ii) the date of the notification of the military 
     department concerned under subsection (b); and
       (iii) a description of the items procured pursuant to the 
     waiver, together with the amount of the procurement.
       (C) The number of instances in which the Secretary of 
     Defense waived the notification requirement under subsection 
     (b).
       (b) Notification.--(1) Not later than 14 days before 
     granting a waiver of the limitation referred to in subsection 
     (a)(1) for a procurement to be made by the Defense Logistics 
     Agency for a military department, the Secretary of Defense 
     shall transmit to the Secretary of the military department a 
     notification of the determination to waive the limitation.
       (2) The Secretary of Defense may waive the applicability of 
     the notification requirement under paragraph (1) in any case 
     in which the Secretary determines that a delay of the 
     procurement to satisfy the requirement is not consistent with 
     a need to expedite the procurement in the national security 
     interests of the United States.
       (c) System for Data Collection.--The Secretary of Defense 
     shall establish a system for--
       (1) monitoring the granting of waivers of the limitation 
     referred to in subsection (a)(1); and
       (2) recording the waivers and the reasons for the waivers.
       (d) Definition.--In this section, the term ``waiver'', with 
     respect to the limitation referred to in subsection (a)(1), 
     means a determination authorized under section 9005 of Public 
     Law 102-396 that a particular procurement is covered by an 
     exception provided in that section.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. REED (for himself, Mr. Corzine, Mr. Kennedy, Mrs. Clinton, 
        Mr. Durbin, Mrs. Feinstein, Mr. Levin, Mr. Torricelli, Mr. 
        Kerry, Mr. Chafee, Mrs. Boxer, Mr. Schumer, Ms. Mikulski, Mr. 
        Wellstone, Mr. Graham, Mr. Inouye, Mr. Carper, Mr. Wyden, Mr. 
        Sarbanes, Mr. Akaka, and Mr. Hollings):
  S. 767. A bill to extend the Brady background checks to gun shows, 
and for other purposes; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Gun Show Background 
Check Act of 2001. Along with twenty of my colleagues, I am offering 
this legislation to renew the process of bringing some sense to our 
nation's gun laws by closing a loophole that has allowed criminals to 
buy firearms at gun shows for far too long.
  The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms reported to Congress last 
year that gun shows are a major gun trafficking channel responsible for 
more than 26,000 illegal firearms sales during an 18-month period. The 
FBI and ATF tell us again and again that convicted felons, domestic 
abusers, and other prohibited purchasers are taking advantage of the 
gun show loophole to acquire firearms.
  Two years ago, after Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold killed 13 people 
at Columbine High School with weapons purchased from a private seller 
at a gun show, the United States Senate passed the Lautenberg amendment 
to close the gun show loophole. The legislation I am introducing today 
is identical to that Senate-passed amendment.
  Under federal law, Federal Firearms Licensees are required to 
maintain careful records of their sales, and under the Brady Act, to 
check a purchaser's background with the National Instant Criminal 
Background Check System before transferring any firearm. However, a 
person does not need a federal firearms license, and the Brady Act does 
not apply, if the person is not ``engaged in the business'' of selling 
firearms pursuant to federal law. These nonlicensees make up one 
quarter or more of the sellers of firearms at thousands of gun shows in 
America each year. Consequently, felons and other prohibited persons 
who want to avoid Brady Act checks and records of their purchases buy 
firearms at gun shows.
  My legislation incorporates recommendations made by the Department of 
Justice and the Department of the Treasury in their 1999 report on gun 
shows. The legislation would take several steps to make gun show 
transactions safer for all Americans:
  Definition of gun shows: Gun shows are defined to include any event 
at which 50 or more firearms are offered or exhibited for sale. This 
definition includes not only those events where firearms are the main 
commodity sold, but also other events where a significant number of 
guns are sold, such as flea markets or swap meets.
  Gun show promoters: Gun show promoters would be required to register 
with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms, maintain a list of 
vendors at all gun shows, and ensure that all vendors acknowledge 
receipt of information about their legal obligations.
  Background checks for all transactions: The bill requires that all 
firearms sales at gun shows go through a Federal Firearms Licensee. If 
a nonlicensed person is selling a weapon, they would use an FFL at the 
gun show to complete the transaction. The FFL would be responsible for 
conducting a Brady check on the purchaser and maintaining records of 
the transactions.
  Improved firearm tracing: FFLs would be required to submit 
information necessary to trace all firearms transferred at gun shows to 
the ATF's National Tracing Center, including the manufacturer/importer, 
model, and serial number of the firearms. However, no personal 
information about either the seller or the purchaser would be given to 
the government. Instead, as under current law, FFLs would maintain this 
information in their files. The NTC would request this information from 
an FFL only in the event that a firearm subsequently becomes the 
subject of a law enforcement trace request.
  Some will say that this legislation is an attempt to end gun shows, 
but the experience of states that have closed the gun show loophole 
proves otherwise. California, for example, requires not only background 
checks at gun shows but a 10-day waiting period for all gun sales, yet 
gun shows continue to thrive there. No, we're not trying to end gun 
shows. What we are trying to end is the free pass we're giving to 
convicted felons when they can walk into a gun show, find a private 
dealer, buy whatever weapons they want and walk out without a Brady 
background check.
  In overwhelming numbers, the American people believe that background 
checks should be required for all gun show sales. The people of 
Colorado and Oregon confirmed this last fall when they approved ballot 
initiatives to close the gun show loophole. I urge my colleagues to 
support the Gun Show Background Check Act of 2001 so that we can 
finally close this loophole in every state and make sure that convicted 
felons, domestic abusers, and other prohibited persons do not use gun 
shows to purchase firearms without a Brady background check.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. WARNER:

