[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 46 (Thursday, April 17, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3361-S3371]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
THE FORT CAMPBELL TAX FAIRNESS ACT OF 1997
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I rise today to join my friend, colleague,
and senior Senator from Tennessee, Fred Thompson, to introduce the Fort
Campbell Tax Fairness Act of 1997.
We are introducing this legislation today to rectify a tax injustice
imposed on Tennessee residents at Fort Campbell in northwest Tennessee.
Fort Campbell, a 105,000-acre military installation that serves as
America's premier power projection platform, straddles the border of
Tennessee and Kentucky. Under current law, about 2,000 Tennesseans who
work on the Kentucky side of Fort Campbell are forced to pay income tax
to Kentucky--even though they receive no benefits or services from the
Kentucky State government.
They cannot send their children to Kentucky public schools. In an
emergency, these residents cannot use Kentucky fire, ambulance, and
police services. Tennesseans who want to attend a Kentucky public
university must pay out-of-State tuition. Tennesseans who want to hunt
and fish in Kentucky
[[Page S3362]]
must pay out-of-State rates for licenses. Most importantly, these
Tennesseans who are paying Kentucky income taxes cannot vote in
Kentucky elections. I consider this inherently unfair situation a case
of ``taxation without representation''--violating a fundamental
principle of our American Revolution.
Our bill, like its bipartisan companion in the House introduced by
Representatives Ed Bryant and John Tanner, simply provides that
Kentucky may not tax compensation paid to Tennessee Federal workers and
contractors working on the Kentucky side of Fort Campbell. I look
forward to working with Senator Thompson and other members of the
Tennessee delegation to enact this bill into law.
______
By Mr. BREAUX (for himself and Mr. D'Amato):
S. 614. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide
flexibility in the use of unused volume cap for tax-exempt bonds, to
provide a $20,000,000 limit on small issue bonds, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on Finance.
TAX-EXEMPT BONDS LEGISLATION
Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I rise today with Mr. D'Amato to introduce
legislation that will improve the use of tax-exempt bonds as a
financing mechanism for small manufacturing facilities and other
important uses.
The first thing our bill does is give States more flexibility under
the annual $50 per capita or $150 million cap. Under current law, if
the State designates bond money for a project and, for whatever reason,
that project is not started in 3 years the State cannot put the bond
money toward another project. This bill would allow States to
reallocate that bond money to another type of project needed elsewhere
in the State.
In addition, the $10 million limit on capital expenditures a company
can maintain and still qualify for this industrial bond money would
increase to $20 million under our bill. The increase reflects the
effects of inflation since 1978 when the program was first created and
also corrects for future effects of inflation on a company's real
worth.
Finally, our bill would further clean up an omission in the current
law. The 3-year carryover provision does not apply to small
manufacturing facilities. In researching current law, it appears that
denying carryover to manufacturing facilities is nothing more than an
oversight. The legislation that we are introducing today will correct
this error and allow Governors the flexibility to allow tax-exempt
authority for manufacturing facilities to be carried over for 3 years
in the same way as other activities allocated tax-exempt bonds.
Tax-exempt bonds are essential for States to finance industrial
development projects, ranging from small manufacturing facilities to
pollution control and resource recovery facilities. Our legislation
would help States fund industrial development and better allocate their
scarce tax-exempt bond authority.
I hope my colleagues will join me in cosponsoring this important
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. 614
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. UNLIMITED 3-YEAR CARRYFORWARD OF UNUSED VOLUME CAP
FOR BONDS, INCLUDING SMALL ISSUE BONDS.
(a) In General.--Paragraphs (1) and (2) of section 146(d)
of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to State
ceiling) are amended to read as follows:
``(1) In general.--The State ceiling applicable to any
State for any calendar year is an amount equal to the sum
of--
``(A) the current year State ceiling of such State, plus
``(B) the unused State ceiling (if any) of such State for
the preceding 3 calendar years.
``(2) Current year state ceiling.--For purposes of
paragraph (1)--
``(A) In general.--The current year State ceiling of any
State for any calendar year is an amount equal to the greater
of--
``(i) an amount equal to $50 multiplied by the State
population, or
``(ii) $150,000,000.
``(B) Application to possessions.--Clause (ii) of
subparagraph (A) shall not apply to any possession of the
United States.
``(3) Unused state ceiling.--For purposes of paragraph (1),
the unused State ceiling of any State for any calendar year
is the excess (if any) of the State ceiling of such State for
such calendar year over the aggregate State ceiling allocated
by the State for such calendar year.
``(4) Rules of application.--For purposes of paragraph (1),
with respect to any calendar year--
``(A) the current year State ceiling shall be fully
allocated before the allocation of the unused State ceiling,
and
``(B) unused State ceiling shall be allocated in the order
of the calendar years in which the unused State ceiling
arose.''.
(b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 146(f)(1)(A) of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to elective
carryforward of unused limitation for specified purpose) is
amended by inserting ``and before 1998'' after ``after
1985''.
(c) Effective Date; Special Election.--
(1) Effective date.--The amendments made by this section
apply to the State ceiling for calendar years after 1997.
(2) Special election.--Notwithstanding section 146(f) of
the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, within 120 days after the
date of enactment of this Act, the person or entity
responsible for allocating the State ceiling may irrevocably
elect to treat (with the consent of each allocation
recipient) such portion of the carryforwards elected under
section 146(f) of such Code for the 3 calendar years ending
in 1997 as unused State ceiling under section 146(d)(1) of
such Code (as amended by this section).
SEC. 2. $20,000,000 CAPITAL EXPENDITURE LIMIT ON QUALIFIED
SMALL ISSUE BONDS.
(a) In General.--Subparagraph (A) of section 144(a)(4) of
the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to $10,000,000
limit in certain cases) is amended by inserting ``in excess
of $10,000,000'' after ``amount of capital expenditures''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a)
shall apply to--
(1) obligations issued after the date of the enactment of
this Act, and
(2) capital expenditures made after such date with respect
to obligations issued on or before such date.
______
By Mr. CHAFEE (for himself, Mrs. Feinstein, Mr. D'Amato, Mr.
Lieberman, Mr. DeWine, Mr. Moynihan, and Ms. Mikulski):
S. 615. A bill to amend the Personal Responsibility and Work
Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 to provide for continued
eligibility for supplemental security income and food stamps with
regard to certain classifications of aliens; to the Committee on
Finance.
the fairness for legal immigrants act of 1997
Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, today Senators Feinstein, D'Amato,
Lieberman, DeWine, Moynihan, and Mikulski and I are introducing
legislation to protect legal immigrants who are facing the loss of
critical SSI and food stamp benefits later this summer.
Now that the welfare bill has become law, the crisis facing many
legal immigrants, especially the elderly and disabled, is all too
evident. For those legal immigrants who face the loss of assistance in
August and September, the outlook is grim.
The bill we are introducing focuses on the plight of these legal
immigrants. First, our bill grandfathers all legal immigrants who were
receiving SSI or food stamp benefits as of August 22, 1996, the date
the President signed the welfare bill. Second, our bill grandfathers
those refugees who were in the country on August 22, 1996, regardless
of whether they were receiving benefits.
Why this approach? To us, it is a matter of fundamental fairness.
