[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 157 (2011), Part 10]
[Senate]
[Pages 13757-13759]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Ms. STABENOW (for herself, Mr. Thune, Mr. Brown of Ohio, Mr. 
        Bennet, Mr. Wyden, Mr. Coons, Mr. Blunt, Mr. Cochran, and Mr. 
        Inhofe):
  S. 1561. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide 
for the deductibility of charitable contributions to agricultural 
research organizations, and for other purposes; to the Committee on 
Finance.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, Agriculture is one of the key forces 
driving Oklahoma's economy. In 2008 alone, Oklahoma's agriculture 
industry directly supported 188,000 jobs and contributed more than $8.5 
billion to the States's economy. The importance of agriculture to the 
Nation's economy is also difficult to understate, and the industry's 
products rank among the top exports each year. This year, USDA 
estimates that U.S. farmers and livestock producers will export nearly 
$140 billion in goods to nearly every country on Earth.
  Knowing that strength, it is not surprising that the industry is a 
hotbed of innovation. The agriculture community has long been involved 
in the research and development of better crops and farming methods. 
This work has produced crops that are resistant to drought and certain 
farming chemicals, are packed with more and better nutrients, and 
ultimately provide higher yields for every acre farmed. This research 
will only grow in importance as the global population continues to grow 
and demand more food. Fortunately, the United States is leading the 
world in this effort.
  Oklahoma is also a key agriculture R&D player in the United States. 
This is in large part due to the work of the Samuel R. Noble 
Foundation. Headquartered in Ardmore, OK, the Noble Foundation is one 
of the top 50 private foundations in the United States, and the 
foundation employs hundreds of scientists, agriculture consultants, and 
research personnel who are actively researching better agriculture 
products and practices. Between 2009 and 2010, the foundation spent 
nearly $80 million on agriculture research activities, and this work 
has recently resulted in development of Texoma MaxQ II, a cool-weather 
fescue grass that will reduce the reliance of livestock producers upon 
costly hay and feed for their livestock during the winter months. I 
congratulate the Noble Foundation on this breakthrough and look forward 
to hearing about the future benefits of this research.
  The Food and Agriculture Organization has estimated that food 
productivity will need to expand by 70 percent over the next 40 years 
to meet rising global demand. This underscores the need for continued 
funding for agriculture research and development so that more 
breakthroughs like those at the Noble Foundation occur. Today, a 
substantial amount of agriculture research funding is provided by the 
Federal Government; however, the government's share is declining. Since 
fiscal year 2010, Federal funding for agriculture research has 
decreased by nearly $200 million, and further cuts are likely as we try 
to tackle the national debt. Because government is scaling down its 
role, Congress should do what it can to encourage the private sector to 
fill the gap.
  One way that we can do this is with the Charitable Agriculture 
Research Act, of which I am a cosponsor. This bill, introduced today by 
Senators Stabenow and Thune, will allow the creation of Agricultural 
Research Organization, ARO, which would extend public charity tax 
status to entities conducting continuous agriculture R&D in 
collaboration with land-grant universities and agriculture colleges.
  Currently, several organizations conducting research focused on 
agriculture are structured as private foundations. This is one of the 
two main types of charities that are provided with beneficial tax 
treatment under U.S. law. Public charities--the other type--are given 
full tax exempt status, but because private foundations are often very 
large and supported by a small group of donors, they are not completely 
tax free and must pay taxes on the investment income earned by their 
endowments. Donors are also prevented from collecting their full 
deduction on gifts relative to those made to public charities. Because 
of these restrictions, the United States is not reaching its full 
potential when it comes to attracting private dollars for agriculture 
research.
  The Charitable Agriculture Research Act seeks to encourage 
individuals and families of wealth to contribute more of their assets 
to public agricultural research by working in conjunction with the 
Nation's land-grant universities and non land-grant colleges of 
agriculture. This legislation will provide donors with an additional 
option of where to direct their agriculture research and development 
donations.
