John Warner

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until the hour of 9:30 a.m. on Wednesday, March 7. I further ask unanimous consent that on Wednesday, immediately following the prayer, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed expired, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and the Senate then begin a period of morning business until 11:30 a.m. with Senators speaking for up to 10 minutes each with the following exceptions: Senator Durbin or his designee, 9:30 a.m. to 10:30 a.m.; Senator Domenici, 10:30 a.m. to 10:45 a.m.; Senator Roberts, 10:45 a.m. to 11 a.m.; Senator Thomas, 11 a.m. to 11:30. I further ask unanimous consent that if either leader uses time during the allotted time, that time be adjusted accordingly.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now be in a period of morning business with Senators speaking for up to 10 minutes each. I think the distinguished Senator from Illinois is going to proceed, and then I shall return to follow him.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. I think that would be very helpful if we could have a thought from the managers of this.

Mr. WARNER. Well, until I became the Secretary of the Navy, and we began to bring that down to size. I say to my good friend, I believe the value of this colloquy and delivery of the statements by Senators today is focused on the imperative need to stop the current promulgation of these regulations. I commend our distinguished colleague from Wyoming and our distinguished colleague from Oklahoma for taking the lead on this. I will support the resolution. I shall vote unhesitatingly today, whenever the vote is arranged. We have to commit to the workers in America that we will go to work with our current Secretary of Labor to do our very best to come up with a realistic, commonsense set of regulations. You can count on this Senator for joining in that. Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of S.J. Res. 6 to preclude OSHA from enforcing ergonomics regulations advanced during the Clinton Administration. This Rule is likely the most far reaching and intrusive regulation ever promulgated by OSHA. Unless Congress acts, employers will be forced to sift through over 600 pages of new and complex ergonomics standards. The rule is full of flaws and ambiguities. As currently written, fair and just enforcement of these regulations would be near impossible for OSHA. By disapproving this most recent OSHA regulation, it does not mean that I discount initiatives to improve conditions for workers. I know from personal experience and Americans know from their personal experience that there are people in some workplaces who may suffer simply because of the repetitive nature of their physical work. Those people watching this debate know there is a problem. I concur that there must be some corrective action to help these workers. I join my colleagues in asking the Secretary of Labor to review this situation and work with Congress to develop a realistic and attainable ergonomics regulation. We have this obligation. An ergonomics rule that is based on sound science. OSHA bases its new ergonomics standards on the assumption that all repetitive motion injuries are a result of work related factors. In fact, outside, non- work related activities often contribute to repetitive motion disorders. The necessary scientific research needed to develop effective standards is incomplete. It is in the best interest of business owners to protect their employees and maintain a safe and healthy work environment. Mr. President, while I believe the government has a valid role in protecting American workers, this rule is too large, assumes unrealistic thresholds, and will in the long run hurt American businesses and their workers.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I thank my colleague for that offer. I accept it. I am proud to represent the largest shipyard in the world. It has enormous amounts of heavy construction going on daily.

Mr. WARNER. If the Senator will yield, Mr. President, that is the basis on which I am committed to him to do this. I am very encouraged by what you have advised. It is eminently fair. That type of attitude is one that can succeed in this Chamber and will help get through a piece of legislation which I think is needed now. We should not postpone its consideration, I think, for 2 years.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Rules of Procedure of the Committee on Armed Services, as adopted yesterday by the Committee, be printed in the Record.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, for the committee on Armed Services, I report favorably nomination lists which were printed in the Records of the dates indicated. Air Force nomination of Robert V. Garza, which was received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record on January 3, 2001. Air Force nominations beginning Linda M. Christiansen and ending Robert M. Monberg, which nominations were received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record on January 3, 2001. Air Force nominations beginning *Charles G. Beleny and ending Michele R. Zellers, which nominations were received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record on January 3, 2001. Air Force nominations beginning Jay O. Aanrud and ending *Daniel S. Zulli, which nominations were received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record on January 3, 2001. Army nomination of Marcus G. Coker, which was received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record on January 3, 2001. Army nomination of Eugene K. Ressler, Jr., which was received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record on January 3, 2001. Army nomination of Kenneth W. Smith, which was received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record on January 3, 2001. Army nomination of Timothy I. Sullivan, which was received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record on January 3, 2001. Army nominations beginning Virginia G. Barham and ending James C. Butt, which nominations were received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record on January 3, 2001. Army nominations beginning Felix T. Castagnola and ending Aaron R. Kenneston, which nominations were received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record on January 3, 2001. Army nominations beginning William P. Blaich and ending Ira K. Weil, which nominations were received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record on January 3, 2001. Army nominations beginning Gregory O. Block and ending Robert D. Teetsel, which nominations were received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record on January 3, 2001. Army nominations beginning Moses N. Adiele and ending Horace J. Young, which nominations were received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record on January 3, 2001. Army nominations beginning Norman F. Allen and ending Daria P. Wollschlaeger, which nominations were received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record on January 3, 2001. Army nominations beginning Stephen C. Allison and ending Stacey YoungMccaughan, which nominations were received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record on January 3, 2001. Army nominations