[Pages S5271-S5278]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

By Mr. KOHL (for himself, Ms. Snowe, Mr. Bayh, Mr. Graham, Mr.
Johnson, Mr. Lieberman, Mr. Rockefeller, Mr. Breaux, and Mrs.
Lincoln):
S. 916. A bill to provide more child support money to families
leaving welfare, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.
Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Children First
Child Support Reform Act of 2001, and I want to thank Senators Snowe,
Bayh, Graham, Johnson, Lieberman, Rockefeller, Breaux and Lincoln for
cosponsoring. I am also pleased to cosponsor Senator Snowe's Child
Support Distribution Act of 2001, which includes the ``Children First''
component as well as other provisions to improve child support
collections and enforcement. I applaud Senator Snowe for her continued
leadership on this important issue.
The ``Children First'' bill takes significant steps toward ensuring
that children receive the child support money they are owed and
deserve. In Fiscal Year 1999, the public child support system collected
child support payments for only 37 percent of its caseload, up from 23
percent in 1998. Obviously, we still need to improve, but States are
making real progress. It's time for Congress to take the next step and
help States overcome a major obstacle to collecting child support for
families.
There are many reasons why non-custodial parents may not be paying
support for their children. Some are not able to pay because they don't
have jobs or have fallen on hard times. Others may not pay because they
are unfairly prevented from spending time with their children.
But other fathers don't pay because the public system actually
discourages them from paying. Under current law, over $2 billion in
child support is retained every year by the State and Federal
governments as repayment for welfare benefits, rather than delivered to
the children to whom it is owed. Since the money doesn't benefit their
kids, fathers are discouraged from paying support. And mothers have no
incentive to push for payment since the support doesn't go to them.
It's time for Congress to change this system and encourage States to
distribute more child support to families. My home State of Wisconsin
has already been doing this for several years and is seeing great
results. In 1997, I worked with my State to institute an innovative
program of passing through child support payments directly to families.
A recent evaluation of the Wisconsin program clearly shows that when
child support payments are delivered to families, non-custodial parents
are more apt to pay, and to pay more. In addition, Wisconsin has found
that, overall, this policy does not increase government costs. That
makes sense because ``passing through'' support payments to families
means they have more of their own resources, and are less apt to depend
on public help to meet other needs such as food, transportation or
child care.
We now have a key opportunity to encourage all States to follow
Wisconsin's example. This legislation gives States options and strong
incentives to send more child support directly to families who are
working their way off, or are already off, public assistance. Not only
will this create the right incentives for non-custodial parents to pay,
but it will also simplify the job for States, who currently face an
administrative nightmare in following the complicated rules of the
current system.

We know that creating the right incentives for non-custodial parents
to pay support and increasing collections has long-term benefits.
People who can count on child support are more likely to stay in jobs
and stay off public assistance.
This legislation finally brings the Child Support Enforcement program
into the post-welfare reform era, shifting its focus from recovering
welfare costs to increasing child support to families so they can
sustain work and maintain self-sufficiency. After all, it's only fair
that if we are asking parents to move off welfare and take financial
responsibility for their families, then we in Congress must make sure
that child support payments actually go to the families to whom they
are owed and who are working so hard to succeed.
Last year, a House version of this bill passed by an overwhelming
bipartisan vote of 405 to 18, and a similar version has been
reintroduced this year. My legislation has also been included in
Senator Snowe's Child Support Distribution Act, and the bipartisan
``Strengthening Working Families Act, both of which I am proud to be an
original cosponsor.
I was also greatly encouraged by the statements made by Secretary
Thompson at the Labor, Health and Human Services, Education and Related
Agencies Appropriations hearing on April 25, 2001, in which the
Secretary spoke about the success of Wisconsin's program and expressed
his support for this approach. I am hopeful that the Administration
will be able to fully support this legislation, as I believe it is
consistent with the President's goal of making sure that families, not
the government, keep more of the money they earn and deserve.
We must keep this bipartisan momentum going in this Congress. It's
time that we finally make child support meaningful for families, and
make sure that children get the support they need and deserve.

[[Page S5272]]

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. 916

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Children
First Child Support Reform Act of 2001''.
(b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents of this Act
is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
Sec. 2. Modification of rule requiring assignment of support rights as
a condition of receiving TANF.
Sec. 3. Increasing child support payments to families and simplifying
child support distribution rules.
Sec. 4. State option to discontinue certain support assignments.
Sec. 5. Effective date.

SEC. 2. MODIFICATION OF RULE REQUIRING ASSIGNMENT OF SUPPORT
RIGHTS AS A CONDITION OF RECEIVING TANF.

Section 408(a)(3) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C.
608(a)(3)) is amended to read as follows:
``(3) No assistance for families not assigning certain
support rights to the state.--A State to which a grant is
made under section 403 shall require, as a condition of
paying assistance to a family under the State program funded
under this part, that a member of the family assign to the
State any rights the family member may have (on behalf of the
family member or of any other person for whom the family
member has applied for or is receiving such assistance) to
support from any other person, not exceeding the total amount
of assistance so paid to the family, which accrues during the
period that the family receives assistance under the
program.''.

SEC. 3. INCREASING CHILD SUPPORT PAYMENTS TO FAMILIES AND
SIMPLIFYING CHILD SUPPORT DISTRIBUTION RULES.

(a) Distribution Rules.--
(1) In general.--Section 457(a) of the Social Security Act
(42 U.S.C. 657(a)) is amended to read as follows:
``(a) In General.--Subject to subsections (e) and (f), the
amounts collected on behalf of a family as support by a State
under a plan approved under this part shall be distributed as
follows:
``(1) Families receiving assistance.--In the case of a
family receiving assistance from the State, the State shall--
``(A) pay to the Federal Government the Federal share of
the amount collected, subject to paragraph (3)(A);
``(B) retain, or pay to the family, the State share of the
amount collected, subject to paragraph (3)(B); and
``(C) pay to the family any remaining amount.
``(2) Families that formerly received assistance.--In the
case of a family that formerly received assistance from the
State:
``(A) Current support.--To the extent that the amount
collected does not exceed the current support amount, the
State shall pay the amount to the family.
``(B) Arrearages.--Except as otherwise provided in the
State plan approved under section 454, to the extent that the
amount collected exceeds the current support amount, the
State--
``(i) shall first pay to the family the excess amount, to
the extent necessary to satisfy support arrearages not
assigned under section 408(a)(3);
``(ii) if the amount collected exceeds the amount required
to be paid to the family under clause (i), shall--