That is the principle that underlies our bill. We believe that those
who were in this country and playing by the rules should not have the
rules suddenly changed out from under them. As for refugees, we provide
them a slightly broader provision, since unlike other immigrants they
do not have sponsors and they come here to flee persecution.
This is a matter of great importance to the residents in the States
represented before you today. In my own State, a significant percentage
of our total population is immigrants, indeed, measured in those terms,
Rhode Island is one of the top immigrant States in the country. Some
10,000 legal immigrants in my State rely on SSI and food stamp
benefits, quite a lot by RI standards.
We believe that our approach is a reasonable, commonsense proposal
that will appeal to Members on both sides of the aisle and that can be
enacted this year. By introducing this bipartisan
[[Page S3363]]
bill today, we hope to signal to our colleagues the seriousness of our
concern and the strength of our resolve. We intend to fight for passage
of this bill, and we have every expectation of meeting with success.
Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of
my statement be submitted in the Record at the appropriate place.
The welfare reform law that passed last year will have an adverse
impact on legal immigrants who are elderly and disabled, the most
vulnerable of our population.
That is why I am joining my colleagues, Senators Chafee, Feinstein,
Moynihan, DeWine, Lieberman and Mikulski in introducing this
legislation to protect vulnerable legal immigrants who are facing a
loss of their supplemental security income [SSI] and food stamp
benefits this August.
Now that the welfare reform law is being implemented, with nearly
900,000 SSI recipients nationwide receiving preliminary noncitizen
status notices of the changes in the law, there has emerged a crisis
facing legal immigrants who are elderly and disabled.
The Social Security Administration has estimated that these welfare
reform changes may result in 434,000 legal immigrants actually losing
SSI benefits.
Of the 80,000 legal immigrants at risk of losing their SSI benefits
in New York State, roughly 70,000 are in New York City. New York City
also expects that more than 130,000 legal immigrants currently
receiving food stamps will lose those benefits by 1998.
The bill we are introducing will grandfather those immigrants who
were receiving SSI or food stamp benefits as of August 22, 1996, the
date of enactment of the Welfare bill. And it will grandfather refugees
and asylees who were in this country as of August 22, 1996.
This bill is about making sure that some of the most vulnerable
people, the elderly and the disabled, are not pushed out of the SSI and
Food Stamp Programs.
The people of America recognize that many people who are elderly and
disabled are in fact unable at times to take care of themselves without
assistance through no fault of their own. To turn our back on these
people would be cruel and not in keeping with our Nation's tradition of
supporting those in need.
Refugees who have been granted political asylum also merit that extra
consideration that comes from leaving one's own country under duress
searching for freedom and a new way of life. They also need a hand up
and that too is in the great and long tradition of America.
This is not a welfare bill, it is a bill of fundamental fairness and
compassion. These people came to the United Sates and have been living
under our laws for years. It is unfair to change the rules on them
suddenly. That is the crux of this bill.
This isn't just a matter of statistics and hypothetical situations of
what might happen. There are real people out there, and you can be sure
that they are going to get hurt if we do nothing. We are not going to
let that happen.
We want to work with our colleagues to pass a bill that will not put
the elderly and the disabled out on the streets.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, when Congress approved and the
President signed the comprehensive welfare reform legislation last
year, it was clear to many that it was not a perfect bill.
I, along with many of my colleagues expressed grave concern about a
number of provisions that will have a devastating impact, not only on
States and counties in terms of a huge cost shift, but on the lives and
well-being of many elderly and disabled people--people who are now
dependent upon public assistance for their survival.
The provision denying supplemental security income [SSI] and food
stamps to virtually all legal immigrants who are noncitizens, even
those who are elderly and disabled, who cannot support themselves, who
have no sponsor or other means of support, such as refugees, in my
view, is one of the most egregious flaws in that bill, and one of the
main reasons why I voted against its passage.
Today, Senator Chafee and I, along with Senators D'Amato, Moynihan,
DeWine, Lieberman, and Mikulski are offering legislation to correct
this flaw.
The Fairness for Legal Immigrants Act of 1997 would grandfather in
from the ban on SSI and food stamps: those elderly and disabled legal
permanent residents who were receiving SSI and food stamps on or before
August 22, 1996 and, those refugees who were in the country as of
August 22, 1996.
This legislation prohibits SSI and food stamps for legal permanent
residents who are not refugees and who were not receiving SSI and food
stamps as of August 22, 1996.
This legislation also prohibits SSI and food stamps for all legal
permanent residents and refugees coming to this country following the
date of enactment of the Welfare Reform Bill, August 22, 1996.
Mr. President, to not correct this flaw in the bill represents an
enormous unfunded mandate to States and counties by simply shifting the
cost of caring for the seriously ill, disabled, and elderly legal
immigrants who are destitute and have no other way to survive.
As I speak, SSA is sending out 125,000 SSI ban notices per week, to
800,000 legal immigrants who are on SSI nationwide. SSA estimates that
more than 62.5 percent or 500,000 people currently receiving SSI
benefits nationwide will lose their benefits under the current law--
more than 40 percent, 205,000 of them in California. Many of these
elderly and disabled legal immigrants have no family or friends to turn
to for support and will become completely destitute. Their only
recourse will be county general assistance programs or, at worst,
homeless shelters.
Let me give you an example from my home State:
My staff met with a 73-year-old legal immigrant on SSI. She was
welcomed to this county from Vietnam in 1980. She was a refugee from
communism with no family in the United States. She speaks no English
and she is suffering from kidney failure. She requires dialysis three
times a week. Under this new law, this 73-year-old woman will lose SSI,
her only source of support. Her well-being will become the
responsibility of the county.
I am the first to acknowledge that prior to welfare reform, there was
abuse of the SSI program in this country. Elderly noncitizens could
collect SSI, even if they lived with their children, as long as they
claimed to be financially independent from the children.
And the number of noncitizens receiving SSI has skyrocketed at a
disproportionate rate to that of citizens. The number of noncitizens
collecting SSI increased 477 percent in 14 years, from 1980 to 1994,
while the number of U.S. citizens receiving SSI increased 33 percent
during that same period.
Although I strongly support efforts to hold sponsors accountable for
the support of legal immigrants they bring into the country, the
welfare reform bill passed by Congress simply went too far. It banned
SSI and food stamps for virtually all legal immigrants, even those
whose sponsors cannot afford to support them, or who have no sponsors
at all.
The current welfare reform bill will not just eliminate fraudulent
cases from the SSI rolls. It will eliminate truly needy people like the
73-year-old elderly refugee. Surely, it was not the intent of this
Congress to leave elderly, disabled, and destitute people with nowhere
to go to except county relief or the streets.
If we do not revise the welfare ban for legal immigrants the
financial costs to States and counties will be enormous, and the human
toll even greater:
Los Angeles County estimates that 93,000 legal immigrants in its
county will lose SSI benefits at a cost of up to $236 million a year
to the county.
San Francisco estimates that 20,000 legal noncitizens may turn to the
county's general assistance program, at a total cost of up to $74
million annually.
I believe this body must finish what it started last year. In this
time of budgetary constraints where tough choices have to be made, we
must act with prudence and compassion toward those who truly have no
one to turn to, while at the same time preserving portions of the
savings needed to balance the budget and enact meaningful reform.
[[Page S3364]]
I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.