of Robert M. Nagle, which was received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record on January 3, 2001. Army nominations beginning James M. Ivey and ending Douglas C. Wilson, which nominations were received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record on January 13, 2001. Army nomination of Steven L. Powell, which was received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record on January 13, 2001. Army nomination of Mark R. Withers, which was received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record on February 13, 2001. Army nominations beginning Danny W. Agee and ending Ronald K. Taylor, which nominations were received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record on February 13, 2001. Army nominations beginning Arthur D. Bacon and ending Richard T. Vann, Jr., which nominations were received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record on February 13, 2001. Paul D. Wolfowitz, of Maryland, to be Deputy Secretary of Defense. The following named officer for appointment in the United States Navy to the grade indicated while assigned to a position of importance and responsibility under title 10, U.S.C., section 601: To be vice admiral Rear Adm. Albert H. Konetzni, Jr., 0000. The following named officer for appointment in the United States Navy to the grade indicated while assigned to a position of importance and responsibility under title 10, U.S.C., section 601: To be vice admiral Rear Adm. Timothy W. LaFleur, 0000. The following named officers for appointment in the United States Naval Reserve to the grade indicated under title 10, U.S.C., section 12203: To be rear admiral Rear Adm. (lh) James S. Allan, 0000. Rear Adm. (lh) Howard W. Dawson, Jr., 0000. Rear Adm. (lh) Karen A. Harmeyer, 0000. Rear Adm. (lh) Maurice B. Hill, Jr., 0000. Rear Adm. (lh) James M. Walley, Jr., 0000. Navy nomination of Kevin D. Sullivan, which was received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record on January 3, 2001. Navy nomination of Stephen L. Cooley, which was received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record on January 3, 2001. Navy nomination of Brian J.C. Haley, which was received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record on January 3, 2001. Navy nomination of William J. Nault, which was received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record on January 3, 2001. Navy nomination of James P. Scanlan, which was received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record on January 3, 2001. Navy nomination beginning Douglas J. Adams and ending Gregory J. Zacharski, which nominations were received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record on January 3, 2001. Navy nomination of Mark R. Munson, which was received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record on February 3, 2001. Navy nomination of Thomas F. Kolon, which was received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record on February 13, 2001. Navy nomination of Bernadette M. Semple, which was received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record on February 13, 2001. Navy nomination of John D. Carpenter, which was received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record on February 13, 2001. Navy nomination of Darren S. Harvey, which was received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record on February 13, 2001. Navy nomination of Travis C. Schweizer, which was received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record on February 13, 2001. Navy nominations beginning Francis R. Baucus and ending Scott W. Stuart, which nominations were received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record on February 13, 2001. Marine Corps nominations beginning Ronald S. Culp and ending Christopher J. Loria, which nominations were received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record on January 3, 2001. (The above nominations were reported with the recommendation that they be confirmed.) Marine Corps nominations beginning Educardo A. Abisellan and ending Richard D. Zyla, which nominations were received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record on February 13, 2001.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to Colonel Paul Arcari, United States Air Force, Retired--in recognition of his distinguished service to his country. For nearly 46 years, first for 30 years in the Air Force, and later for The Retired Officers Association, Colonel Arcari has worked tirelessly for the men and women of the military. Born in Manchester, CT, he entered the Air Force as a second lieutenant in 1955 and earned his navigator wings the following year. He amassed 4,400 flying hours with the Military Airlift Command, including 418 combat missions in Southeast Asia in the late sixties. In 1969 Colonel Arcari was assigned as legislative analyst in the Office of the Secretary of Defense and Headquarters, U.S. Air Force. During the next 17 years, including 13 years as Chief of the Air Force Entitlements Division, Colonel Arcari earned the reputation as the Department of Defense's preeminent authority on military compensation matters. In addition to helping craft the All-Volunteer Force pay table and the military Survivor Benefit Plan, his inputs to the Senate Armed Services Committee proved invaluable in crafting the Nunn-Warner compensation enhancements that assisted in turning around the retention and readiness crisis of the late 1970's and early 1980's. He retired from active duty in February 1985. Following retirement, Colonel Arcari joined The Retired Officers Association and served as Deputy Director and since 1990 as Director of Government Relations. Under Colonel Arcari's professional stewardship, The Retired Officers Association has played a vital role as the principal advocate of legislative initiatives to improve readiness and the quality of life for all members of the uniformed service community--active, reserve, and retired, as well as their families. Colonel Arcari has worked closely with, and has been a valuable resource for, the Senate Armed Services Committee as we enacted a wide range of much-needed improvements for our military personnel. His efforts in the areas of military compensation, retirement benefits, health care and fair cost-of-living adjustments, COLA, for retired personnel and their families has been invaluable in improving long term retention of our armed forces. I am particularly gratified that during the past two years in which I have been privileged to serve as Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee I have been able to enact some of the most substantial quality-of-life enhancements for active, reserve, and retired service members and their families in decades. Colonel Arcari played an important role in this effort. Colonel Arcari's long and unique career of leadership and personal dedication to fostering readiness by protecting every service member's welfare is an inspiration and a continuing lesson to all who care about our men and women of our military. My best wishes go with him. Colonel Arcari, I salute you on behalf of all the men and women, past and present, who wear the uniform.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. I ask unanimous consent for such time that I may require.