``(I) pay to the Federal Government, the Federal share of
the excess amount described in this clause, subject to
paragraph (3)(A); and
``(II) retain, or pay to the family, the State share of the
excess amount described in this clause, subject to paragraph
(3)(B); and

``(iii) shall pay to the family any remaining amount.
``(3) Limitations.--
``(A) Federal reimbursements.--The total of the amounts
paid by the State to the Federal Government under paragraphs
(1) and (2) with respect to a family shall not exceed the
Federal share of the amount assigned with respect to the
family under section 408(a)(3).
``(B) State reimbursements.--The total of the amounts
retained by the State under paragraphs (1) and (2) with
respect to a family shall not exceed the State share of the
amount assigned with respect to the family under section
408(a)(3).
``(4) Families that never received assistance.--In the case
of any other family, the State shall pay the amount collected
to the family.
``(5) Families under certain agreements.--Notwithstanding
paragraphs (1) through (4), in the case of an amount
collected for a family in accordance with a cooperative
agreement under section 454(33), the State shall distribute
the amount collected under the terms of the agreement.
``(6) State financing options.--To the extent that the
State share of the amount payable to a family under paragraph
(2)(B) exceeds the amount that the State estimates (under
procedures approved by the Secretary) would have been payable
to the family under former section 457(a)(2)(B) (as in effect
for the State immediately before the date on which this
subsection, as amended by the Children First Child Support
Reform Act of 2001, first applies to the State) if such
former section had remained in effect, the State may elect to
use the grant made to the State under section 403(a) to pay
the amount, or to have the payment considered a qualified
State expenditure for purposes of section 409(a)(7), but not
both.
``(7) State option to pass through additional support with
federal financial participation.--
``(A) In general.--Notwithstanding paragraphs (1) and (2),
a State shall not be required to pay to the Federal
Government the Federal share of an amount collected on behalf
of a family that is not a recipient of assistance under the
State program funded under part A, to the extent that the
State pays the amount to the family.
``(B) Recipients of tanf for less than 5 years.--
``(i) In general.--Notwithstanding paragraphs (1) and (2),
a State shall not be required to pay to the Federal
Government the Federal share of an amount collected on behalf
of a family that is a recipient of assistance under the State
program funded under part A and, if the family includes an
adult, that has received the assistance for not more than 5
years after the date of enactment of this paragraph, to the
extent that--

``(I) the State pays the amount to the family; and
``(II) subject to clause (ii), the amount is disregarded in
determining the amount and type of the assistance provided to
the family.

``(ii) Limitation.--Of the amount disregarded as described
in clause (i)(II), the maximum amount that may be taken into
account for purposes of clause (i) shall not exceed $400 per
month, except that, in the case of a family that includes 2
or more children, the State may elect to increase the maximum
amount to not more than $600 per month.
``(8) States with demonstration waivers.--Notwithstanding
the preceding paragraphs, a State with a waiver under section
1115 that became effective on or before October 1, 1997, the
terms of which allow passthrough of child support payments,
may pass through such payments in accordance with such terms
with respect to families subject to the waiver.''.
(2) State plan to include election as to which rules to
apply in distributing child support arrearages collected on
behalf of families formerly receiving assistance.--Section
454 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 654) is amended--
(A) by striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (32);
(B) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (33) and
inserting ``; and''; and
(C) by inserting after paragraph (33) the following:
``(34) include an election by the State to apply section
457(a)(2)(B) or former section 457(a)(2)(B) (as in effect for
the State immediately before the date this paragraph, as
amended by the Children First Child Support Reform Act of
2001, first applies to the State) to the distribution of the
amounts which are the subject of such sections, and for so
long as the State elects to so apply such former section, the
amendments made by section 2 of the Children First Child
Support Reform Act of 2001 shall not apply with respect to
the State, notwithstanding section 6(a) of such Act.''.
(3) Approval of estimation procedures.--Not later than
October 1, 2002, the Secretary of Health and Human Services,
in consultation with the States (as defined for purposes of
part D of title IV of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 651
et seq.)), shall establish the procedures to be used to make
the estimate described in section 457(a)(6) of such Act (42
U.S.C. 657(a)(6)).
(b) Current Support Amount Defined.--Section 457(c) of the
Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 657(c)) is amended by adding
at the end the following:
``(5) Current support amount.--The term `current support
amount' means, with respect to amounts collected as support
on behalf of a family, the amount designated as the monthly
support obligation of the noncustodial parent in the order
requiring the support.''.
(c) Conforming Amendments.--
(1) Section 404(a) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C.
604(a)) is amended--
(A) by striking ``or'' at the end of paragraph (1);
(B) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (2) and
inserting ``; or''; and
(C) by adding at the end the following:
``(3) to fund payment of an amount under section
457(a)(2)(B), but only to the extent that the State properly
elects under section 457(a)(6) to use the grant to fund the
payment.''.
(2) Section 409(a)(7)(B)(i) of the Social Security Act (42
U.S.C. 609(a)(7)(B)(i)) is amended--
(A) in subclause (I)(aa), by striking ``457(a)(1)(B)'' and
inserting ``457(a)(1)''; and
(B) by adding at the end the following:

``(V) Portions of certain child support payments collected
on behalf of and distributed to families no longer receiving
assistance.--Any amount paid by a State under section
457(a)(2)(B), but only to the extent that the State properly
elects under section 457(a)(6) to have the payment considered
a qualified State expenditure.''.

[[Page S5273]]

SEC. 4. STATE OPTION TO DISCONTINUE CERTAIN SUPPORT
ASSIGNMENTS.

Section 457(b) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C.
657(b)) is amended by striking ``shall'' and inserting
``may''.

SEC. 5. EFFECTIVE DATE.