Mr. President, I ask that the SSA table be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the table was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
NUMBERS OF SSI RECIPIENTS RECEIVING PRELIMINARY NONCITIZEN STATUS
NOTICES BY STATE, NUMBERS OF SSI RECIPIENTS CODED AS NONCITIZENS BY
CATEGORY BY STATE, AND NUMBER OF SSI RECIPIENTS RECEIVING TYPE II
NOTICES BY STATE
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notices Noncitizens
-------------------- recipients on SSI
State Type II ----------------------
All \1\ \2\ LAPR Refugees
-----------------------------------------------------------------\3\----
Alabama...................... 9,800 9,215 502 123
Alaska....................... 757 117 569 95
Arizona...................... 8,511 2,979 6,318 1,295
Arkansas..................... 4,958 4,569 335 96
California................... 310,409 76,356 206,038 80,803
Colorado..................... 6,149 1,898 3,353 1,426
Connecticut.................. 5,071 1,111 3,440 1,009
Delaware..................... 665 334 275 55
D.C.......................... 1,473 769 741 127
Florida...................... 77,560 21,999 52,489 15,921
Georgia...................... 13,794 9,474 3,235 1,366
Hawaii....................... 4,616 1,026 3,461 554
Idaho........................ 811 405 364 144
Illinois..................... 27,446 6,783 16,233 6,769
Indiana...................... 2,874 1,749 904 304
Iowa......................... 2,055 1,053 631 454
Kansas....................... 1,928 608 979 412
Kentucky..................... 4,781 4,028 439 357
Louisiana.................... 8,694 6,550 2,002 536
Maine........................ 1,500 1,039 318 191
Maryland..................... 9,645 2,456 5,424 2,087
Massachusetts................ 27,171 7,782 16,184 7,383
Michigan..................... 12,136 5,232 5,364 2,069
Minnesota.................... 8,025 1,529 3,319 3,362
Mississippi.................. 8,232 7,852 363 72
Missouri..................... 4,971 3,141 996 872
Montana...................... 462 302 103 75
Nebraska..................... 1,023 427 402 238
New Hampshire................ 510 187 264 100
New Jersey................... 25,918 6,403 18,918 3,244
New Mexico................... 4,412 2,195 3,049 360
New York..................... 125,919 28,583 81,701 32,917
North Carolina............... 9,645 7,468 1,659 627
North Dakota................. 429 314 66 70
Ohio......................... 9,298 4,281 3,074 2,228
Oklahoma..................... 4,785 3,743 923 243
Oregon....................... 5,511 1,323 2,547 1,952
Pennsylvania................. 17,176 6,579 6,485 4,737
Rhode Island................. 3,755 1,194 2,640 724
South Carolina............... 6,119 5,535 505 124
South Dakota................. 504 337 56 115
Tennessee.................... 8,952 7,622 968 426
Texas........................ 66,750 31,421 50,434 5,772
Utah......................... 1,753 389 995 503
Vermont...................... 543 385 110 73
Virginia..................... 10,336 3,830 5,247 1,500
Washington................... 15,583 2,622 7,579 6,242
West Virginia................ 1,316 1,181 118 23
Wisconsin.................... 7,472 2,562 2,591 2,490
Wyoming...................... 144 97 41 77
------------------------------------------
Totals................. 895,204 299,817 526,695 193,142
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Number of notices differs from number of noncitizens recipients
because some SSI recipients' records do not contain information about
their citizenship status (Type II notices) plus some of those
designated as noncitizens did not receive notices because SSA records
indicated that they met certain exemption from the ban on eligibility.
Number reflects status as of 1/31/97.
\2\ Type II notice are those mailed to recipients whose records do not
contain information on citizenship status as of 1/31/97. These
recipients were on the SSI roles prior to 1978 when this information
began to be verified in SSA records.
\3\ Category includes refugees, asylees, and other noncitizen recipients
currently shown in SSA's records as permanently residing in the U.S.
status as of 2/20/97.
______
By Mr. ALLARD:
S. 616. A bill to amend titles 23 and 49, United States Code, to
improve the designation of metropolitan planning organizations, and for
other purposes; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
the metropolitan planning organizations reform act of 1997
Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation that
will reform the relationship between central cities and their outlying
areas in terms of distribution of highway funds. This issue was brought
to my attention by one county in my State and they were quickly joined
by several others who feel they have been treated unfairly in their
MPO.
The current law governing MPO's is the 1991 Intermodal Service
Transportation and Efficiency Act. This legislation established the
planning powers of MPO's and also set standards for membership and
qualifications for leaving MPO's. A number of counties in my State have
indicated they are unhappy in their particular MPO and would like to
leave. However, current law prohibits this.
One case in particular that has been brought to my attention is
Douglas County's experience since 1991. Douglas County is directly
south of Denver and is the fastest growing county in the Nation.
Furthermore, they are a linkage county connecting Denver and Colorado
Springs, which makes Douglas County's transportation needs tremendous.
To meet these needs they have attempted to work with their MPO to
receive an equitable share of funds. Douglas County has demonstrated
that these attempts have failed, while they are 5.27 percent of their
MPO, over the years their funding has been .35 percent for the fiscal
year 1993-1995 cycle, 1.2 percent for the fiscal year 1995-1997 cycle,
and .4 percent of the fiscal year 1997-1999 cycle. Clearly, there is a
problem with how these funds are being distributed.
This issue cannot be dismissed as a one county problem either. In the
Denver regional county of governments MPO [DRCOG], with the exception
of Denver County, I have received letters from every county supporting
the legislation I am introducing today.
This legislation would lower the barrier for disaffected parties that
would like to create their own MPO or join an adjacent MPO. This
legislation eliminates the 75 percent of the effected population
threshold to leave necessary in current law, and lowers that to 50
percent. Furthermore, it would eliminate the central city veto
authority.
This legislation will have no effect on those who are content with
their MPO. Nor will this legislation have any impact on central cities
that have worked with their MPO members equitably. It will only impact
those areas where counties are being held in a relationship they feel
is unfair. It's my hope that in future deliberations on transportation
matters we can address and resolve this issue.
______
By Mr. JOHNSON (for himself, Mr. Craig, Mr. Daschle, Mr. Burns,
and Mr. Baucus):
S. 617. A bill to amend the Federal Meat Inspection Act to require
that imported meat, and meat food products containing imported meat,
bear a label identifying the country of origin; to the Committee on
Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.
the imported meat label act of 1997
Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I am pleased today to introduce
legislation that would require that imported meat and meat food
products containing imported meat be labeled for country of origin so
that consumers can make the choice to buy meat produced from livestock
raised on American ranches and farms. This act would require that these
products be labeled for country of origin prior to their sale at the
retail level in the United States.
Senator Craig, Senator Daschle, Senator Burns, and Senator Baucus
join me today in introducing this needed policy change. I welcome and
applaud their support. I would also point out to my colleagues the
support this legislation has received from the National Farmers Union,
the American Farm Bureau Federation, the National Cattlemen's Beef
Association, and the American Sheep Industry. From my State, this
legislation is supported by the South Dakota Farmers Union, South
Dakota Farm Bureau, South Dakota Livestock Auction Markets Association,
and the South Dakota Cattlemen's Association. I hope that other
Senators join us in support of this measure and help us to quickly pass
this bill.
America's livestock producers are proud of their record of producing
quality meat and meat food products from American raised livestock.