[[Page 6068]]

  S. 768. A bill to amend section 8339(p) of title 5, United States 
Code, to clarify the method for computing certain annuities under the 
Civil Service Retirement System which are based (in whole or in part) 
on part-time service, and for other purposes, to the Committee on 
Governmental Affairs.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleague in the 
House of Representatives, Congressman Jim Moran, in introducing 
legislation to correct an error in the retirement benefits calculation 
for certain part-time federal employees.
  In 1986, Congress passed legislation to reform the retirement system 
for the federal workforce, establishing the Federal Employees 
Retirement System to replace the Civil Service Retirement System.
  Provisions in this legislation also revised the formula used to 
determine retirement benefits for employees with full time and part 
time service in the federal government. Congress did not intend this 
change to impact the existing workers who remained under the Civil 
Service Retirement System.
  Implementation of the provision, however, was misinterpreted by the 
Office of Personnel Management. Affected employees are losing hundreds, 
and in some cases thousands, of dollars every year of the retirement 
benefits they earned.
  Many employees only became aware as they were about to retire that 
they would not receive all of the benefits they were expecting. The 
impacted federal workers had full-time service before 1986, and changed 
to part-time service for the end of their civil service career. Often 
these employees cut back their hours to care for their families, or 
even delayed retirement and worked part-time to help an office during a 
transition period.
  The revised retirement formula calculates benefits for a federal 
part-time worker based on a full-time equivalent basis which is scaled 
accordingly. Benefits are based on a worker's high-three average salary 
during his or her career. This could occur during an employee's part-
time service.
  Civil service employees with pre-1986 full-time work and some part-
time work after 1986 do not receive the proper credit for their full-
time work, however, because full-time and part-time work are broken 
into two parts. The full-time equivalent pay for the high-three years 
should apply to an employees entire career. Instead, for the affected 
employees, their pre-1986 full-time benefits are based on actual 
salary. This two-step approach undervalues the worker's full-time 
service.
  The bill I am introducing today will correct this error by allowing 
an employee's full-time equivalent salary for their high-three years 
apply to their entire careers, including pre-1986 service.
  I encourage my colleagues to support this legislation and these 
federal employees for their dedicated service by ensuring they receive 
the retirement benefits they have earned.
  I ask consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 768

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

     SECTION 1. COMPUTATION OF CERTAIN ANNUITIES BASED ON PART-
                   TIME SERVICE.