(a) In General.--The amendments made by this section shall
take effect on October 1, 2005, and shall apply to payments
under parts A and D of title IV of the Social Security Act
(42 U.S.C. 601 et seq. and 651 et seq.) for calendar quarters
beginning on or after such date, and without regard to
whether regulations to implement the amendments (in the case
of State programs operated under such part D) are promulgated
by such date.
(b) State Option To Accelerate Effective Date.--In
addition, a State may elect to have the amendments made by
section 2 or 3 apply to the State and to amounts collected by
the State, on and after such date as the State may select
that is after the date of enactment of this Act, by including
an election to that effect in the State plan under part D of
title IV of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 651 et seq.).
______

By Ms. COLLINS (for herself, Mr. Bingaman, Mr. Grassley, Mr.
Daschle, Mr. Jeffords, Mr. Sarbanes, Mr. Harkin, Mr. Corzine,
and Mr. Leahy):
S. 917. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to exclude
from gross income amounts received on account of claims based on
certain unlawful discrimination and to allow income averaging for
backpay and frontpay awards received on account of such claims, and for
other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.
Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Civil Rights Tax
Relief Act of 2001, a bill designed to promote the fair and equitable
settlement of civil rights claims. I am very pleased to be joined today
by Senators Bingaman, Grassley, Daschle, Jeffords, Sarbanes, Harkin,
Corzine, and Leahy.
The primary purpose of this bill is to remedy an unintended
consequence of the Small Business Job Protection Act of 1996, which
made damage awards not based on ``physical injuries or physical
sickness'' part of a plaintiff's taxable income. Because most acts of
employment discrimination and civil rights violations do not cause
physical injuries, this provision has had a direct and negative impact
on plaintiffs who successfully prove that they have been subjected to
intentional employment discrimination or other intentional violations
of their civil rights. The problem is compounded by the fact that
plaintiffs are now taxed on the entirety of their settlements or damage
awards in civil rights cases, despite the fact that a portion of a
settlement or award must be paid to the plaintiff's attorney, who in
turn is taxed on the same funds! This double taxation of awards of
attorneys' fees serves to penalize Americans who win their civil rights
cases.
I would like to share one example of how individuals can be harmed by
the current taxation scheme, and even discouraged from challenging
workplace discrimination. The example was brought to my attention by
David Webbert, an attorney who practices in Maine's capitol, Augusta.
In the case, David represented a person who successfully challenged a
business' policy of discriminating against persons with a particular
type of disability. As a result of the case, the discriminatory policy
was declared illegal and was ended. Although the plaintiff did not seek
any monetary damages in the case, the law did provide for payment of
attorney's fees, which were paid by the defendant's insurance company.
Because of the current law's double taxation of attorney's fees, they
were taxable to the plaintiff in this case, despite the fact that they
were also taxable to the attorney. In short, plaintiffs in civil rights
cases like this could have to pay taxes despite receiving no monetary
award. Or, in other words, under current law, a plaintiff can be
penalized financially for bringing a meritorious case against a
company's discriminatory policies.
Our bill would eliminate the unfair taxation of civil rights victims'
settlements and court awards; taxation that adds insult to a civil
rights victim's injuries and serves as a barrier to the just settlement
of civil rights claims.
Our bill would change the taxation of awards received by individuals
that result from judgments in or settlements of employment
discrimination cases. First, the bill excludes from gross income
amounts awarded other than for punitive damages and compensation
attributable to services that were to be performed, known as
``backpay'', or that would have been performed but for a claimed
violation of law by the employer, known as ``frontpay''. Second, award
amounts for frontpay or backpay would be included in income, but would
be eligible for income averaging according to the time period covered
by the award. This correction would allow individuals to pay taxes at
the same marginal rates that would have applied to them had they not
suffered discrimination. Third, the bill would change the tax code so
that people who bring civil rights cases are not taxed on the portion
of any award paid as fees to their attorney. This provision would
eliminate the double-taxation of such fees, which would still be
taxable income to the attorney.
The Civil Rights Tax Relief Act would encourage the fair settlement
of costly and protracted litigation of employment discrimination
claims. Our legislation would allow both plaintiffs and defendants to
settle claims based on the damages, not on excessive taxes that are now
levied.
Our bill has been endorsed by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the
Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, the American Small Business
Alliance, AARP, the National Whistleblower Center, the National
Employment Lawyers Association, numerous state and local bar
associations and sections, including the Maine State Bar Association,
Labor and Employment Section, and others. This bill is a ``win-win''
for civil rights plaintiffs and defendant businesses. We invite our
colleagues to join with us in support of this common sense legislation.
______

By Ms. SNOWE (for herself, Mr. Kohl, Mr. Bayh, Mr. Graham, Mr.
Johnson, Mr. Lieberman, Mr. Rockfeller, Mr. Breaux, and Mrs.
Lincoln):
S. 918. A bill to provide more child support money to families
leaving welfare, to simplify the rules governing the assignment and
distribution of child support collected by States on behalf of
children, to improve the collection of child support, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on Finance.
Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Child Support
Distribution Act. This is companion legislation to Congresswoman Nancy
Johnson's bill in the House. I want to begin by thanking Senator Kohl
for his leadership on child support issues; I am delighted to have been
able to team up with him again in this important area.
I also want to thank Senator Bayh for his leadership on family
issues. I am pleased that we could work together and incorporate each
of our ideas in vital legislation which we have already introduced, the
Strengthening Working Families Act. I am also pleased to have Senators
Graham, Johnson, Lieberman, Rockfeller, Breaux, Lincoln, Bayh as
original cosponsors on this bill.
There is no question that children are the very future of our country
and I believe fundamentally that every child has the right to grow up
healthy, happy, and safe. Throughout my career, promoting children's
well-being and keeping our children safe is a mission that has been
close to my heart. While we cannot expect the government to ensure that
every child receives parental love and attention, we can ensure that
the custodial parent, not the government, receives this vital financial
support.
Ending poverty and promoting self-sufficiency is an on-going national
commitment. Five years ago Congress restored welfare to a temporary
assistance program, rather than a program that entangles and traps
generation after generation. In September 2000, there were 5.7 million
open TANF caseloads for individual recipients, down from 12.2 million,
a 53 percent reduction, in August 1996 when Welfare Reform became law.
Unfortunately, while we are succeeding in promoting self-sufficiency
and self-reliance through welfare reform, we are sending out a double-
edged message on the need to pay child support. Current law regarding
the assignment and distribution of child support for families on
welfare is extremely complicated, depending on when families applied
for welfare, when the child support was paid, whether that child
support was for current or past-due payments, and depending on

[[Page S5274]]

how the child support was collected, in other words, through direct
payments, through garnishing wages or other government assistance
programs, or the federal income tax return intercept program.
The ``Child Support Distribution Act of 2001'' would provide more
child support money to families leaving welfare; would simplify the
rules governing the assignment and distribution of child support
collected by States; would improve the collection of child support; and
would authorize demonstration programs encouraging public agencies to
help collect child support; and provide guidelines for involvement of
public agencies in child support enforcement.
Under current law, when child support is collected for families
receiving Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, TANF, the money is
divided between the state and federal governments as payment for the
welfare the family has received. The 1996 Welfare Reform Act gave
states the option to decide how much, if any, of the state share of
child support payments collected on behalf of TANF families to send to
the family.