Mr. WARNER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. WARNER. Madam President, I rise in strong support of the work that has been done by our distinguished chairman, the senior Senator from North Carolina, and indeed the ranking member, the senior Senator from Delaware. I have had the privilege of working with them on this issue including traveling to New York City with them while we were working with the distinguished Ambassador, Mr. Holbrooke, on this issue. I also traveled a second time to New York City at the invitation of then-Ambassador Holbrooke to work on this issue. These three, the great triumvirate, have brought this about. It is a remarkable feat for freedom. This institution, the U.N., through the years has collected a good deal of disparaging comment, but it is an essential institution. Despite the disparaging references in years past, it is a stronger institution today under the current leadership of the distinguished Kofi Annan, and it is performing tasks that, frankly, I would not want to see our Government out in front on. Better we take second place and work with other nations through the U.N. to achieve certain objectives, rather than the unilateral intervention or, indeed, the unilateral participation by the United States. This funding issue has been a cloud that has hung over the institution of the Congress and the U.N. for many years. Through the able leadership of Chairman Helms and the ranking member, Mr. Biden, that cloud is now in a large measure dispelled. It is a job that should receive the commendation and support of all in this Chamber. I see the Presiding Officer is a distinguished Senator from the great State of New York which provides a home for the United Nations. The United Nations is an institution that hopefully will live long and will benefit from the strong support expressed by this vote in the Senate today. I rise today as an original cosponsor of this very important legislation on the payment of United States arrearages to the United Nations. We are at this crucial point due to the determined efforts of the distinguished chairman and ranking member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and our former Ambassador to the United Nations, Richard Holbrooke. The United Nations Reform Act of 1999, known as Helms-Biden, provided for the payment of $926 million in U.S. arrears to the United Nations in return for a series of United Nations reforms, including a reduction in the U.S. assessment for the regular and peacekeeping budgets. The United States made its first payment under Helms-Biden, which totaled $100 million, in December of 1999. Under Helms-Biden, however, the second installment, totaling $582 million, could only be paid once the Secretary of State certifies that the ceiling for the U.N.'s regular budget scale of assessment for the U.S. is set at 22 percent, and that there is a ceiling set at 25 percent for the U.S. assessment for the U.N.'s peacekeeping budget. After a lengthy and substantive debate, in late December 2000 the United Nation's General Assembly agreed to reduce U.S. dues to the United Nations. The General Assembly voted to set the ceiling for the regular budget scale of assessment for the U.S. at 22 percent--down from 25 percent--and set the ceiling for the peacekeeping scale of assessment for the U.S. at 28.15 percent--previously there was no ceiling and the U.S. was assessed approximately 31 percent. While the new scale of assessment ceiling for the U.N. regular budget meets the requirements of Helms-Biden, the new scale of assessment ceiling for the U.N. peacekeeping budget falls just short of what is required under Helms-Biden. This legislation we are considering today will amend Helms-Biden so as to allow the U.S. to make its second payment of arrears to the U.N. Specifically, the requirement that the U.N.'s peacekeeping scale of assessment ceiling for the U.S. must be set at 25 percent is amended to the U.N. agreed upon number of 28.15 percent. Although we all wish that the U.N. would have agreed to the 25 percent ceiling for the U.S. share of the peacekeeping budget, the agreement that was reached is significant and deserves our wholehearted support. By passing this legislation, we can move forward with the implementation of the goals of Helms-Biden and continue to strengthen our relationship with the United Nations. At this point I want to recognize three individuals whose heroic efforts made this landmark agreement possible. Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Helms and Ranking Member Biden spent years crafting the Helms-Biden legislation. Without their tireless efforts and the bipartisanship with which they tackled a task which many felt was unachievable, we would not be where we are today. Their commitment and total devotion to strengthening and reforming the United Nations deserves our highest praise. Likewise, the unflagging efforts of former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Richard Holbrooke must be recognized. Ambassador Holbrooke spent his 17 months at the U.N. working incessantly to see that the reforms contained in Helms-Biden were implemented. To achieve this goal, he traveled repeatedly to Washington to consult with Members of Congress, invited numerous Members, including myself, to New York for meetings with U.N. ambassadors and spent uncountable hours on the telephone promoting these reforms. In fact, during Ambassador Holbrooke's tenure I visited the U.N. twice to meet with numerous U.N. ambassadors and Secretary-General Kofi Annan in order to discuss U.N. reform issues. Without Ambassador Holbrooke's efforts, it is unlikely, in my view, that the U.N. General Assembly would have agreed to reform the U.N.'s regular and peacekeeping budgets. The United Nations, under the strong leadership of Secretary-General Kofi Annan, plays a crucial role in global affairs. It is in our national interests to continue to work with the United Nations to ensure that it is strong and effective. In light of that, I reiterate my strong support for the rapid passage of this legislation which will keep reforms at the U.N. on schedule and allow for the continued payment of U.S. arrearages. I yield the floor. Mr. GREGG of New Hampshire addressed the Chair.