       Section 8339(p) of title 5, United States Code, is amended 
     by adding at the end the following:
       ``(3) In the administration of paragraph (1)--
       ``(A) subparagraph (A) of such paragraph shall apply with 
     respect to any service performed on a part-time basis before, 
     on, or after April 7, 1986;
       ``(B) subparagraph (B) of such paragraph shall apply with 
     respect to all service performed on or after April 7, 1986 
     (whether on a part-time basis or otherwise); and
       ``(C) any service performed on a part-time basis before 
     April 7, 1986, shall be credited as service performed on a 
     full-time basis.''.

     SEC. 2. APPLICABILITY.

       (a) In General.--Except as provided in subsection (b), the 
     amendment made by this Act shall apply only with respect to 
     an annuity entitlement that is based on a separation 
     occurring on or after the date of enactment of this Act.
       (b) Recomputation of Certain Annuities.--
       (1) In general.--In the case of any individual who--
       (A) before April 7, 1986, performed any service creditable 
     under subchapter III of chapter 83 of title 5, United States 
     Code, and
       (B) was separated from the service on or after April 7, 
     1986, and before the date of enactment of this Act,

     any annuity under subchapter III of chapter 83 of title 5, 
     United States Code (or under chapter 84 of that title, to the 
     extent of any portion of such annuity which is computed under 
     subchapter III of such chapter 83) based on the service of 
     such individual shall be recomputed to take into account the 
     amendment made by this Act, if application therefor is made 
     within 18 months after the date of enactment of this Act.
       (2) Amounts to which applicable.--Any change in an annuity 
     resulting from a recomputation under paragraph (1) shall be 
     effective with respect to amounts accruing for months 
     beginning after the date on which application for such 
     recomputation is made.
       (c) Notice Requirement.--
       (1) In general.--The Office of Personnel Management shall 
     take such action as may be necessary and appropriate to 
     inform individuals entitled to have any annuity recomputed 
     under subsection (b) of their entitlement to such 
     recomputation.
       (2) Assistance.--The Office shall, on request, assist any 
     individual referred to in paragraph (1) in obtaining from any 
     department, agency, or other instrumentality of the United 
     States such information in the possession of such 
     instrumentality as may be necessary--
       (A) to verify the entitlement of such individual to have an 
     annuity recomputed under subsection (b); or
       (B) to carry out any such recomputation.
       (3) Information.--Any department, agency, or other 
     instrumentality of the United States which possesses any 
     information with respect to part-time service performed by an 
     individual shall, at the request of the Office, furnish such 
     information to the Office.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. BROWNBACK (for himself, Mr. Reid, Mr. Lugar, and Mr. 
        DeWine):
  S. 769. A bill to establish a carbon sequestration program and an 
implementing panel within the Department of Commerce to enhance 
international conservation, to promote the role of carbon sequestration 
as a means of slowing the buildup of greenhouse gases in the 
atmosphere, and to reward and encourage voluntary, pro-active 
environmental efforts on the issue of global climate change; to the 
Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text 
of the bill be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 769

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``International Carbon 
     Conservation Act''.

     SEC. 2. CARBON SEQUESTRATION PROGRAM.

       (a) Carbon Sequestration Program.--Within 180 days after 
     the date of the enactment of this Act, the implementing panel 
     shall establish a carbon sequestration program to permit 
     project sponsors to make carbon sequestration project 
     proposals to the implementing panel.
       (b) Implementing Panel.--There is established within the 
     National Institute of Standards and Technology of the 
     Department of Commerce an implementing panel consisting of--
       (1) the Director of the National Institute of Standards and 
     Technology,
       (2) the Secretary of Agriculture,
       (3) the Secretary of State,
       (4) the Secretary of Energy,
       (5) the Chief of the Forest Service, and
       (6) representatives of nongovernmental organizations who 
     have an expertise and experience in carbon sequestration 
     practices, appointed by the Secretary of Agriculture.
     The Chief of the Forest Service shall act as chairperson of 
     the implementing panel.