The 1996 Welfare Reform law also required that in order to qualify
for TANF benefits, beneficiaries must ``assign'', or give their child
support rights to the state for periods before and while the family is
on welfare. This means that the State is allowed to keep, and divide
with the federal government, child support arrearages that were owed
even before the family went on TANF if they are collected while the
family is receiving welfare benefits.
The original intent of these assignment and distribution strategies
was to reimburse the state and federal governments for their outlays to
the welfare family. But how much sense does it make to tell a family
that is on welfare or trying to get off welfare that the State is
entitled to the first cut of any child support payment, even if the
absent parent begins to pay back the child support that was owed before
the family went on welfare?
This means that the state gets the support before a parent can buy
new shoes for her child, before she can buy her child a new coat for
the approaching winter, before she can buy groceries for her family, or
pay the rent for the next month. So in the real world, not just a
policy-oriented world, our current law regarding child support payments
provides a disincentive for struggling parents to leave welfare, and it
certainly provides no incentive for the absent parent to pay, much less
catch up with, their child support bills. I wonder how we can
realistically expect to foster a positive relationship between a
custodial parent, and the parent paying child support, when the State
is entitled to all of the support money.
The key provisions of the bill I am introducing today will allow
states to pass through the entire child support collected on their
behalf while a person is on welfare; will change how and when child
support is ``owed'' to the states for reimbursement for welfare
benefits; and will expand the child support collection provisions such
as revoking passports for past-due child support.
We must ensure both non-custodial and custodial parents that child
support payments are directly benefitting their children. This bill
will enable families to keep more of the past-due child support owed to
them and it will further the goals of the 1996 Welfare Reform Act by
helping families to remain self-sufficient. This bill will give mothers
leaving welfare an additional $4 billion child support collections over
the first five years of full implementation. It will also lead to the
voluntary payment by states of about $900 million over five years in
child support to families while they are still on welfare.
Children are the leaders of tomorrow; they are the very future of our
great nation. We owe them nothing less than the sum of our energies,
our talents, and our efforts in providing them a foundation on which to
build happy, healthy and productive lives. And, when appropriate, we
need to help parents financially support and provide for their
children. Because it simply makes little sense to ask people to be
self-sufficient, to pay their child-support bills, and then to allow
the State to collect all of that child-support.
I encourage my colleagues to take a serious look at this bill and
pass it this year.
______

By Mr. THURMOND:
S. 919. A bill to require the Secretary of Energy to study the
feasibility of developing commercial nuclear energy production
facilities at existing Department of Energy sites; to the Committee on
Energy and Natural Resources.
Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, one does not need to look much further
than their mailbox and the bills they receive for filling the gas tank
or heating the house to realize that the United States is in need of
direction and leadership when it comes to an energy policy. I am
pleased that President Bush and Vice President Cheney have unveiled
their energy plan and I look forward to working with the Administration
on this important issue.
The President's National Energy Policy is a long term approach to
addressing our Nation's energy challenges. The policy is a
comprehensive plan to address the needs for additional energy
production and environmental protection. It will promote energy
efficiency and new technologies to modernize the Nation's energy
infrastructure. The President's plan will help increase energy supply
through clean coal technology, nuclear energy, renewable and
alternative energy, and energy conservation. Now is the appropriate
time to address these issues before a major energy crisis jeopardizes
our economy, national security, and our standard of living.
I am especially pleased that the President highlighted production
sources that have been ignored and shunned in recent years such as
clean coal and nuclear power as energy sources which must again be
embraced. This is a long overdue recognition of the valuable and
important roles that nuclear and coal power can and must play in
meeting the energy needs of the United States. These two energy sources
have clear benefits. However, their increased role in meeting national
needs will not be realized without challenge.
To be certain, plans to build any new nuclear production plants will
be opposed by some quarters. Those who refuse to recognize the
indispensable role of nuclear power will do everything to delay and
undermine the construction of new production facilities. Essentially
these anti-nuclear obstructionists will seek to create as many
obstacles as they can. Past examples have witnessed lawsuits and
intervener tactics that drove plant costs up by hundreds of percent and
delayed the facility coming on line by decades.
Given such examples, it would certainly not seem that building new
production facilities would be a financially appealing or rewarding
proposition to a utility company. Yet the truth of the matter is that
we desperately need to build new nuclear power production plants.
Presently, the United States gets approximately 20 percent of its power
from nuclear plants. Even under the most optimistic projections, the
majority of the Nation's 103 nuclear power facilities will be coming to
the end of their service in the coming years.
The question before us is how do we move forward with increasing this
critical energy infrastructure but doing so in a more timely and cost-
efficient manner than what took place in the past. The President's
National Energy Policy Report recommends an expansion at existing
utility power plant sites. I am pleased that the President addressed
this issue. As the report states, many existing nuclear power sites
have the capacity to include additional reactors. This is an
outstanding initiative. However, I remain concerned that even with
these new reactors at existing sites the total percentage of energy
created by nuclear power will decrease. Such a scenario would only
exacerbate the energy shortage for years to come. Ultimately, we must
identify new sites for the safe expansion of nuclear energy. I believe
the solution to this challenge is creating ``energy campuses'' at
existing Department of Energy facilities throughout the United States.
More specifically, I am proposing co-locating civilian power production
facilities on Department of Energy reservations such as: Hanford; the
Nevada Test Site; the

[[Page S5275]]