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce, ``The Teacher Tax Credit Act.'' All of us know that individuals do not pursue a career in the teaching profession for the money. People go into the teaching profession for grander reasons--to educate our youth, to make a lasting influence. Simply put, to teach is to touch a life forever. How true that is. I venture to say that every one of us can remember at least one teacher and the special influence he or she had on our lives. Despite the fact that teachers play such an important role, elementary and secondary education teachers are underpaid, overworked, and, unfortunately, all too often, under-appreciated. I was astounded to learn that teachers expend significant money out of their own pocket to better the education of our children. Most typically, our teachers are spending money out of their own pocket on three types of expenses: (1) education expenses brought into the classroom--such as books, supplies, pens, paper, and computer equipment; (2) professional development expenses--such as tuition, fees, books, and supplies associated with courses that help our teachers become even better instructors; and (3) interest paid by the teacher for previously incurred higher education loans. This is the essence of volunteerism in the United States--teachers spending their own money to better our childrens' education. Why do they do this? Simply because school budgets are not adequate to meet the costs of education. These out-of-pocket costs placed on the backs of our teachers are but one reason our teachers are leaving the profession. Numerous reports exist detailing the teacher shortage. According to the National Education Association, ``America will need two million new teachers in the next decade, and experts predict that half the teachers who will be in the public school classrooms 10 years from now have not yet been hired.'' In addition, it is estimated that twenty percent of all new hires leave the teaching profession within three years. Certainly, a pay raise for teachers is needed and would be a strong showing of recognition and appreciation towards the profession. However, whether or not to provide teachers a pay raise is a local issue and not one that the federal government ought to be involved in. Nevertheless, there is something we can do. On a federal level, we can encourage individuals to enter the teaching profession and remain in the teaching profession by reimbursing them for the costs that teachers voluntarily incur as part of the profession. Second, we can help our local school districts with the costs associated with education. And, finally, third, we can specifically help financially strapped urban and rural school systems recruit new teachers and keep those teachers that are currently in the system. With these premises in mind, I introduce, ``The Teacher Tax Credit.'' This legislation creates a $1,000 tax credit for eligible teachers for qualified education expenses, qualified professional development expenses and interest paid by the teacher during the taxable year on any qualified education loan. Every one of these expenses benefit the student in the classroom either through better classroom materials or through increased knowledge on the part of the teacher. Even so, the current tax code provides little, if any, recognition of the importance of these expenses. Under the current tax structure, each of these expenses are deductible. However, in order to deduct these classroom expenses under the current tax code, our teachers must meet 4 requirements: (1) Teachers must itemize their deductions to receive any tax benefit for the unreimbursed money they spend on education expenses or professional development expenses. Most taxpayers in this country do not itemize; (2) In the event teachers do itemize, in order to receive a deduction under the current tax code for education expenses or professional development costs, teachers' deductions would have to exceed two percent of their adjusted gross income; (3) With respect to qualified education loans, under the current tax law, the interest on these loans is deductible, but that deduction is limited to the first sixty months after graduation. A teacher with the standard ten year repayment loans who has been teaching for more than five years receives no benefit; and (4) Under the current tax code, the student loan interest deduction is phased out based on income level. Thus, some teachers, although not rich by any means, could be phased out of the deduction. As a result of these four prerequisites, most teachers today receive little, if any, tax benefit for their out of pocket expenses to improve our childrens' education. Our teachers deserve better. When our teachers spend their own money on education expenses that go into the classroom to help students learn, they ought to receive a real tax benefit. When our teachers spend their own money on professional development courses to enhance their knowledge in a subject in which they are instructing, our teachers deserve a real tax benefit. When our recent college graduates make the honorable and tough choice of training today's youth and tomorrow's leaders, with little expectation of financial riches, such a choice should be encouraged and our teachers' choices should be recognized. In my view, the most important factor in ensuring a quality education is having a quality teacher in the classroom. The $1,000 Teacher Tax Credit recognizes the hard work our teachers have committed themselves to and helps improve education. Under my legislation, teachers could receive up to a $1,000 tax credit for qualified education expenses, qualified professional development courses, and interest on student loans. Qualifying teachers would not have to itemize their deductions to receive the credit, and they would not have to exceed the two percent floor. Teachers would not be phased out of the student loan interest benefit based on income level, and there would be no 60 month limitation. Mr. President, we all agree that our education system must ensure that no child is left behind. As we move towards education reforms to achieve this goal, we must keep in mind the other component in our education system--the teachers. We must ensure that qualified teachers are not forgotten. Quality, caring teachers, along with quality caring parents, play the predominant roles in ensuring that no child is left behind. Passage of The Teacher Tax Credit will help our school systems retain the good teachers they now have and recruit the good teachers they need for the future. Mr. President, some of my colleagues in the Senate have recognized that we can and must do more for our teachers in this country. Senators Collins and Kyl have worked on similar legislation, and I commend them for their efforts. I look forward working with them and my other colleagues on this important matter. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. I ask unanimous consent that letters from the National Education Association and the Virginia Education Association indicating their support for this legislation and the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Certainly from that standpoint, that alone would give everyone a basis on which to cast a vote in favor of this nomination. For those who are concerned about Senator Ashcroft's nomination, it is important to remember that once John Ashcroft is confirmed as our next Attorney General, he will serve at the pleasure of the President. This time honored phrase, ``At the pleasure of the President,'' has been used by Presidents throughout American history to show the American people that the President is the final arbiter of accountability for his Cabinet members. And, also, I'd like to remind my colleagues in the Senate, and more broadly the American people, of the promises John Ashcroft has made and the oath that he will take. John Ashcroft has promised to every American that he will uphold the law of the land whether he disagrees with such a law or not. Once confirmed as Attorney General, John Ashcroft will raise his right hand and swear to uphold the law of the land. When John Ashcroft makes a promise that he will uphold the law of the land, and when he takes that oath of office to uphold the law of the land, I take him at his word. (The remarks of Mr. Warner pertaining to the introduction of S. 225 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I thank my distinguished colleague. If I may say with deep respect to him as a friend first, and as a Senator second, I think he agrees with my basic proposition that he emerges from this process a stronger and a more deeply committed public servant.

Mr. WARNER. I will take not more than 10 minutes if that is agreeable to my colleagues.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I yield the floor and thank my colleagues.

Mr. WARNER. Does the Senator want to modify a unanimous consent request?

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I join the many Members today to support the nomination of our former colleague--our friend, indeed--John Ashcroft, to serve as the Attorney General of the United States. Article II, section 2, of the Constitution provides that the President shall name and, with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint judges of the Supreme Court and all other officers of the United States. Thus, the Constitution provides a role for both the President and the Senate in this process. The President has the power to nominate; the Senate has the power to render advice and consent on the nomination. In fulfilling the constitutional role of the Senate, throughout my career--some 23 years I have been privileged to represent the Commonwealth of Virginia--I have always tried to give fair and objective consideration to both Republican and Democratic Presidential Cabinet-level appointees; as a matter of fact, all appointees. Traditionally, a President, especially after taking office following a national election, should be entitled to select individuals who he believes can best serve this Nation and his goals as President. It has always been my policy to review Cabinet nominees to ensure that the nominee has the basic qualifications and the basic experience to ensure that nominee can perform the job to which he has been nominated, to ensure that the nominee also will enforce the laws of the land that are key--and that is instrumental--in the consideration now being given to this important post of the Attorney General of the United States, and to ensure that the nominee possesses a level of integrity and character that the American people deserve and expect from public officeholder. Therein, perhaps, rests the widest margin of discretion that should be exercised by the Senate. All 100 members have brought to bear in this Chamber, and in other areas in which we daily work to serve the Senate, experience that has enabled us to win the public office as Senator. That experience has fine-honed every Member of this Chamber in one way or another, such that he or she can judge facts, nominees, and the entirety of the situation to determine, does that individual have the integrity or do they not have that integrity? That is a very important function we perform. I say to my colleagues, and to my constituents, and to those who are interested in my views, that John Ashcroft has the qualifications and the experience and the integrity to undertake this important office. Former Senator John Ashcroft from Missouri recently lost his election bid to the Senate under most unusual circumstances, not unlike the circumstances that faced my State at one time, when we lost one of our most valued public servants, a public servant who was contending for the office of the U.S. Senate, who had beaten me fairly and squarely in basically a convention or modified primary type situation. I was in strong support of that individual. Then his light plane one night crashed. I have had that experience. I shared it with my friend, John Ashcroft, because he was so deeply shaken by this tragedy. There is not a one of us who couldn't say, ``Well, it could have been me,'' the way we have to travel across our States, across our land, in these small planes and many other