       (c) Carbon Sequestration Project.--For purposes of this 
     section--
       (1) In general.--The term ``carbon sequestration project'' 
     means a project--
       (A) which is located outside the United States,
       (B) the duration of which is not less than 30 years,
       (C) which is designed to increase the sequestration of 
     carbon, and
       (D) which is accepted by the implementing panel under the 
     carbon sequestration program.
       (2) Acceptance of project proposals.--
       (A) In general.--Under the carbon sequestration program, 
     the implementing panel shall accept a proposal for a carbon 
     sequestration project from a project sponsor only if--

[[Page 6069]]

       (i) the proposal includes a needs assessment described in 
     subparagraph (B),
       (ii) the proposal identifies the benefits of carbon 
     sequestration practices of the sponsored project under 
     criteria developed to evaluate such benefits under subsection 
     (d) and under guidelines instituted to quantify such benefits 
     under subsection (e) and includes an agreement by the sponsor 
     to carry out such practices as described in subparagraph (C), 
     and
       (iii) the proposal includes an agreement to provide 
     verification of compliance with an approved project as 
     described in subparagraph (D) under standards established 
     under subsection (f).
       (B) Needs assessment.--A needs assessment described in this 
     subparagraph is an assessment of the need for the carbon 
     sequestration project described in a proposal and the ability 
     of the project sponsor to carry out the carbon sequestration 
     practices related to such project. The assessment shall be 
     developed by the project sponsor, in cooperation with the 
     Agency for International Development, nongovernmental 
     organizations, and independent third-party verifiers.
       (C) Carbon sequestration practices.--Under a carbon 
     sequestration project proposal, the project sponsor shall 
     agree to contract with other entities, including 
     organizations based in the country in which the sponsored 
     carbon sequestration project is located, to carry out carbon 
     sequestration practices proposed by the project sponsor which 
     (as determined by the implementing panel)--
       (i) provide for additional carbon sequestration beyond that 
     which would be provided in the absence of such project, and
       (ii) contribute to a positive reduction of greenhouse gases 
     in the atmosphere through carbon sequestration over at least 
     a 30-year period.
       (D) Verification of compliance with approved carbon 
     sequestration project.--Under a carbon sequestration project 
     proposal, the project sponsor shall agree to provide the 
     implementing panel with verification through a third party 
     that such project is sequestering carbon in accordance with 
     the proposal approved by the implementing panel, including an 
     annual audit of the project, an actual verification of the 
     practices at the project site every 5 years, and such random 
     inspections as are necessary.
       (d) Criteria for Evaluating Benefits of Carbon 
     Sequestration Practices.--
       (1) In general.--Under the carbon sequestration program the 
     Chief of the Forest Service, in consultation with other 
     members of the implementing panel, shall develop criteria for 
     prioritizing, determining the acceptability of, and 
     evaluating, the benefits of the carbon sequestration 
     practices proposed in projects for the purpose of determining 
     the acceptability of project proposals.
       (2) Content.--The criteria shall ensure that carbon 
     sequestration investment credits under section 45E of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986 are not allocated to projects 
     the primary purpose of which is to grow timber for commercial 
     harvest or to projects which replace native ecological 
     systems with commercial timber plantations. Projects should 
     be prioritized according to--
       (A) native forest preservation, especially with respect to 
     land which would otherwise cease to be native forest land,
       (B) reforestation of former forest land where such land has 
     not been forested for at least 10 years,
       (C) biodiversity enhancement,
       (D) the prevention of greenhouse gas emissions through the 
     preservation of carbon storing plants and trees,
       (E) soil erosion management,
       (F) soil fertility restoration, and
       (G) the duration of the project, including any project 
     under which other entities are engaged to extend the duration 
     of the project beyond the minimum carbon sequestration 
     project term.
       (e) Guidelines for Quantifying Benefits.--
       (1) In general.--Under the carbon sequestration program, 
     the Chief of the Forest Service, in consultation with other 
     members of the implementing panel, shall institute guidelines 
     for the development of methodologies for quantifying the 
     amount of carbon sequestered by particular projects for the 
     purposes of determining the acceptability of project 
     proposals. These guidelines should set standards for project 
     sponsors with regard to--
       (A) methodologies for measuring the carbon sequestered,
       (B) measures to assure the duration of projects sponsored,
       (C) criteria that verifies that the carbon sequestered is 
     additional to the sequestration which would have occurred 
     without the sponsored project,
       (D) reasonable criteria to evaluate the extent to which the 
     project displaces activity that causes deforestation in 
     another location, and
       (E) the extent to which the project promotes sustainable 
     development in a project area, particularly with regard to 
     protecting the traditional land tenure of indigenous people.
       (2) Basis.--In developing the guidelines, the Chief of the 
     Forest Service shall--
       (A) consult with land grant universities and entities which 
     specialize in carbon storage verification and measurement, 
     and
       (B) use information reported to the Secretary of Energy 
     from projects carried out under the voluntary reporting 
     program of the Energy Information Administration under 
     section 1605 of the Energy Policy Act of 1992 (42 U.S.C. 
     13385).
       (f) Verification Standards.--Under the carbon sequestration 
     program, the Director of the National Institute of Standards 
     and Technology, in consultation with other members of the 
     implementing panel and the National Science Foundation, shall 
     establish verification standards for purposes of subsection 
     (c)(2)(D).
       (g) Program Reporting.--The Administrator of the Energy 
     Information Administration, in consultation with the 
     Secretary of Agriculture, shall develop forms to monitor 
     carbon sequestration improvements made as a result of the 
     program established under this section and the implementing 
     panel shall use such forms to report to the Administrator 
     on--
       (1) carbon sequestration improvements made as a result of 
     the program,
       (2) carbon sequestration practices of project sponsors 
     enrolled in the program, and
       (3) compliance with the terms of the implementing panel's 
     approval of projects.
       (h) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated such sums as are necessary to carry out 
     the program established under subsection (a).