Idaho National Environmental Engineering Laboratory; and, the Savannah
River Site.
Creating such ``energy campuses'' would solve any number of problems
associated with building a new civilian production facility. To begin,
there is no need to secure new land or to convince the local populace
that having a nuclear facility nearby is not a safety issue. Simply
put, these are pro-nuclear communities that would welcome new
industrial investment. Furthermore, it makes for a quicker and less
contentious licensing process. Finally, it reduces the amount of new
infrastructure required as you would be ``leveraging'' against what
already exists at these locations.
The benefits of such a plan are multiple, not the least being that it
would get nuclear power plants built and on line rapidly. Several are
in the west, the Nevada Test Site, Idaho National Environmental
Engineering Laboratory, and Hanford, Washington, and each would be able
to directly or indirectly provide more power to energy starved
California. Furthermore, this plan guarantees long-term energy supply
reliability while not contributing to greenhouse gases or depleting gas
reserves.
These sites were ideal for locating nuclear projects fifty years ago,
and they remain so to this day. It makes perfect sense to use these
existing assets as a platform upon which to expand our civilian nuclear
power production capabilities. I am certain that this ``energy campus''
plan offers something for everyone, and if the Bush Administration is
going to move forward with relying more heavily on nuclear energy, then
this initiative is one way in which to meet the goal of making certain
the energy needs of the United States are met.
In order to take the first step toward establishing these energy
campuses, I am introducing a bill that will direct the Secretary of
Energy to undertake a study regarding the feasibility of establishing
civilian nuclear power production facilities at existing Department of
Energy sites.
The economy of the United States is dependent upon reasonably priced
energy. It is what is required to power everything from the traditional
service of bringing goods to market to running the computers upon which
engineers make advances in the high technology industry. There is
nothing that we touch that does not rely on energy, and the less
expensive the energy is, the more reasonably priced the goods or
services we are purchasing or using will be. Simply put, Americans
enjoy, expect, and demand reasonably priced energy. If we are going to
continue to provide this resource at an affordable rate, which is a
goal we must meet in order to keep our economy the world's strongest
and most diverse, then we are going to have to look for innovative ways
in which to supply power. It is time once again to recognize the value
of nuclear power production and to find ways to bring more of these
facilities ``on-line'' as quickly as possible. Establishing energy
campuses at Department of Energy reservations will meet these
objectives and I am certain that my colleagues will join me in
supporting this legislation. 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. 919

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

SECTION 1. STUDY TO DETERMINE FEASIBILITY OF DEVELOPING
COMMERCIAL NUCLEAR ENERGY PRODUCTION FACILITIES
AT EXISTING DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY SITES.

(a) In General.--The Secretary of Energy shall conduct a
study to determine the feasibility of developing commercial
nuclear energy production facilities at Department of Energy
sites in existence on the date of enactment of this Act,
including--
(1) options for how and where nuclear power plants can be
developed on existing Department of Energy sites;
(2) estimates on cost savings to the Federal Government
that may be realized by locating new nuclear power plants on
Federal sites;
(3) the feasibility of incorporating new technology into
nuclear power plants located on Federal sites;
(4) potential improvements in the licensing and safety
oversight procedures of nuclear power plants located on
Federal sites;
(5) an assessment of the effects of nuclear waste
management policies and projects as a result of locating
nuclear power plants located on Federal sites; and
(6) any other factors that the Secretary believes would be
relevant in making the determination.
(b) Report.--Not later than 90 days after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to Congress
a report describing the results of the study under subsection
(a).
______

By Mr. BREAUX (for himself, Mr. Jeffords, Mr. Graham, Mr. Chafee,
and Mr. Levin):
S. 920. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide
a credit against income tax to individuals who rehabilitate historic
homes or who are the first purchasers of rehabilitated historic homes
for use as a principal residence; to the Committee on Finance.
Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I am honored to reintroduce today, along
with my colleagues Senators Jeffords, Graham, Chafee, and Levin, the
``Historic Homeownership Assistance Act of 2001''. This bill will
provide the necessary incentive needed to help preserve, revitalize and
restore our Nation's older and historic neighborhoods, which often form
the core of many of our Nation's most distinct urban areas. During the
106th Congress, this legislation received bipartisan majority support
in the House with 226 sponsors and enjoyed the support of 39 sponsors
in the Senate. In the 107th, the House bill, H.R. 1172, sponsored by
Rep. Clay Shaw, H.R. 1172, is already endorsed by 72 Members to date.
This bipartisan proposal would create a historic homeowners tax
credit directed toward housing stock in deteriorating neighborhoods and
communities located in more than 11,000 Federal, State and local
historic districts in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. It
would allow homebuyers and homeowners to take a 40 percent federal tax
credit on residential properties they rehabilitate for use as their
primary residence. If enacted, a historic homeowners tax credit would
be a useful tool to preserve historic neighborhoods and homes in small
towns and urban areas; make homeownership more affordable for less
affluent families; revitalize deteriorating older neighborhoods;
strengthen the tax base for local governments; and combat sprawl and
urban blight.
The number of properties eligible for the historic homeowners credit
is approximately one third of the almost one million structures in
historic districts nationwide, and 58 percent are located in census
tracts with a poverty rate of 20 percent or greater. In Louisiana, 91
percent of the historic districts in the state overlap with census
tracts with a rate of poverty of 20 percent or more, a figure much
higher than the national average. My home state of Louisiana also has
one of the highest concentrations of historic properties in the Nation.
In a recent National Park Service survey, it was found that 109
National Register Historic Districts in the State contain 45,084
historic buildings. The Louisiana Division of Historic Preservation
reports that of these 45,000 plus structures, 20 percent are in poor
condition, 20 percent are in only fair condition and 60 percent are
owner-occupied housing. The City of New Orleans alone is reported to
have 30,000 vacant housing units, of which 10,000 would qualify for the
historic homeownership tax credit.