While labeling products from other industries for country of origin is
commonplace, imported meat and meat food products containing imported
meat are often not labeled at all. With the passage of the Canadian
Free-Trade Agreement, NAFTA, and GATT, we are moving toward more
imported meat. Exports of American meat are high quality, value added
items that American exporters are proud to advertise as American
produced. On the other hand, meat imports into the United States tend
to be of lower quality and importers generally do not advertise the
country of origin.
American consumers deserve to know the source of their meat and meat
food products. The legislation that my colleagues and I are introducing
will allow America's consumers to know the source of their meat and
meat food products. Considering that food safety and the wisdom of
production systems in other countries are concerns that consumers
consistently have, this legislation allows the competitive free market
to determine the prices and demand for imported meat and meat food
products.
Finally, American taxpayers have invested heavily in our food safety
system--and it is undoubtedly the safest in the world. It just makes
good sense for these same taxpayers and consumers to know the origin of
the meat they buy.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have the complete text of
the legislation printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
[[Page S3365]]
S. 617
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 ``Imported Meat Labeling Act
of 1997''.
SEC. 2. COUNTRY OF ORIGIN LABELING OF IMPORTED MEAT AND MEAT
FOOD PRODUCTS.
(a) Labeling Required.--Section 1(n) of the Federal Meat
Inspection Act (21 U.S.C. 601(n)) is amended by adding at the
end the following:
``(13)(A) If it is imported into the United States unless
it bears or is accompanied by labeling that identifies the
country of origin of the animal that is the source of the
imported carcass, part thereof, or meat or is part of the
contents of the imported meat food product.
``(B) If it originates from an animal that was imported
into the United States less than 10 days prior to slaughter
unless it bears or is accompanied by labeling that identifies
the country of origin of the animal.
``(C) If it is a meat food product prepared in the United
States using any carcass, part thereof, or meat imported into
the United States unless the meat food product bears or is
accompanied by labeling that identifies the country of origin
of the animal that is the source of the imported carcass,
part thereof, or meat.
``(D) In this paragraph, the term `country of origin' means
the country or countries in which an animal is raised before
slaughter.''
(b) Conforming Amendments.--Section 1(n) of the Federal
Meat Inspection Act is amended--
(1) by striking ``if'' at the beginning of each of
paragraphs (1) through (12) and inserting ``If'';
(2) by striking the semicolon at the end of each of
paragraphs (1) through (10) and inserting a period, and
(3) in paragraph (11), by striking ``; or'' at the end and
inserting a period.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall take effect 1 year after the date of enactment of this
Act.
Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleague from
South Dakota today as an original cosponsor of the Imported Meat
Labeling Act of 1997. This act would require the labeling of imported
meat and meat products prior to their sale at a retail level in the
United States.
For the record, I want my colleagues to know that this type of action
is legal under the terms of our GATT Agreement. In addition, a number
of groups have policy that support this type of measure including the
American Farm Bureau, National Cattlemen's Beef Association, and the
American Sheep Industry.
Again, I commend Senator Johnson for introducing the Imported Meat
Labeling Act of 1997 and Senator Burns from Montana for his additional
efforts on this topic. I hope that other Senators will join us in
support of this measure. I would pledge my support of addressing any
legitimate concerns that this legislation might raise and ask in return
that we seek quick resolution and passage of this bill.
One legitimate concern with this legislation is the treatment of
Canadian cattle that are slaughtered in the United States. Concern
along the northern tier States that border Canada is high among all
areas of Canadian trade. Producers in these States might ask how cattle
that are born in Canada, fed in Canada, but shipped to the United
States for slaughter would be labeled. Realistically, these animals are
Canadian and the beef produced from them should be labeled as such.
However, if the legal interpretation is different, I state my
willingness for the record to amend this legislation and address this
type of concern.
Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I rise today to sponsor a bill being
introduced by myself, Mr. Craig, and Mr. Johnson on an issue of great
importance to my State and the agricultural industry in Montana. The
issue is that of labeling meat coming into America from other
countries.
We are offering today language, which will require all meat products
that come from a foreign country to be labeled with the country of
origin of that meat. This will allow all Americans to know and
understand where the meat they are purchasing really comes from. This
bill will protect the consumer as well as an industry which has had to
face severe competition from foreign countries in recent years.
Today when shopping at the local grocery market, the American
consumer is buying meat products without all the information they need
to make an informed decision on the product they are purchasing. Our
consumers go to the market and purchase meat products with no idea of
where the meat they are buying comes from. Recent events in foreign
countries have made this issue important to the retail consumer.
Outbreak of disease and problems with the quality of foreign products
makes it necessary that we provide our consumers with all the
information they should have when making an informed decision about the
food they are buying.
If we look at the vast majority of products that are imported into
our country, we find that they are labeled with the country in which
that product was produced. We have consumers that for numerous years
have established a custom of purchasing only products with a Made in
America label. It only seems right that we provide these same consumers
with the information that will allow them to make the same intelligent
decision when shopping for the food that they consume.
Our consumers today go to the market and buy meat products under the
assumption that if it carries a USDA inspection and graded label that
the meat they are purchasing comes from the United States. This, we
have recently found out, can be far from the truth. Just carrying that
label does nothing to inform the consumer that the hamburger they are
purchasing is from this country.
As I stated earlier, recent outbreaks of disease in foreign countries
has haunted our American meat producers. The public fears that the beef
they are buying could be from a European country with a disease that
has killed their citizens. Out breaks in meat and vegetable products
leads Americans to fear the purchase of American meat and vegetables
because they are under the assumption that the product is American in
origin. This is not always the case. The recent outbreak of hepatitis
found in strawberries is proof.
American agriculture provides the American consumer with the safest
most reliable source of food and fiber in the world. With this in mind
we then should be informing the American consumer that they really are
purchasing American product or if they so chose product raised in a
foreign country.
I am proud and very pleased to add my name to this bill and I look
forward to moving this through the legislative process so we can give
our consumers the information on meat that we have provided to them on
other numerous consumer goods.
______
By Mr. SARBANES:
S. 618. A bill to amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to
assist in the restoration of the Chesapeake Bay, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
the chesapeake bay restoration act of 1997
______
By Mr. SARBANES:
S. 619. A bill to establish a Chesapeake Bay Gateways and Watertrails
Network, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Environment and
Public Works.
the chesapeake bay gateways and watertrails act of 1997
Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, today I am introducing--along with a
number of my colleagues--two measures to continue and enhance efforts
to restore the Chesapeake Bay. Joining me in sponsoring one or both of
these measures are my colleagues from Virginia, Pennsylvania, and
Maryland, Senators Warner, Santorum, Robb, and Mikulski.
The Chesapeake Bay is one of the world's great natural resources. It
is a world-class fishery that still produces a significant portion of
the fin fish and shellfish catch in the United States.
It provides vital habitat for living resources, including more than
2,700 plant and animal species. It is a major resting area for
migratory birds and waterfowl along the Atlantic flyway, including many
endangered and threatened species.
As our Nation's largest estuary, the Chesapeake Bay is also key to
the ecological and economic health of the mid-Atlantic region. The bay
is a treasured asset for all our citizens, particularly for the nearly
15 million of us who live within the six State watershed. It is a one-
of-a-kind recreational asset enjoyed by 9 million people, including
many Members of this body.