modes of conveyance at all hours of the day and night. John Ashcroft approached that tragic situation in a very balanced and fair manner. To some extent, he counseled with several of us. But it was a very difficult decision as to how he should conduct himself for the balance of that campaign. I think he did it admirably. He did it with great courage and respect for the tragedy that had befallen his State. If I ever had any doubts about John Ashcroft, the manner in which he handled that tragic situation will forever place in my mind that this man has the integrity, not only to be Attorney General but to take on any public office of this land. Our colleague served in the Senate from 1994 to 2000, serving as a leader in the passage of welfare reform legislation and fighting for lower taxes, strong national defense, greater local control of education, and enhanced law enforcement. Prior to his service in the Senate, John Ashcroft served as Governor of Missouri from 1985 to 1993 and attorney general of Missouri from 1976 to 1985. He dedicated over 28 years of his life to public service--over a quarter of a century. If he had flaws in his integrity, they would have been carefully documented, I am sure, in that period of time. I would like to add this, again based on having the privilege of serving in this Chamber many years and having gone through many hearings for Cabinet nominees and other nominees, this was a very thorough hearing. Legitimate questions can be asked as to how fair it might have been in some instances, but it was unquestionably thorough. It was prolonged--there is a question of the necessity of the length of it--but anyway, it was thorough. In my opinion--and I say this with the deepest respect to the members of the committee and most especially to this nominee, John Ashcroft, and I say to my good friend, the ranking member, whom I have admired these many years in the Senate--John Ashcroft emerges as a better, a stronger, a more deeply committed man as a consequence of this process. I feel that ever so strongly. Each of us who has gone through these stressful situations that we confront from time to time in our public office--those of us who go through those situations--and withstand the rigors of such an examination, in all likelihood emerge a stronger person. I see my friend standing. Does he wish to comment?

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I am happy to accommodate the leadership and the floor managers. Would the Senator care to modify it now and take that time?

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I think this is an important point, certainly to this Senator. I value the views of my friend.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce, ``The Teacher Tax Credit Act.'' All of us know that individuals do not pursue a career in the teaching profession for the money. People go into the teaching profession for grander reasons--to educate our youth, to make a lasting influence. Simply put, to teach is to touch a life forever. How true that is. I venture to say that every one of us can remember at least one teacher and the special influence he or she had on our lives. Despite the fact that teachers play such an important role, elementary and secondary education teachers are underpaid, overworked, and, unfortunately, all too often, under-appreciated. I was astounded to learn that teachers expend significant money out of their own pocket to better the education of our children. Most typically, our teachers are spending money out of their own pocket on three types of expenses: (1) education expenses brought into the classroom--such as books, supplies, pens, paper, and computer equipment; (2) professional development expenses--such as tuition, fees, books, and supplies associated with courses that help our teachers become even better instructors; and (3) interest paid by the teacher for previously incurred higher education loans. This is the essence of volunteerism in the United States--teachers spending their own money to better our childrens' education. Why do they do this? Simply because school budgets are not adequate to meet the costs of education. These out-of-pocket costs placed on the backs of our teachers are but one reason our teachers are leaving the profession. Numerous reports exist detailing the teacher shortage. According to the National Education Association, ``America will need two million new teachers in the next decade, and experts predict that half the teachers who will be in the public school classrooms 10 years from now have not yet been hired.'' In addition, it is estimated that twenty percent of all new hires leave the teaching profession within three years. Certainly, a pay raise for teachers is needed and would be a strong showing of recognition and appreciation towards the profession. However, whether or not to provide teachers a pay raise is a local issue and not one that the federal government ought to be involved in. Nevertheless, there is something we can do. On a federal level, we can encourage individuals to enter the teaching profession and remain in the teaching profession by reimbursing them for the costs that teachers voluntarily incur as part of the profession. Second, we can help our local school districts with the costs associated with education. And, finally, third, we can specifically help financially strapped urban and rural school systems recruit new teachers and keep those teachers that are currently in the system. With these premises in mind, I introduce, ``The Teacher Tax Credit.'' This legislation creates a $1,000 tax credit for eligible teachers for qualified education expenses, qualified professional development expenses and interest paid by the teacher during the taxable year on any qualified education loan. Every one of these expenses benefit the student in the classroom either through better classroom materials or through increased knowledge on the part of the teacher. Even so, the current tax code provides little, if any, recognition of the importance of these expenses. Under the current tax structure, each of these expenses are deductible. However, in order to deduct these