I cannot emphasize enough how much enactment of this incentive would
mean to my State and the Nation at large. This bill will make ownership
of a rehabilitated older home more affordable for residents and
homebuyers of modest means and incomes while increasing the tax base of
our most economically distressed urban areas.
This legislation also includes unique provisions to assist developers
and mortgage lenders in saving our most vulnerable historic
neighborhoods. Under the bill, developers could rehabilitate historic
properties, sell them, and pass the credit onto homebuyers. This
feature would allow nonprofit housing providers to utilize the credit
to further the goal of affordable homeownership. In addition, the bill
offers an option to convert the tax credit to a mortgage credit
certificate which could be transferred to a bank or mortgage lender to
reduce the mortgage interest rate, lowering monthly mortgage payments
to benefit low- and

[[Page S5276]]

moderate-income families who do not have enough tax liability to use
the credit. In Empowerment Zones, Enterprise Communities, Community
Renewal areas and distressed census tracts, the credit could also be
used to lower the cost of the down payment on a historic home.
America's priceless heritage is being threatened by urban sprawl as
residents abandon the historic districts for the suburbs. The Historic
Homeownership Assistance Act is an excellent incentive to aid in the
restoration of our national, State and local historic districts that
are currently threatened by abandonment and decay. It would encourage
local residents to invest in their communities and give first time
homebuyers an opportunity to move into older neighborhoods. This bill
will not only preserve our heritage, but also help local governments by
putting deteriorated ad abandoned properties back on the tax rolls. I
strongly urge my colleagues to cosponsor this important piece of
legislation.
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. 920

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 ``Historic Homeownership
Assistance Act''.

SEC. 2. HISTORIC HOMEOWNERSHIP REHABILITATION CREDIT.

(a) In General.--Subpart A of part IV of subchapter A of
chapter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to
nonrefundable personal credits) is amended by inserting after
section 25A the following new section:

``SEC. 25B. HISTORIC HOMEOWNERSHIP REHABILITATION CREDIT.

``(a) General Rule.--In the case of an individual, there
shall be allowed as a credit against the tax imposed by this
chapter for the taxable year an amount equal to 20 percent of
the qualified rehabilitation expenditures made by the
taxpayer with respect to a qualified historic home.
``(b) Dollar Limitation.--
``(1) In general.--The credit allowed by subsection (a)
with respect to any residence of a taxpayer shall not exceed
$40,000 ($20,000 in the case of a married individual filing a
separate return).
``(2) Carryforward of credit unused by reason of limitation
based on tax liability.--If the credit allowable under
subsection (a) for any taxable year exceeds the limitation
imposed by section 26(a) for such taxable year reduced by the
sum of the credits allowable under this subpart (other than
this section), such excess shall be carried to the succeeding
taxable year and added to the credit allowable under
subsection (a) for such succeeding taxable year.
``(c) Qualified Rehabilitation Expenditure.--For purposes
of this section:
``(1) In general.--The term `qualified rehabilitation
expenditure' means any amount properly chargeable to capital
account--
``(A) in connection with the certified rehabilitation of a
qualified historic home, and
``(B) for property for which depreciation would be
allowable under section 168 if the qualified historic home
were used in a trade or business.
``(2) Certain expenditures not included.--
``(A) Exterior.--Such term shall not include any
expenditure in connection with the rehabilitation of a
building unless at least 5 percent of the total expenditures
made in the rehabilitation process are allocable to the
rehabilitation of the exterior of such building.
``(B) Other rules to apply.--Rules similar to the rules of
clauses (ii) and (iii) of section 47(c)(2)(B) shall apply.
``(3) Mixed use or multifamily building.--If only a portion
of a building is used as the principal residence of the
taxpayer, only qualified rehabilitation expenditures which
are properly allocable to such portion shall be taken into
account under this section.
``(d) Certified Rehabilitation.--For purposes of this
section:
``(1) In general.--Except as otherwise provided in this
subsection, the term `certified rehabilitation' has the
meaning given such term by section 47(c)(2)(C).
``(2) Factors to be considered in the case of targeted area
residences, etc.--
``(A) In general.--For purposes of applying section
47(c)(2)(C) under this section with respect to the
rehabilitation of a building to which this paragraph applies,
consideration shall be given to--
``(i) the feasibility of preserving existing architectural
and design elements of the interior of such building,
``(ii) the risk of further deterioration or demolition of
such building in the event that certification is denied
because of the failure to preserve such interior elements,
and
``(iii) the effects of such deterioration or demolition on
neighboring historic properties.
``(B) Buildings to which this paragraph applies.--This
paragraph shall apply with respect to any building--
``(i) any part of which is a targeted area residence within
the meaning of section 143(j)(1), or
``(ii) which is located within an enterprise community or
empowerment zone as designated under section 1391, or a
renewal community designated under section 1400(e),

but shall not apply with respect to any building which is
listed in the National Register.
``(3) Approved state program.--The term `certified
rehabilitation' includes a certification made by--
``(A) a State Historic Preservation Officer who administers
a State Historic Preservation Program approved by the
Secretary of the Interior pursuant to section 101(b)(1) of
the National Historic Preservation Act, or
``(B) a local government, certified pursuant to section
101(c)(1) of the National Historic Preservation Act and
authorized by a State Historic Preservation Officer, or the
Secretary of the Interior where there is no approved State
program,