The bay is also a major commercial waterway and shipping center for
the
[[Page S3366]]
region and much of the eastern United States. And it provides thousands
of jobs for the people in this region. Certainly, we in Maryland regard
the bay as a defining element in our State's history, and as a key to
Maryland's quality of life.
Most people are aware of these and other dimensions of the bay.
Certainly, our Nation's scientists are aware, and have consistently
regarded the bay's protection and enhancement as an extremely important
national objective.
When the bay began to experience serious unprecedented declines in
water quality and living resources in recent decades, people in the
region, including those in my State, suffered as well. We lost
thousands of jobs in the fishing industry and much of the wilderness
that defined the watershed.
We began to appreciate for the first time the profound impact that
human activity could have on the Chesapeake Bay ecosystem. Untreated
sewage, deforestation, toxic chemicals, farm runoff, and increased
development resulted in a degradation of water quality and destruction
of wildlife and its habitat.
Fortunately, over the last two decades we have also come to
understand that humans can have a positive influence on the
environment, and that we can, if we choose, assist nature to repair
much of the damage which has been done.
We now treat sewage before it enters our waters, and even have a
successful waste treatment pilot project here in Washington that
utilizes state-of-the-art biological methods to significantly reduce
nutrients entering the bay.
We banned toxic chemicals that were killing the wildlife, initiated
programs to reduce nonpoint source pollution in the bay's tributaries,
and we have taken aggressive steps to successfully restore the striped
bass and other species.
We have undertaken the Nation's largest habitat restoration project
on Poplar Island in the upper bay, and enacted legislation protecting
the estuary from economically and ecologically harmful aquatic nuisance
species.
The States of Maryland, Virginia, and Pennsylvania deserve much of
the credit for undertaking many of the actions that have put the bay
and its watershed on the road to recovery.
All three States have had major cleanup programs and have made
significant commitments in terms of resources. The cleanup has remained
an important priority item supported by Governors, State legislatures
and the public. And a number of private organizations--the Chesapeake
Bay Foundation and Alliance for the Chesapeake Bay come to mind--have
done stellar work in this area.
But the Federal Government has played a critical catalyzing role in
helping to bring about these successes. Without the Federal Clean Water
Act, the Federal ban on DDT, and EPA's watershed-wide coordination of
bay restoration and cleanup activities, we would not have been able to
bring about the concerted effort, the real partnership, that is
succeeding in improving bay water quality and in bringing back many
fish and wildlife species that were on the verge of extinction.
The Chesapeake Bay is getting cleaner, but we cannot affort to be
complacent. Ever increasing population and commercial stresses are
imposed upon the bay. So we must not relax if we hope to maintain, and
build upon, our past successes.
The first measure I am introducing today is designed to build upon
our National Government's past role in the Chesapeake Bay Program, the
highly successful Federal-State-local partnership to which I made
reference, that so ably coordinates and directs efforts to restore the
bay.
This legislation carries forward and enhances the role of
the Environmetnal Protection Agency as the lead Federal agency
committed to cleaning up the bay. It redoubles efforts to ensure wide
compliance with Chesapeake Bay agreement goals, including habitat
restoration and toxics reduction.
And it establishes a mechanism for EPA to further assist communities
with local watershed restoration and protection projects in the bay and
its tributaries. This is an especially important component of this
measure. Let me spend a moment to explain why.
The initial stages of the bay cleanup focused on the mainstem bay.
But it became increasingly clear that many of the bay's problems
originate in the rivers and streams which flow into the bay. It also
became obvious that we must expand efforts within these waters if we
hope to achieve nutrient reductions and other improvements in the
overall bay watershed.
The bay partners recognized this urgent need with 1992 and subsequent
amendments to the Chesapeake Bay agreement that committed the bay
partners to develop and implement tributary-specific strategies
throughout the watershed, and the States are making tremendous progress
in this regard.
It is clear that one of the most cost-effective ways to protect the
rivers and streams in the watershed is to help, encourage and promote
stewardship among citizens and others who have a direct stake in a
specific local situation. After all, stewardship starts with the
individual citizens who live in the watershed. And that is what this
measure encourages by providing EPA with mechanisms to stimulate such
local efforts.
The second measure I am introducing today would connect natural,
historic, cultural, and recreational resources to create an innovative
Chesapeake Bay Gateways and Watertrails Network throughout the mainstem
bay and its tributaries.
The vast bay watershed contains many distinctive treasures that
combine to tell a unique story about the evolvement of human settlement
and culture within the area. Each region within the watershed is dotted
with historic seaports, Federal and State parks, and other natural,
cultural, or recreational sites.
Many residents of the bay are familiar with the rich resources within
their particular region. Similarly, countless visitors to a particular
segment of the watershed are exposed to selective sites, but receive
only a limited if any introduction to similar resources throughout the
entire bay. They learn little about the bay's collective cultural and
natural history, and perhaps little about comprehensive bay cleanup
efforts.
What we currently lack--and what this measure provides--is a
mechanism that links these many valuable resources and sites throughout
the watershed into a unified network of jewels of the Chesapeake.
This shared linkage and identity can improve access to the bay. It
can further educate residents and visitors about this treasured
resource.
It can boost the already substantial economic activity generated by
tourism and recreation within the watershed, and it can entice
additional residents within the watershed to play more active roles in
the bay restoration effort.
This measure would accomplish these worthy goals in several ways.
First, it authorizes and directs the Secretary of the Interior to
identify and protect resources throughout the watershed, to identify
these individual jewels as Chesapeake Bay gateways, and to link them
with trails, tour roads, scenic byways and other sites.
Second, it directs the Secretary to develop and establish Chesapeake
Bay Watertrails, consisting of important water routes, and connects
these watertrails with gateways sites and other land resources to
create a Chesapeake Bay Gateways and Watertrails Network. This network
will guide residents and visitors alike along important water routes
and the many land based resources within the watershed.
Third, this legislation authorizes the Secretary to provide technical
and financial assistance to State and local partners for conserving and
restoring these important resources throughout the watershed.
The Chesapeake Bay cleanup effort, and Federal-State efforts to
protect related resources and to promote economic activity, have been
major bipartisan undertakings in this body. The bay has been strongly
supported by virtually all Members of the Senate, as evidenced by
enactment of three of the five related measures introduced last
session. I urge my colleagues to continue the momentum by supporting
this legislation and contributing to the improvement and enhancement of
one of our Nation's most valuable and treasured natural resources.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Chesapeake Bay
Restoration Act of 1997 and the Chesapeake
[[Page S3367]]
Bay Gateways and Watertrails Act of 1997 be printed in the Record. I
also ask unanimous consent that copies of letters from the Governor,
State of Maryland, from the Chesapeake Bay Commission, from the
Chesapeake Bay Foundation and from the Chesapeake Bay Local Government
Advisory Committee be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the items were ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 618
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 ``Chesapeake Bay Restoration
Act of 1997''.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSES.