  This beneficial tax treatment does not come without restrictions. To 
maintain its tax exempt status, an ARO must conduct research and 
development on agriculture issues in conjunction with a land-grant 
university or an agriculture college. An ARO must either commit more 
than 50 percent of its assets to the continuous active conduct of 
agriculture research or it must expend at least 3.5 percent of its 
endowment for the same in each calendar year. These restrictions are 
put in place to ensure that the ARO structure is not being abused as a 
tax shelter for the accumulated personal wealth of an ARO's 
benefactors.
  Over the past decade many families with a passion for agricultural 
research have expressed their desire to do for their geographies and 
their crops of interest what the Noble Foundation has done for 
Oklahoma, forages, and beef cattle operations. However, the tax code is 
not conducive to such efforts and discourages them from maximizing 
their contributions to agricultural research.
  The ARO tax structure is modeled after the extremely successful 
Medical Research Organization model. Similar to AROs, these charities 
must do their medical research in conjunction with a non-profit or 
government hospital. The Howard Hughes Medical Institute and the 
Stowers Institute for Medical Research are prime examples of MROs. The 
MRO structure has made these organizations more effective and 
productive, and I expect no less from the ARO tax structure.
  This bill will directly benefit Oklahoma by building on its legacy as 
a leader in agriculture R&D. As better agricultural methods and crop 
yields are produced in Oklahoma, the State will continue to serve as a 
global leader in agriculture. Oklahoma is home to

[[Page 13758]]

86,000 farms that occupy 80 percent of the State's land area. The State 
has the land, the natural resources, and the facilities necessary to 
enhance agricultural research. The creation of AROs will help attract 
the necessary private capital to build on this success and boost 
research at our Nation's land-grant universities and non land-grant 
colleges of agriculture.
  AROs will not be provided with a new tax incentive or a benefit 
greater than existing charitable organizations. They will, however, 
offer individuals an additional choice of where to send their 
charitable dollars. When individuals donate to AROs they will have 
certainty that their money will contribute directly to agriculture 
research rather than to other causes, which are guarantees not provided 
by most other charitable organizations. As we face deeper budget cuts 
on everything from education to agriculture research, we need to take 
the steps to encourage the private sector to step into the void left by 
Washington. AROs will help do this in the agriculture R&D community, so 
I urge its swift passage.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Ms. SNOWE (for herself and Mr. Brown of Massachusetts):
  S. 1563. A bill to require the President's budget to include, at a 
minimum, a request for disaster funding based on the 10 year average; 
to the Committee on the Budget.
  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the Safeguarding 
Disaster Funding Act of 2011, which I am introducing along with Senator 
Brown from Massachusetts. This legislation would amend the 
Congressional Budget Act and the Budget Control Act to require the 
President to provide a more comprehensive view of disaster funding in 
his annual budget request.
  Our bill would ensure that the true cost of disaster assistance is 
reflected in the President's budget, by requiring that Presidents' 
annual budget requests for disaster programs include funding levels 
equal to the average amount provided annually over the previous ten 
years, excluding the highest and lowest years, to account for years 
with unusually high or low disaster activity.
  As disaster funding is already considered ``no-year'' money, unused 
monies would carry over to support years where additional funds are 
required. The status quo of Congress providing emergency appropriations 
to support these efforts, rather than including reasonable estimates, 
based on past disaster activity trends, is fiscally irresponsible. We 
should be working with the Administration to fund the necessary and 
appropriate activities of the Federal government, including disaster 
assistance. Responsible budgeting for disasters is the right thing to 
do for the victims of devastation, as the vivid images of the damage 
from Hurricane Irene have reminded us.
  Hurricane Irene caused more than 4.5 million homes and businesses 
along the East Coast to lose power, including nearly 185,000 in my home 
State of Maine, which suffered flooding and washed out bridges in the 
Western portion of the state. But now that the winds and rain have 
subsided, our cities and towns must rebuild from the devastation.
  With the Federal Emergency Management Agency's funding currently 
running unnecessarily low, they now must work on an ``immediate needs 
funding'' basis, meaning that non-emergency recovery projects are put 
on hold. Support of natural disaster recovery should not be stalled by 
the need for Emergency Supplemental Appropriations. While we cannot 
completely predict the number or nature of natural disasters, we do 
know that these events occur and cause massive damage. Policymakers 
cannot continue to play with the livelihoods of recovering Americans; 
assurances must be made that their recovery is facilitated through 
current Federal disaster recovery programs.