subject to such terms and conditions as may be specified by
the Secretary of the Interior for the rehabilitation of
buildings within the jurisdiction of such officer (or local
government) for purposes of this section.
``(e) Definitions and Special Rules.--For purposes of this
section:
``(1) Qualified historic home.--The term `qualified
historic home' means a certified historic structure--
``(A) which has been substantially rehabilitated, and
``(B) which (or any portion of which)--
``(i) is owned by the taxpayer, and
``(ii) is used (or will, within a reasonable period, be
used) by such taxpayer as his principal residence.
``(2) Substantially rehabilitated.--The term `substantially
rehabilitated' has the meaning given such term by section
47(c)(1)(C); except that, in the case of any building
described in subsection (d)(2), clause (i)(I) thereof shall
not apply.
``(3) Principal residence.--The term `principal residence'
has the same meaning as when used in section 121.
``(4) Certified historic structure.--
``(A) In general.--The term `certified historic structure'
means any building (and its structural components) which--
``(i) is listed in the National Register, or
``(ii) is located in a registered historic district (as
defined in section 47(c)(3)(B)) within which only qualified
census tracts (or portions thereof) are located, and is
certified by the Secretary of the Interior as being of
historic significance to the district.
``(B) Certain structures included.--Such term includes any
building (and its structural components) which is designated
as being of historic significance under a statute of a State
or local government, if such statute is certified by the
Secretary of the Interior to the Secretary as containing
criteria which will substantially achieve the purpose of
preserving and rehabilitating buildings of historic
significance.
``(C) Qualified census tracts.--For purposes of
subparagraph (A)(ii)--
``(i) In general.--The term `qualified census tract' means
a census tract in which the median income is less than twice
the statewide median family income.
``(ii) Data used.--The determination under clause (i) shall
be made on the basis of the most recent decennial census for
which data are available.
``(5) Rehabilitation not complete before certification.--A
rehabilitation shall not be treated as complete before the
date of the certification referred to in subsection (d).
``(6) Lessees.--A taxpayer who leases his principal
residence shall, for purposes of this section, be treated as
the owner thereof if the remaining term of the lease (as
of the date determined under regulations prescribed by the
Secretary) is not less than such minimum period as the
regulations require.
``(7) Tenant-stockholder in cooperative housing
corporation.--If the taxpayer holds stock as a tenant-
stockholder (as defined in section 216) in a cooperative
housing corporation (as defined in such section), such
stockholder shall be treated as owning the house or apartment
which the taxpayer is entitled to occupy as such stockholder.
``(8) Allocation of expenditures relating to exterior of
building containing cooperative or condominium units.--The
percentage of the total expenditures made in the
rehabilitation of a building containing cooperative or
condominium residential units allocated to the rehabilitation
of the exterior of the building shall be attributed
proportionately to each cooperative or condominium
residential unit in such building for which a credit under
this section is claimed.
``(f) When Expenditures Taken Into Account.--In the case of
a building other than a building to which subsection (g)
applies, qualified rehabilitation expenditures shall be
treated for purposes of this section as made--
``(1) on the date the rehabilitation is completed, or
``(2) to the extent provided by the Secretary by
regulation, when such expenditures are properly chargeable to
capital account.

Regulations under paragraph (2) shall include a rule similar
to the rule under section 50(a)(2) (relating to recapture if
property ceases to qualify for progress expenditures).

[[Page S5277]]

``(g) Allowance of Credit for Purchase of Rehabilitated
Historic Home.--
``(1) In general.--In the case of a qualified purchased
historic home, the taxpayer shall be treated as having made
(on the date of purchase) the expenditures made by the seller
of such home. For purposes of the preceding sentence,
expenditures made by the seller shall be deemed to be
qualified rehabilitation expenditures if such expenditures,
if made by the purchaser, would be qualified rehabilitation
expenditures.
``(2) Qualified purchased historic home.--For purposes of
this subsection, the term `qualified purchased historic home'
means any substantially rehabilitated certified historic
structure purchased by the taxpayer if--
``(A) the taxpayer is the first purchaser of such structure
after the date rehabilitation is completed, and the purchase
occurs within 5 years after such date,
``(B) the structure (or a portion thereof) will, within a
reasonable period, be the principal residence of the
taxpayer,
``(C) no credit was allowed to the seller under this
section or section 47 with respect to such rehabilitation,
and
``(D) the taxpayer is furnished with such information as
the Secretary determines is necessary to determine the credit
under this subsection.
``(h) Historic Rehabilitation Mortgage Credit
Certificate.--
``(1) In general.--The taxpayer may elect, in lieu of the
credit otherwise allowable under this section, to receive a
historic rehabilitation mortgage credit certificate. An
election under this paragraph shall be made--
``(A) in the case of a building to which subsection (g)
applies, at the time of purchase, or
``(B) in any other case, at the time rehabilitation is
completed.
``(2) Historic rehabilitation mortgage credit
certificate.--For purposes of this subsection, the term
`historic rehabilitation mortgage credit certificate' means a
certificate--
``(A) issued to the taxpayer, in accordance with procedures
prescribed by the Secretary, with respect to a certified
rehabilitation,
``(B) the face amount of which shall be equal to the credit
which would (but for this subsection) be allowable under
subsection (a) to the taxpayer with respect to such
rehabilitation,
``(C) which may only be transferred by the taxpayer to a
lending institution (including a nondepository institution)
in connection with a loan--
``(i) that is secured by the building with respect to which
the credit relates, and
``(ii) the proceeds of which may not be used for any
purpose other than the acquisition or rehabilitation of such
building, and
``(D) in exchange for which such lending institution
provides to the taxpayer--
``(i) a reduction in the rate of interest on the loan which
results in interest payment reductions which are
substantially equivalent on a present value basis to the face
amount of such certificate, or
``(ii) if the taxpayer so elects with respect to a
specified amount of the face amount of such a certificate
relating to a building--

``(I) which is a targeted area residence (within the
meaning of section 143(j)(1)), or
``(II) which is located in an enterprise community or
empowerment zone as designated under section 1391, or a
renewal community as designated under section 1400(e),

a payment which is substantially equivalent to such specified
amount to be used to reduce the taxpayer's cost of purchasing
the building (and only the remainder of such face amount
shall be taken into account under clause (i)).
``(3) Method of discounting.--The present value under
paragraph (2)(D)(i) shall be determined--
``(A) for a period equal to the term of the loan referred
to in subparagraph (D)(i),
``(B) by using the convention that any payment on such loan
in any taxable year within such period is deemed to have been
made on the last day of such taxable year,
``(C) by using a discount rate equal to 65 percent of the
average of the annual Federal mid-term rate and the annual
Federal long-term rate applicable under section 1274(d)(1) to
the month in which the taxpayer makes an election under
paragraph (1) and compounded annually, and
``(D) by assuming that the credit allowable under this
section for any year is received on the last day of such
year.
``(4) Use of certificate by lender.--The amount of the
credit specified in the certificate shall be allowed to the
lender only to offset the regular tax (as defined in section
55(c)) of such lender. The lender may carry forward all
unused amounts under this subsection until exhausted.
``(5) Historic rehabilitation mortgage credit certificate
not treated as taxable income.--Notwithstanding any other
provision of law, no benefit accruing to the taxpayer through
the use of a historic rehabilitation mortgage credit
certificate shall be included in gross income for purposes of
this title.
``(i) Recapture.--
``(1) In general.--If, before the end of the 5-year period
beginning on the date on which the rehabilitation of the
building is completed (or, if subsection (g) applies, the
date of purchase of such building by the taxpayer)--
``(A) the taxpayer disposes of such taxpayer's interest in
such building, or
``(B) such building ceases to be used as the principal
residence of the taxpayer or ceases to be a certified
historic structure,