(a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
(1) the Chesapeake Bay is a national treasure and a
resource of worldwide significance;
(2) in recent years, the productivity and water quality of
the Chesapeake Bay and the tributaries of the Bay have been
diminished by pollution, excessive sedimentation, shoreline
erosion, the impacts of population growth and development in
the Chesapeake Bay watershed, and other factors;
(3) the Federal Government (acting through the
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency), the
Governor of the State of Maryland, the Governor of the
Commonwealth of Virginia, the Governor of the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania, the Chairperson of the Chesapeake Bay
Commission, and the Mayor of the District of Columbia have
committed as Chesapeake Bay Agreement signatories to a
comprehensive and cooperative program to achieve improved
water quality and improvements in the productivity of living
resources of the Bay;
(4) the cooperative program described in paragraph (3)
serves as a national and international model for the
management of estuaries; and
(5) there is a need to expand Federal support for
monitoring, management, and restoration activities in the
Chesapeake Bay and the tributaries of the Bay in order to
meet and further the original and subsequent goals and
commitments of the Chesapeake Bay Program.
(b) Purposes.--The purposes of this Act are--
(1) to expand and strengthen cooperative efforts to restore
and protect the Chesapeake Bay; and
(2) to achieve the goals established in the Chesapeake Bay
Agreement.
SEC. 3. CHESAPEAKE BAY.
Section 117 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33
U.S.C. 1267) is amended to read as follows:
``Chesapeake Bay
``Sec. 117. (a) Definitions.--In this section:
``(1) Chesapeake bay agreement.--The term `Chesapeake Bay
Agreement' means the formal, voluntary agreements executed to
achieve the goal of restoring and protecting the Chesapeake
Bay ecosystem and the living resources of the ecosystem and
signed by the Chesapeake Executive Council.
``(2) Chesapeake bay program.--The term `Chesapeake Bay
Program' means the program directed by the Chesapeake
Executive Council in accordance with the Chesapeake Bay
Agreement.
``(3) Chesapeake bay watershed.--The term `Chesapeake Bay
watershed' shall have the meaning determined by the
Administrator.
``(4) Chesapeake executive council.--The term `Chesapeake
Executive Council' means the signatories to the Chesapeake
Bay Agreement.
``(5) Signatory jurisdiction.--The term `signatory
jurisdiction' means a jurisdiction of a signatory to the
Chesapeake Bay Agreement.
``(b) Continuation of Chesapeake Bay Program.--
``(1) In general.--In cooperation with the Chesapeake
Executive Council (and as a member of the Council), the
Administrator shall continue the Chesapeake Bay Program.
``(2) Program office.--The Administrator shall maintain in
the Environmental Protection Agency a Chesapeake Bay Program
Office. The Chesapeake Bay Program Office shall provide
support to the Chesapeake Executive Council by--
``(A) implementing and coordinating science, research,
modeling, support services, monitoring, data collection, and
other activities that support the Chesapeake Bay Program;
``(B) developing and making available, through
publications, technical assistance, and other appropriate
means, information pertaining to the environmental quality
and living resources of the Chesapeake Bay;
``(C) in cooperation with appropriate Federal, State, and
local authorities, assisting the signatories to the
Chesapeake Bay Agreement in developing and implementing
specific action plans to carry out the responsibilities of
the signatories to the Chesapeake Bay Agreement;
``(D) coordinating the actions of the Environmental
Protection Agency with the actions of the appropriate
officials of other Federal agencies and State and local
authorities in developing strategies to--
``(i) improve the water quality and living resources of the
Chesapeake Bay; and
``(ii) obtain the support of the appropriate officials of
the agencies and authorities in achieving the objectives of
the Chesapeake Bay Agreement; and
``(E) implementing outreach programs for public
information, education, and participation to foster
stewardship of the resources of the Chesapeake Bay.
``(c) Interagency Agreements.--The Administrator may enter
into an interagency agreement with a Federal agency to carry
out this section.
``(d) Technical Assistance and Assistance Grants.--
``(1) In general.--In consultation with other members of
the Chesapeake Executive Council, the Administrator may
provide technical assistance, and assistance grants, to
nonprofit private organizations and individuals, State and
local governments, colleges, universities, and interstate
agencies to carry out this section, subject to such terms and
conditions as the Administrator considers appropriate.
``(2) Federal share.--
``(A) In general.--Except as provided in subparagraph (B),
the Federal share of an assistance grant provided under
paragraph (1) shall be determined by the Administrator in
accordance with Environmental Protection Agency guidance.
``(B) Small watershed grants program.--The Federal share of
an assistance grant provided under paragraph (1) to carry out
an implementing activity under subsection (g)(2) shall not
exceed 75 percent of eligible project costs, as determined by
the Administrator.
``(3) Non-federal share.--An assistance grant under
paragraph (1) shall be provided on the condition that non-
Federal sources provide the remainder of eligible project
costs, as determined by the Administrator.
``(4) Administrative costs.--Administrative costs
(including salaries, overhead, and indirect costs for
services provided and charged against projects supported by
funds made available under this subsection) incurred by a
person described in paragraph (1) in carrying out a project
under this subsection during a fiscal year shall not exceed
10 percent of the grant made to the person under this
subsection for the fiscal year.
``(e) Implementation Grants.--
``(1) In general.--If a signatory jurisdiction has approved
and committed to implement all or substantially all aspects
of the Chesapeake Bay Agreement, on the request of the chief
executive of the jurisdiction, the Administrator shall make a
grant to the jurisdiction for the purpose of implementing the
management mechanisms established under the Chesapeake Bay
Agreement, subject to such terms and conditions as the
Administrator considers appropriate.
``(2) Proposals.--A signatory jurisdiction described in
paragraph (1) may apply for a grant under this subsection for
a fiscal year by submitting to the Administrator a
comprehensive proposal to implement management mechanisms
established under the Chesapeake Bay Agreement. The proposal
shall include--
``(A) a description of proposed management mechanisms that
the jurisdiction commits to take within a specified time
period, such as reducing or preventing pollution in the
Chesapeake Bay and to meet applicable water quality
standards; and
``(B) the estimated cost of the actions proposed to be
taken during the fiscal year.
``(3) Approval.--If the Administrator finds that the
proposal is consistent with the Chesapeake Bay Agreement and
the national goals established under section 101(a), the
Administrator may approve the proposal for a fiscal year.
``(4) Federal share.--The Federal share of an
implementation grant provided under this subsection shall not
exceed 50 percent of the costs of implementing the management
mechanisms during the fiscal year.
``(5) Non-federal share.--An implementation grant under
this subsection shall be made on the condition that non-
Federal sources provide the remainder of the costs of
implementing the management mechanisms during the fiscal
year.
``(6) Administrative costs.--Administrative costs
(including salaries, overhead, and indirect costs for
services provided and charged against projects supported by
funds made available under this subsection) incurred by a
signatory jurisdiction in carrying out a project under this
subsection during a fiscal year shall not exceed 10 percent
of the grant made to the jurisdiction under this subsection
for the fiscal year.
``(f) Compliance of Federal Facilities.--
``(1) Subwatershed planning and restoration.--A Federal
agency that owns or operates a facility (as defined by the
Administrator) within the Chesapeake Bay watershed shall
participate in regional and subwatershed planning and
restoration programs.
``(2) Compliance with agreement.--The head of each Federal
agency that owns or occupies real property in the Chesapeake
Bay watershed shall ensure that the property, and actions
taken by the agency with respect to the property, comply with
the Chesapeake Bay Agreement.