     SEC. 3. EXPORT-IMPORT BANK FINANCING.

       An owner or operator of property that is located outside of 
     the United States and that is used in a carbon sequestration 
     project approved by the implementing panel under section 2 
     may enter into a contract for an extension of credit from the 
     Export-Import Bank of the United States of up to 75 percent 
     of the cost of carrying out the carbon sequestration 
     practices specified in the carbon sequestration project 
     proposal to the extent that the Export-Import Bank determines 
     that the cost sharing is appropriate, in the public interest, 
     and otherwise meets the requirements of the Export-Import 
     Bank Act of 1945.

     SEC. 4. EQUITY INVESTMENT INSURANCE.

       An owner or operator of property that is located outside of 
     the United States and that is used in a carbon sequestration 
     project approved by the implementing panel under section 2 
     may enter into a contract for investment insurance issued by 
     the Overseas Private Investment Corporation pursuant to 
     section 234 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 
     2194) if the Corporation determines that issuance of the 
     insurance is consistent with the provisions of such section 
     234.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. LEVIN (for himself and Mr. Jeffords):
  S. 770. A bill to amend part A of title IV of the Social security Act 
to allow up to 24 months of vocational educational training to be 
counted as a work activity under the temporary assistance to needy 
families program; to the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined by Senator 
Jeffords, Chairman of the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions 
Committee in introducing legislation that seeks to add an important 
measure of flexibility to a provision of the Temporary Assistance for 
Needy Families program, TANF, under the Personal Responsibility and 
Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996. The legislation we are 
introducing increases from 12 to 24 months the limit on the amount of 
vocational education training that a state can count towards meeting 
its work participation rate.
  Under the pre-1996 Aid to Families with Dependent Children program, 
recipients could participate in post-secondary vocational training or 
community college programs for up to 24 months. While I support the new 
law's emphasis on moving welfare recipients more quickly into jobs, I 
am troubled by the law's restriction on post-secondary education 
training, limiting it to 12 months. One year of vocational education is 
an approved work activity, the second year of post-secondary education 
study is not.
  The limitation on post-secondary education training raises a number 
of concerns, not the least of which is whether individuals may be 
forced into low-paying, short-term employment that will lead them back 
onto public assistance because they are unable to support themselves or 
their families. According to recent studies, this is exactly what has 
happened in far too many cases. According to a March 13, 2001 report of 
the Congressional Research Service, which is based on research 
published in the 2000 Edition of