the taxpayer's tax imposed by this chapter for the taxable
year in which such disposition or cessation occurs shall be
increased by the recapture percentage of the credit allowed
under this section for all prior taxable years with respect
to such rehabilitation.
``(2) Recapture percentage.--For purposes of paragraph (1),
the recapture percentage shall be determined in accordance
with the table under section 50(a)(1)(B), deeming such table
to be amended--
``(A) by striking `If the property ceases to be investment
credit property within--' and inserting `If the disposition
or cessation occurs within--', and
``(B) in clause (i) by striking `One full year after placed
in service' and inserting `One full year after the taxpayer
becomes entitled to the credit'.
``(3) Transfer between spouses or incident to divorce.--In
the case of any transfer described in subsection (a) of
section 1041 (relating to transfers between spouses or
incident to divorce)--
``(A) the foregoing provisions of this subsection shall not
apply, and
``(B) the same tax treatment under this subsection with
respect to the transferred property shall apply to the
transferee as would have applied to the transferor.
``(j) Basis Adjustments.--For purposes of this subtitle, if
a credit is allowed under this section for any expenditure
with respect to any property (including any purchase under
subsection (g) and any transfer under subsection (h)), the
increase in the basis of such property which would (but for
this subsection) result from such expenditure shall be
reduced by the amount of the credit so allowed.
``(k) Processing Fees.--Any State may impose a fee for the
processing of applications for the certification of any
rehabilitation under this section provided that the amount of
such fee is used only to defray expenses associated with the
processing of such applications.
``(l) Denial of Double Benefit.--No credit shall be allowed
under this section for any amount for which credit is allowed
under section 47.
``(m) Regulations.--The Secretary shall prescribe such
regulations as may be appropriate to carry out the purposes
of this section, including regulations where less than all of
a building is used as a principal residence and where more
than 1 taxpayer use the same dwelling unit as their principal
residence.''
(b) Conforming Amendments.--
(1) Subsection (c) of section 23 of such Code is amended by
striking ``and section 1400C'' and inserting ``and sections
25B and 1400C''.
(2) Subparagraph (C) of section 25(e)(1) of such Code is
amended by inserting ``, 25B,'' after ``sections 23''.
(3) Subsection (d) of section 1400C of such Code is amended
by striking ``other than this section)'' and inserting
``other than this section and section 25B)''.
(4) Subsection (a) of section 1016 of such Code is amended
by striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (26), by striking
the period at the end of paragraph (27) and inserting ``,
and'', and by adding at the end the following new item:
``(28) to the extent provided in section 25B(j).''
(c) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections for subpart
A of part IV of subchapter A of chapter 1 of such Code is
amended by inserting after the item relating to section 25A
the following new item:

``Sec. 25B. Historic homeownership rehabilitation credit.''

(d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply with respect to rehabilitations the physical work
on which begins after the date of enactment of this Act.
______

By Mr. DeWINE:
S. 921. A bill to adjust the boundary of the William Howard Taft
National Historic Site in the State of Ohio, to authorize an exchange
of land in connection with the historic site, and for other purposes;
to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the ``William
Howard Taft National Historic Site Boundary Adjustment Act of 2001.''
This legislation would do three things: First, it would authorize the
expansion of the historic grounds of the William Howard Taft's
childhood home; second it would allow the Secretary of the Interior,
through the National Park Service, to swap one section of equal-valued
land for another; and third, it would allow the National Park Service
to extend the boundary line of the Historic Site.
As you may know, I strongly support the preservation of Presidential
Historic Sites. Sadly, a number of these Presidential Historic sites
are becoming run down and are in dire need of our help to secure their
existence for future generations. These sites are great educational
tools for our children. We must ensure their survival. If we don't, we
will lose a valuable part of our American history.

[[Page S5278]]

That is why I introduced the Presidential Sites Improvement Act last
year and plan to reintroduce it later this year. This legislation is
designed to provide grant money for the protection and improvement of
Presidential sites, like the William Howard Taft home in Ohio.
President Taft was born in Cincinnati, Ohio, in 1857. He was the son
of a distinguished judge and former Ohio Attorney General. Taft
graduated from Yale, and then returned to Cincinnati to study and
practice law. As my colleagues know, Taft went on to become our 27th
U.S. President. He is the only President in U.S. history who went on to
become the Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. In describing his
illustrious career as a public servant, Taft once wrote that he always
had his ``plate the right side up when offices were falling.''
With the bill I am introducing today, we can make a lasting
commitment to future generations by preserving the memory and
contributions of our nation's former leaders. Our children and
grandchildren should have the opportunity to understand the richness of
our country's history.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, last year's Loan Deficiency Payments,
LDPs, were made available to producers for crops grown on farms not
covered by Production Flexibility Contract, PFC, under the 1996 farm
bill. In Iowa there are 6200 farms that do not participate in the farm
program. Non-participating farms are classified as farms not enrolled
in 1996 at the beginning of the program, or farms that changed hands
during the farm bill that were not properly re-enrolled.
The Agricultural Risk Protection Act of 2000, which we passed into
law last year, furnished LDP's to farmers who produced a 2000 crop
contract commodity on a farm not covered by a PFC. Senator Nelson and I
are offering legislation to extend this one-year opportunity for
producers. Our legislation provides an extension of this opportunity
that will run for the remainder of the 1996 farm bill.
Not all of the 6200 non-participating farms will choose to use and
benefit from an LDP, but for the family farmers in Iowa who are not in
the program, guaranteeing close to $1.78 on corn and $5.26 on soybeans
is significant assistance.
With the record low prices Iowa producers have experienced recently,
I think that the Federal Government should do everything it can to keep
producers on the farm. This by no means solves all their problems, but
it helps and it's something we should have done for these individuals
on a permanent basis when we provided a one-year opportunity for
participation in the LDP program last year. 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. 923

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

SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF EXPANSION OF PRODUCERS ELIGIBLE FOR
LOAN DEFICIENCY PAYMENTS.

Section 135(a)(2) of the Agricultural Market Transition Act
(7 U.S.C. 7235(a)(2)) is amended by striking ``the 2000 crop
year'' and inserting ``each of the 2000 through 2002 crop
years''.

____________________