classroom expenses under the current tax code, our teachers must meet 4 requirements: (1) Teachers must itemize their deductions to receive any tax benefit for the unreimbursed money they spend on education expenses or professional development expenses. Most taxpayers in this country do not itemize; (2) In the event teachers do itemize, in order to receive a deduction under the current tax code for education expenses or professional development costs, teachers' deductions would have to exceed two percent of their adjusted gross income; (3) With respect to qualified education loans, under the current tax law, the interest on these loans is deductible, but that deduction is limited to the first sixty months after graduation. A teacher with the standard ten year repayment loans who has been teaching for more than five years receives no benefit; and (4) Under the current tax code, the student loan interest deduction is phased out based on income level. Thus, some teachers, although not rich by any means, could be phased out of the deduction. As a result of these four prerequisites, most teachers today receive little, if any, tax benefit for their out of pocket expenses to improve our childrens' education. Our teachers deserve better. When our teachers spend their own money on education expenses that go into the classroom to help students learn, they ought to receive a real tax benefit. When our teachers spend their own money on professional development courses to enhance their knowledge in a subject in which they are instructing, our teachers deserve a real tax benefit. When our recent college graduates make the honorable and tough choice of training today's youth and tomorrow's leaders, with little expectation of financial riches, such a choice should be encouraged and our teachers' choices should be recognized. In my view, the most important factor in ensuring a quality education is having a quality teacher in the classroom. The $1,000 Teacher Tax Credit recognizes the hard work our teachers have committed themselves to and helps improve education. Under my legislation, teachers could receive up to a $1,000 tax credit for qualified education expenses, qualified professional development courses, and interest on student loans. Qualifying teachers would not have to itemize their deductions to receive the credit, and they would not have to exceed the two percent floor. Teachers would not be phased out of the student loan interest benefit based on income level, and there would be no 60 month limitation. Mr. President, we all agree that our education system must ensure that no child is left behind. As we move towards education reforms to achieve this goal, we must keep in mind the other component in our education system--the teachers. We must ensure that qualified teachers are not forgotten. Quality, caring teachers, along with quality caring parents, play the predominant roles in ensuring that no child is left behind. Passage of The Teacher Tax Credit will help our school systems retain the good teachers they now have and recruit the good teachers they need for the future. Mr. President, some of my colleagues in the Senate have recognized that we can and must do more for our teachers in this country. Senators Collins and Kyl have worked on similar legislation, and I commend them for their efforts. I look forward working with them and my other colleagues on this important matter. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. I ask unanimous consent that letters from the National Education Association and the Virginia Education Association indicating their support for this legislation and the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I am pleased today to join with my distinguished colleague from New York, Senator Schumer, to introduce the Commuter Benefits Equity Act of 2001. Transportation gridlock in the metropolitan Washington region is dramatic and well documented. The average commuter spends about 76 hours a year idling on our area roads. The average speed on the Capital Beltway has decreased from 47 miles per hour to 23 miles per hour today. This wasted time in cars results in lost work productivity, lost time with families and degraded air quality. The quality of life for commuters is significantly reduced all across the country. I firmly believe the strength of our economy will be jeopardized if the growing rate of congestion in our communities remains unchecked. Yes, the construction of new roads and the expansion of existing roads must occur. But, this alone is not the answer to our problems. Relief from our growing gridlock will not come from any one solution. It will only come from an integrated policy of options that provide short-term, immediate solutions, together with long-term planning for new transportation facilities, both roads and transit. For these reasons, I have worked over the years to provide commuters with greater incentives to use mass transit, bus or rail, and to join vanpools. Increased transit ridership, extension of the Metro system, the Dulles Rapid Transit System, and expanded telecommuting opportunities are critical to providing temporary short-term solutions. Greater transit use and broader telework options are measures we can implement today that will deliver results tomorrow. The measure I am introducing today with Senator Schumer will provide parity in the tax code for those who enjoy employer-provided parking and those who elect to commute by mass transit. Today, the tax code provides two benefits for employers to offer their employees, both Federal employees and those in the private sector. Employers can offer employees a cash benefit of $65 per month for commuting expenses, or employers can set aside up to $65 per month of an employee's pre-tax income to pay for commuting costs. Under the tax code, however, the employer-provided parking benefit is valued at $175 per month. The legislation introduced today will increase the transit/vanpool benefit to $175 per month to be on par with the value of the parking benefit. Last year, I authored a provision in the FY 2001 Department of Defense Authorization bill requiring the Department of Defense