[[Page 6070]]

the House Committee on Ways and Means Green Book, although the majority 
of recipients who have left the welfare rolls left because they became 
employed, most remained poor. The research also revealed that the 
average hourly wage for these former welfare recipients ranged from 
$5.50 to $8.80 per hour.
  Study after study indicates that short-term training programs raise 
the income of workers only marginally, while completion of at least a 
two-year associate degree has the potential of breaking the cycle of 
poverty for welfare recipients. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, 
the median earnings of adults with an associate degree are 30 percent 
higher than adults who have not achieved such a degree.
  A majority of the members of the Senate has previously cast their 
vote in favor of making 24 months of post-secondary education a 
permissible work activity under TANF The Levin-Jeffords amendment to 
the 1997 Reconciliation bill, permitting up to 24 months of post-
secondary education, received 55 votes--falling five votes short of the 
required procedural vote of 60. The amendment had the support of the 
National Governors Association, NGA, and NGA's support continues with 
the legislation Senator Jeffords and I are introducing today. I would 
also like to make note of Senator Wellstone's efforts on this issue. He 
subsequently proposed several modifications to TANF, including raising 
the 12 month limit to 24 months, in an amendment to the 1998 Higher 
Education reauthorization bill. The amendment passed the Senate but was 
deleted during conference negotiations.
  It is my hope that the Senate will again act favorably and 
expeditiously on this legislation and that the House will support this 
much-needed State flexibility. We must do what is necessary to achieve 
TANF's intended goal of getting families permanently off of welfare and 
onto self-sufficiency.
  In closing, I would like to present to my colleagues some examples of 
the earnings that can be made upon completion of two years of training 
in a structured vocational or community college program. The following 
are jobs that an individual could prepare for in a two-year community 
college program, including the average starting salary for each 
nationwide.


                   Average Starting Salary Nationwide

Dental Hygiene..................................................$31,750
Physical Therapy Assistant.......................................28,782
Computer Programing..............................................28,000
Occupational Therapy Assistant...................................27,624
Respiratory Therapy..............................................26,877
Computer Assisted Design.........................................26,890
Drafting and Design..............................................24,800
Electronic Technology............................................24,255
Culinary Arts....................................................22,500
Early Childhood Development Assistant............................18,000