  The Safeguarding Disaster Funding Act of 2011 will ensure that the 
President properly accounts for disaster spending. By basing the 
President's budget request for disaster funding on a ten-year average, 
and excluding the highs and the lows, we are assuring that funds are 
neither overextended nor falsely underestimated. In these hard economic 
times, Congress must promote fiscal responsibility while ensuring that 
those areas struck by disasters are able to access the funds needed to 
quickly rebuild.
  I hope that my fellow colleagues will support this bill. In the wake 
of recent disasters it is readily apparent that we must plan better for 
these events.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. CASEY:
  S. 1565. A bill to establish the National Competition for Community 
Renewal to encourage communities to adopt innovative strategies and 
design principles to programs related to poverty prevention, recovery 
and response, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, today over 15 percent of Americans live in 
poverty including 22 percent of our children. 46.2 million Americans 
and 16.4 million children struggle every day to survive in a system 
that is demoralizing and unfortunately does more to maintain people who 
live in poverty than to help them escape. Last year, 2.6 million 
Americans were added to the poverty rolls and 8.9 million have been 
added since 2007.
  This must change. That is why I am today reintroducing the National 
Opportunity and Community Renewal Act. This legislation puts forth some 
new ideas and will grant waivers to ten communities so they can test 
different approaches to combatting poverty. I am not saying this is the 
only path forward or the most suitable path forward. But we must begin 
somewhere and we must take a comprehensive approach. As Robert Kennedy 
once said when talking about tackling the poverty problem in our 
country, we must ``grab the web whole.'' Piecemeal approaches won't 
work.
  I know there are other Senators and Congressmen along with policy 
professionals and academics who share my concern and commitment to 
reducing poverty. I invite people to review this proposal. Let me know 
what you think and if you have other ideas to bring them to the table. 
It is long past time to reinstill our national commitment to the least 
fortunate.
  We must also acknowledge that there is not one answer to helping 
people out of poverty. That is why this legislation is important. It 
will allow communities to pursue innovative approaches to problems 
arising from poverty and avoids a ``one size fits all'' method. This 
legislation also targets individuals and mandates the creation of an 
individual opportunity plan for every household. It also helps address 
the root causes of poverty by giving local communities to design 
programs that fit their community and they would not be restricted by 
the current law. These pilots will help us test new ideas and 
understand how new approaches can help lift people out of poverty.
  In closing, I should note it has been almost fifty years since 
Michael Harrington published The Other America and opened Americans 
eyes to the pernicious impact of poverty. While there have been 
improvements made in the ensuing years we still have a long way to go. 
Let us begin anew today.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. McCAIN:
  S. 1570. A bill to provide for high-quality academic tutoring for 
low-income students, and for other purposes; to the Committee on 
Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, when poor children in low performing 
schools need help, what options are available to their parents to give 
them a chance to improve their learning achievement? Sadly, very few 
options exist to give children in low performing schools a chance.
  I am pleased to introduce legislation that will protect and enhance 
the right of parents to have final say in their children's education. 
In order to create better outcomes for our nation's youth, we must 
restore power to parents. We must ensure that parents have real choices 
to raise their child's achievement level when schools fail to do so. 
The Tutoring for Students Act, furthers this critical goal by 
establishing a state-level grant program to give low-income parents the 
ability to provide their children high quality academic tutoring.

[[Page 13759]]

  Low-income parents should have the same opportunities to help their 
children achieve as families with greater economic means.
  Tutoring is as much a part of education in America as the yellow 
school bus or the neighborhood school building. If your child is 
struggling academically, and you have the financial means to do so, you 
get your child a tutor. Tutoring is time proven and common sense. 
Equally, while there are many ideas about how to improve education in 
America, one thing upon which everyone agrees plays a critical role in 
any child's education: the active involvement of their parents.