to offer the cash commuting benefit to all DOD employees working in areas that do not meet the Federal air quality standards. With a total metropolitan Washington regional federal workforce of 323,000 persons, the Department of Defense is, by far, the single largest federal employer with 65,000 persons. The implementation of this benefit by the Federal agencies will improve employee satisfaction and have a positive effect on retention rates in the Federal workforce. This measure, however, is not limited to Federal employees. It does extend the benefit to private sector employees as well. Equally important are the resulting air quality benefits from increased transit use. According to the Environmental Protection Agency, the metropolitan Washington area is an air quality non- attainment area, categorized as severe, under the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990. Mobile sources are responsible for the majority of our air quality violations. Mr. President, I commend this legislation to my colleagues for their attention. It's costs are modest, and the benefits to our society are significant.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I join today in supporting the nomination of Christine Todd Whitman to be Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency. As a member of the Committee on Environment and Public Works, I have had the opportunity to discuss with the nominee the many challenging environmental and public health issues facing us today. As the former, two-term governor of New Jersey, Ms. Whitman brings to this position on the ground experience in finding solutions and making progress on environmental problems. Today, New Jersey's beaches, once plagued with closures, have seen dramatic reductions in closures due a comprehensive beach monitoring system. New Jersey's brownfields redevelopment initiations are leading the nation in revitalizing urban centers. Mr. President, Ms. Whitman brings to this important post a record of accomplishment. More importantly, she has a demonstrated ability to find common ground to make progress on complex problems. Her experience as a state executive will guide her as she works with our state partners to improve air and water quality, to restore abandoned industrial sites and to reinvigorate the Superfund program. I have every confidence of her steadfast commitment to advancing the protection of public health and the environment. I look forward to working with her and urge my colleagues to support her nomination.

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I am pleased today to join with my distinguished colleague from New York, Senator Schumer, to introduce the Commuter Benefits Equity Act of 2001. Transportation gridlock in the metropolitan Washington region is dramatic and well documented. The average commuter spends about 76 hours a year idling on our area roads. The average speed on the Capital Beltway has decreased from 47 miles per hour to 23 miles per hour today. This wasted time in cars results in lost work productivity, lost time with families and degraded air quality. The quality of life for commuters is significantly reduced all across the country. I firmly believe the strength of our economy will be jeopardized if the growing rate of congestion in our communities remains unchecked. Yes, the construction of new roads and the expansion of existing roads must occur. But, this alone is not the answer to our problems. Relief from our growing gridlock will not come from any one solution. It will only come from an integrated policy of options that provide short-term, immediate solutions, together with long-term planning for new transportation facilities, both roads and transit. For these reasons, I have worked over the years to provide commuters with greater incentives to use mass transit, bus or rail, and to join vanpools. Increased transit ridership, extension of the Metro system, the Dulles Rapid Transit System, and expanded telecommuting opportunities are critical to providing temporary short-term solutions. Greater transit use and broader telework options are measures we can implement today that will deliver results tomorrow. The measure I am introducing today with Senator Schumer will provide parity in the tax code for those who enjoy employer-provided parking and those who elect to commute by mass transit. Today, the tax code provides two benefits for employers to offer their employees, both Federal employees and those in the private sector. Employers can offer employees a cash benefit of $65 per month for commuting expenses, or employers can set aside up to $65 per month of an employee's pre-tax income to pay for commuting costs. Under the tax code, however, the employer-provided parking benefit is valued at $175 per month. The legislation introduced today will increase the transit/vanpool benefit to $175 per month to be on par with the value of the parking benefit. Last year, I authored a provision in the FY 2001 Department of Defense Authorization bill requiring the Department of Defense to offer the cash commuting benefit to all DOD employees working in areas that do not meet the Federal air quality standards. With a total metropolitan Washington regional federal workforce of 323,000 persons, the Department of Defense is, by far, the single largest federal employer with 65,000 persons. The implementation of this benefit by the Federal agencies will improve employee satisfaction and have a positive effect on retention rates in the Federal workforce. This measure, however, is not limited to Federal employees. It does extend the benefit to private sector employees as well. Equally important are the resulting air quality benefits from increased transit use. According to the Environmental Protection Agency, the metropolitan Washington area is an air quality non- attainment area, categorized as severe, under the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990. Mobile sources are responsible for the majority of our air quality violations. Mr. President, I commend this legislation to my colleagues for their attention. It's costs are modest, and the benefits to our society are significant.