``(g) Chesapeake Bay Watershed, Tributary, and River Basin
Program.--
``(1) Nutrient and water quality management strategies.--
Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this
subsection, the Administrator, in consultation with other
members of the Chesapeake Executive Council, shall ensure
that management plans are developed and implementation is
begun by signatories to the Chesapeake Bay
[[Page S3368]]
Agreement for the tributaries of the Chesapeake Bay to
achieve and maintain--
``(A) the nutrient goals of the Chesapeake Bay Agreement
for the quantity of nitrogen and phosphorus entering the main
stem Chesapeake Bay;
``(B) the water quality requirements necessary to restore
living resources in both the tributaries and the main stem of
the Chesapeake Bay;
``(C) the Chesapeake Bay basinwide toxics reduction and
prevention strategy goal of reducing or eliminating the input
of chemical contaminants from all controllable sources to
levels that result in no toxic or bioaccumulative impact on
the living resources that inhabit the Bay or on human health;
and
``(D) habitat restoration, protection, and enhancement
goals established by Chesapeake Bay Agreement signatories for
wetlands, forest riparian zones, and other types of habitat
associated with the Chesapeake Bay and the tributaries of the
Chesapeake Bay.
``(2) Small watershed grants program.--The Administrator,
in consultation with other members of the Chesapeake
Executive Council, may offer the technical assistance and
assistance grants authorized under subsection (d) to local
governments and nonprofit private organizations and
individuals in the Chesapeake Bay watershed to implement--
``(A) cooperative tributary basin strategies that address
the Chesapeake Bay's water quality and living resource needs;
or
``(B) locally based protection and restoration programs or
projects within a watershed that complement the tributary
basin strategies.
``(h) Study of Chesapeake Bay Program.--Not later than
January 1, 1999, and each 3 years thereafter, the
Administrator, in cooperation with other members of the
Chesapeake Executive Council, shall complete a study and
submit a comprehensive report to Congress on the results of
the study. The study and report shall, at a minimum--
``(1) assess the commitments and goals of the management
strategies established under the Chesapeake Bay Agreement and
the extent to which the commitments and goals are being met;
``(2) assess the priority needs required by the management
strategies and the extent to which the priority needs are
being met;
``(3) assess the effects of air pollution deposition on
water quality of the Chesapeake Bay;
``(4) assess the state of the Chesapeake Bay and its
tributaries and related actions of the Chesapeake Bay
Program;
``(5) make recommendations for the improved management of
the Chesapeake Bay Program; and
``(6) provide the report in a format transferable to and
usable by other watershed restoration programs.
``(i) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to carry out this section $30,000,000 for
each of fiscal years 1998 through 2003.''.
____
S. 619
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 ``Chesapeake Bay Gateways and
Watertrails Act of 1997''.
SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.
In this Act:
(1) Chesapeake bay gateways sites.--The term ``Chesapeake
Bay Gateways sites'' means the Chesapeake Bay Gateways sites
identified under section 5(a)(2).
(2) Chesapeake bay gateways and watertrails network.--The
term ``Chesapeake Bay Gateways and Watertrails Network''
means the network of Chesapeake Bay Gateways sites and
Chesapeake Bay Watertrails created under section 5(a)(5).
(3) Chesapeake bay watershed.--The term ``Chesapeake Bay
Watershed'' shall have the meaning determined by the
Secretary.
(4) Chesapeake bay watertrails.--The term ``Chesapeake Bay
Watertrails'' means the Chesapeake Bay Watertrails
established under section 5(a)(4).
(5) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of the Interior (acting through the Director of the National
Park Service).
SEC. 3. FINDINGS.
Congress finds that--
(1) the Chesapeake Bay is a national treasure and a
resource of international significance;
(2) the region within the Chesapeake Bay watershed
possesses outstanding natural, cultural, historical, and
recreational resources that combine to form nationally
distinctive and linked waterway and terrestrial landscapes;
(3) there is a need to study and interpret the connection
between the unique cultural heritage of human settlements
throughout the Chesapeake Bay Watershed and the waterways and
other natural resources that led to the settlements and on
which the settlements depend; and
(4) as a formal partner in the Chesapeake Bay Program, the
Secretary has an important responsibility--
(A) to further assist regional, State, and local partners
in efforts to increase public awareness of and access to the
Chesapeake Bay;
(B) to help communities and private landowners conserve
important regional resources; and
(C) to study, interpret, and link the regional resources
with each other and with Chesapeake Bay Watershed
conservation, restoration, and education efforts.
SEC. 4. PURPOSES.
The purposes of this Act are--
(1) to identify opportunities for increased public access
to and education about the Chesapeake Bay;
(2) to provide financial and technical assistance to
communities for conserving important natural, cultural,
historical, and recreational resources within the Chesapeake
Bay Watershed; and
(3) to link appropriate national parks, waterways,
monuments, parkways, wildlife refuges, other national
historic sites, and regional or local heritage areas into a
network of Chesapeake Bay Gateways sites and Chesapeake Bay
Watertrails.
SEC. 5. CHESAPEAKE BAY GATEWAYS AND WATERTRAILS NETWORK.
(a) In General.--The Secretary shall provide technical and
financial assistance, in cooperation with other Federal
agencies, State and local governments, nonprofit
organizations, and the private sector--
(1) to identify, conserve, restore, and interpret natural,
recreational, historical, and cultural resources within the
Chesapeake Bay Watershed;
(2) to identify and utilize the collective resources as
Chesapeake Bay Gateways sites for enhancing public education
of and access to the Chesapeake Bay;
(3) to link the Chesapeake Bay Gateways sites with trails,
tour roads, scenic byways, and other connections as
determined by the Secretary;
(4) to develop and establish Chesapeake Bay Watertrails
comprising water routes and connections to Chesapeake Bay
Gateways sites and other land resources within the Chesapeake
Bay Watershed; and
(5) to create a network of Chesapeake Bay Gateways sites
and Chesapeake Bay Watertrails.
(b) Components.--Components of the Chesapeake Bay Gateways
and Watertrails Network may include--
(1) State or Federal parks or refuges;
(2) historic seaports;
(3) archaeological, cultural, historical, or recreational
sites; or
(4) other public access and interpretive sites as selected
by the Secretary.
SEC. 6. CHESAPEAKE BAY GATEWAYS GRANTS ASSISTANCE PROGRAM.
(a) In General.--The Secretary shall establish a Chesapeake
Bay Gateways Grants Assistance Program to aid State and local
governments, local communities, nonprofit organizations, and
the private sector in conserving, restoring, and interpreting
important historic, cultural, recreational, and natural
resources within the Chesapeake Bay Watershed.
(b) Criteria.--The Secretary shall develop appropriate
eligibility, prioritization, and review criteria for grants
under this section.
(c) Matching Funds and Administrative Expenses.--A grant
under this section--
(1) shall not exceed 50 percent of eligible project costs;
(2) shall be made on the condition that non-Federal
sources, including in-kind contributions of services or
materials, provide the remainder of eligible project costs;
and
(3) shall be made on the condition that not more than 10
percent of all eligible project costs be used for
administrative expenses.
SEC. 7. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
There are authorized to be appropriated to carry out this
Act $3,000,000 for each fiscal year.
____
State of Maryland,
Office of the Governor,
April 5, 1997.
Hon. Paul S. Sarbanes,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Paul: Congratulations on the introduction of the
Chesapeake Bay Restoration Act of 1997. Passage of this
legislation will enable the State of Maryland to build on the
progress that has been achieved in cleaning up the Bay by
strengthening and expanding the federal Chesapeake Bay
Program.