  The Tutoring for Students Act encourages the active engagement of 
parents by giving them a say in helping their child's education. 
Parents can drive schools to apply for tutoring grants. Parents choose 
to enroll their children. Parents pick which tutoring provider they 
send their child to. Parents receive progress updates on their child.
  For too long in this country the debate about education has been more 
about the institutions--the institution of powerful unions, the 
institution of the school bureaucracies. Make no mistake about it, 
strong leadership in the classroom and in school administration is 
important. However, education is not about protecting and preserving 
union contracts and the jobs of bureaucrats. Education is about our 
children. If they aren't getting what they need in the classroom, we 
need to work with schools to help them improve. At the same time, we 
must provide students in struggling schools with the help they need to 
ensure they receive a quality education.
  The foundation for success in education is setting high expectations 
for our schools and holding them accountable to develop our most 
precious resource--our children. Every child, no matter what their 
economics, deserves not only a chance, but has an absolute right, to a 
good education. If students can't get what they deserve in the 
classroom, then we must empower parents with educational support tools 
and the ability to make meaningful choices about what is best for their 
children.
  When Congress passed No Child Left Behind, embedded in that landmark 
legislation were certain programs specifically designed to recognize 
the importance of parental empowerment and parental participation. 
Supplemental Education Services is a program specifically designed to 
give low-income families the ability to access educational support 
opportunities just like families with more financial freedom, to shop 
for the best tutoring services for their child.
  Thoughtful education reform means building upon successes and lessons 
learned. We have learned a great deal since passage of No Child Left 
Behind. That includes our experience in providing tutoring services to 
low-income children. One of the most important lessons we learned is 
that tutoring works. In March, the U.S. Department of Education 
released a study stating that the tutoring program led to significant 
gains in math and reading student achievement. Studies by respected 
organizations like the Rand Corporation and school districts like the 
Chicago Public schools have come to similar conclusions.
  Another important lesson from NCLB is the cynical lengths to which 
some low performing schools districts are willing to go in order to 
avoid accountability and deny parents the opportunity to access 
tutoring services for their children. Far too often these districts 
gamed the enrollment process for tutoring services, making it 
difficult, if not impossible for parents to exercise their right to 
take advantage of the SES program and get their children the 
educational support services--tutoring--they desperately needed. 
Similarly, due to poor oversight, there have been cases where tutors 
failed to meet their responsibility to provide high quality tutoring.
  These problems are addressed in this legislation by establishing a 
state-administered grant program. Any school can elect to participate, 
allowing low-income parents with children attending participating 
schools to take advantage of high quality tutoring services. The 
Tutoring for Students Act requires strict oversight of tutoring service 
providers, from certification to evaluation, in order to ensure that 
parents can rely upon qualified tutoring service providers to help 
their children.
  I do not favor more Federal control over education. That is why the 
Tutoring for Students Act is not a Federal mandate. Rather, it is a 
guarantee that parents will have the right to stand up for their 
children and give them the opportunity for a better education and a 
better life. Empowering parents with the ability to positively impact 
their child's education is not a mandate. It is common sense. Freedom 
is not a Federal mandate. It is an individual right. The best use of 
Federal dollars in education is to make them more accessible to 
parents, empowering them to look out for the needs of their children. 
High quality tutoring is a commonsense, academic lifeline.
  In my home State of Arizona, organizations like the Education 
Breakthrough Network to Literacy Volunteers of Tucson and the Arizona 
Chapter of Campfire USA have voiced their strong support. Nationwide, 
organizations such as the United Farm Workers of America, the National 
Urban League, the Commonwealth Foundation and the John Locke Institute 
continue to stand up for the rights of parents to have more tools and 
choices to help their children achieve. There is strong support for 
this program among communities across America, particularly among the 
parents who so often do not have a voice representing their needs and 
interests here in Washington.
  I look forward to working with Senator Enzi, Senator Harkin, and the 
rest of my colleagues to secure passage of meaningful education reform 
that includes protecting and strengthening the ability of parents to 
make educational choices for their children, choices that include high 
quality tutoring.

                          ____________________