  Again, I urge my colleagues to act with haste. The modification 
embodied in this legislation can give the states the flexibility they 
need to help improve the economic status of families across America.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. WARNER (for himself and Mr. Allen):
  S.J. Res. 13. A joint resolution conferring honorary citizenship of 
the United States on Paul Yves Roch Gilbert du Motier, also known as 
the Marquis de Lafayette; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill that will 
make General Lafayette an honorary United States Citizen. This honor 
has been bestowed on four other individuals including Winston Churchill 
and Mother Teresa.
  Marie Joseph Paul Yves Roch Gilbert du Motier, Marquis de La Fayette 
(1757-1834) was born in France and was a wealthy French youth blessed 
with every advantage offered by Europe's aristocracy. Although he was 
wealthy and among France's aristocracy, he risked his wealth and status 
to aid the Americans in their revolution against Great Britain.
  At the age of 19, determined to dedicate himself to the cause of our 
liberty, he bought a ship and sailed to the American colonies to 
volunteer his services. In early summer of 1777, soon after his 
arrival, Congress voted him the rank and commission of Major General. 
Just two months later, Lafayette was wounded at the battle of 
Brandywine, forever endearing himself to the American soldiers.
  Throughout the American Revolution, Lafayette acted as a liaison 
between France and the American colonies. He urged influential policy 
makers to have France make the decisive military, naval and financial 
commitment to the colonists. His tireless efforts, both as a liaison 
and a general, aided America in her time of need.
  As a general, his military tactics lured British General Cornwallis 
and his army to Yorktown, Virginia. The American Army, led by General 
Washington, along with French forces led by Rochambeau, came south and 
trapped Cornwallis and his troops at Yorktown. As a result, the British 
were forced to surrender.
  Lafayette's services to America extended beyond the battlefront. He 
worked diligently as an advisor, helping win concessions from Britain 
during the Treaty negotiations. At Versailles, when negotiating with 
the French government, our representatives Franklin and Jefferson found 
him invaluable. Moreover, his impartial friendship was extended to the 
first eight U.S. presidents.
  Despite his commitment to our Country, America did not recognize his 
United States' citizenship in his time of need. While crossing the 
French border into the Netherlands to escape arrest from the 
Revolutionary French Government, the Austrians captured and arrested 
General Lafayette. Despite his claim that he was an American citizen 
being illegally detained, the Austrians disagreed. General Lafayette 
appealed to American ministers for help, but his calls for intervention 
were not answered. Lafayette clearly felt that he was an America 
citizen, and technically he may have been under the blanket 
naturalization granted all citizens of each state when the Constitution 
was ratified. The U.S. government, however, failed to acknowledge his 
claim, and he spent the next five years in prison.
  Although General Lafayette was made an honorary citizen by Virginia 
and Maryland before the United States Constitution was ratified, the 
United States failed to recognize his citizenship while he was 
imprisoned. I feel that we must set the record straight and honor 
General Lafayette for his commitment to the United States by making him 
an honorary United States citizen. I ask unanimous consent that the 
text of the bill be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the joint resolution was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                             S. J. Res. 13

       Whereas the United States has conferred honorary 
     citizenship on four other occasions in more than 200 years of 
     its independence, and honorary citizenship is and should 
     remain an extraordinary honor not lightly conferred nor 
     frequently granted;
       Whereas Paul Yves Roch Gilbert du Motier, also known as the 
     Marquis de Lafayette or General Lafayette, voluntarily put 
     forth his own money and risked his life for the freedom of 
     Americans;
       Whereas the Marquis de Lafayette, by an Act of Congress, 
     was voted to the rank of Major General;
       Whereas, during the Revolutionary War, General Lafayette 
     was wounded at the Battle of Brandywine, demonstrating 
     bravery that forever endeared him to the American soldiers;
       Whereas the Marquis de Lafayette secured the help of France 
     to aid the United States' colonists against Great Britain;
       Whereas the Marquis de Lafayette was conferred the honor of 
     honorary citizenship by the Commonwealth of Virginia and the 
     State of Maryland;
       Whereas the Marquis de Lafayette was the first foreign 
     dignitary to address Congress, which honor was accorded him 
     upon his return to the United States in 1824;
       Whereas, upon his death, both the House of Representatives 
     and the Senate draped their chambers in black as a 
     demonstration of respect and gratitude for his contribution 
     to the independence of the United States;
       Whereas an American flag has flown over his grave in France 
     since his death and has not been removed, even while France 
     occupied by Nazi Germany during World War II; and
       Whereas the Marquis de Lafayette gave aid to the United 
     States in time need and is forever a symbol of freedom: Now, 
     therefore, be it
       Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
     United States of America in

[[Page 6071]]

     Congress assembled, That Paul Yves Roch Gilbert du Motier, 
     also known as the Marquis de Lafayette, is proclaimed to be 
     an honorary citizen of the United States of America.

                          ____________________