Your bill provides a much-needed increased focus on
watershed planning and management. This effort skillfully
complements the Tributary Strategy effort to reduce nutrient
loadings into the Bay. The additional federal resources will
also greatly increase the effectiveness of our joint effort
to protect and restore the Bay.
The Chesapeake Bay is a national treasure. Your
longstanding determined commitment to its protection and
restoration has been key to the improvements in the water
quality and living resources of the Bay. I stand ready to
help you secure passage of this important legislation.
Sincerely,
Paris N. Glendening,
Governor.
____
Chesapeake Bay Commission,
Annapolis, MD, March 20, 1997.
Hon. Paul S. Sarbanes,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Sarbanes: I am writing, in my capacity as
Chairman of the Chesapeake Bay Commission, to commend you for
taking the initiative to reauthorize the Chesapeake Bay
Program through the introduction of the Chesapeake Bay
Restoration Act of 1997.
[[Page S3369]]
The Commission strongly supports the legislation. We commit
to you our resources and expertise in working to secure its
passage.
We believe that the cooperation of government at the
federal, state and local level is, and will continue to be,
essential to protecting and restoring the Bay. Your bill
helps to establish the blueprint for that cooperation. It
provides new opportunities on habitat restoration through the
creation of low-cost restoration and enhancement
demonstration projects. These projects are key to protecting
the living resources of the Bay, the main goal of the
Chesapeake Bay Agreement.
As a signatory to the 1987 Chesapeake Bay Agreement, the
Commission is committed to the reduction of nutrient and
toxic loads entering the Chesapeake Bay. To do this, we have
developed a river-specific approach to the implementation of
pollution control strategies. The tributary strategy
provisions of the legislation will support this effort and
ensure that these strategies are implemented, basinwide.
The Chesapeake Bay watershed will face increasing
environmental threats in the years ahead. The population of
the watershed is growing. Development of our natural resource
lands is commonplace. The burdens placed on our pollution
control infrastructure are constantly expanding. The
Commission has long recognized that coordinated, locally-
based programs can help to counter these pressures.
For this reason, we are particularly supportive of the
small watershed grants component of your bill. We believe
that it will enhance efforts made by non-governmental
organizations, local governments and private individuals to
implement water quality and habitat protection programs at
the local level. The small watershed grants program is also
directly complementary to the Local Government Participation
Action Plan, developed by the Chesapeake Bay Program in 1996,
to better involve local governments in Bay restoration
activities.
In our watershed, there are many examples of small
watershed projects that would benefit from a cost-share grant
program. In Maryland, residents and local government
officials in Worcester and Somerset Counties have committed
to improve the local economy through well-planned
conservation and the promotion of natural, historic and
cultural resources. In Pennsylvania, the Lackawanna River
Corridor Association has been working to improve water
quality by addressing acid mine drainage, combined sewer
overflows and urban stormwater flow problems by developing
public-private partnerships that leverage resources and
expertise. And in my own home state of Virginia, private
organizations have joined forces with local, state and
federal government officials in the Chesconessex Creek
Watershed to establish a project to restore vital habitat and
living resources on Virginia's Eastern Shore.
In closing, I want to thank you, and Charles Stek and Kevin
Miller of your office, for consulting extensively with our
staff, and with the many sectors of the Bay community during
the drafting of your legislation. The final product reflects
a strong cooperative relationship with the Chesapeake Bay
Program and will allow us to build on the progress that we
have already made.
I look forward to working with you. We hope that this
legislation can be moved forward as quickly as possible, and
we offer our assistance with the hope that it will be enacted
before this Congress comes to a close. I am,
Sincerely yours,
W. Tayloe Murphy, Jr.,
Chairman.
____
Chesapeake Bay Foundation,
Annapolis, MD, April 9, 1997.
Hon. Paul S. Sarbanes,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Sarbanes: I am writing to express the
Chesapeake Bay Foundation's support for the Chesapeake Bay
Restoration Act of 1997. Although I realize that no single
piece of legislation can save the Chesapeake Bay, I believe
this bill will help push the Bay Program towards an increased
effort to carrying out the commitments made by the
signatories.
I am particularly glad to see the section enhancing the
oversight responsibilities of the Environmental Protection
Agency. CBF has long felt that it is important for the
Environmental Protection Agency to take a stronger leadership
role in assuring that the participants are held accountable
for their commitments.
I am also enthusiastic about the provisions providing for a
small watershed grant program. Restoration of the Bay's
essential habitat--its forests, wetlands, and grass beds--is
a critical component of the effort to save the Bay, and this
legislation should help move that effort forward.
In summary, this legislation provides a step forward for
the Bay Program, and will help steer it in the right
direction. I would like to thank you and your cosponsors for
your efforts on behalf of this legislation and on behalf of
the Chesapeake Bay.
Very truly yours,
William C. Baker,
President.
____
Chesapeake Bay Local
Government Advisory Committee,
Easton, MD, April 7, 1997.
Hon. Senator Paul Sarbanes,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Sarbanes: On behalf of the Maryland Delegation
of the Chesapeake Bay Local Government Advisory Committee
(LGAC), I would like to offer support for the Bill to amend
section 117 of the Clean Water Act which specifies a
financial commitment by the Federal Government to the
Chesapeake Bay protection effort. Specifically, the Maryland
Delegation is in strong support of the Small Watershed Grants
Program component of the Bill. This Program holds much
promise to augment the important efforts being made by local
governments in restoring, protecting, and sustaining the
health of the Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries.
Additionally, the Bill directly supports policies of the
Chesapeake Executive Council. The Executive Council recently
adopted the Local Government Partnership Initiative and the
Local Government Participation Action Plan. The aim of these
policies is to broaden the efforts of local governments in
restoring and protecting the Chesapeake Bay and its
tributaries. The Action Plan includes a commitment to seek a
small watershed grants program through reauthorization of the
Clean Water Act.
Over 14.9 million people live within the jurisdiction of
more than 1,650 local governments within the Chesapeake Bay
watershed. Each local government has the statutory authority
to manage land use, manage infrastructure, including sewage
treatment facilities and stormwater, and take a leadership
role in fostering a land stewardship ethic in its community.
Supporting local governments' collective efforts to restore,
protect and sustain the health of Chesapeake Bay is a
critical element of the Bay effort.
The Chesapeake Bay is a regional and national treasure that
local governments throughout the watershed cherish and value.
The LGAC commends the leadership role you have taken in
furthering the efforts being made to protect and sustain the
health of the Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries.
Sincerely,
Gary G. Allen,
Vice Chair.
____
Chesapeake Bay Local
Government Advisory Committee,
Easton, MD, April 7, 1997.
Hon. Senator Paul Sarbanes,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Sarbanes: On behalf of the Pennsylvania
Delegation of the Chesapeake Bay Local Government Advisory
Committee (LGAC), I would like to offer support for the Bill
to amend section 117 of the Clean Water Act which specifies a
financial commitment by the Federal Government to the
Chesapeake Bay protection effort. Specifically, the
Pennsylvania Delegation is in strong support of the Small
Watershed Grants Program component of the Bill. This Program
holds much promise to augment the important efforts being
made by local governments in restoring, protecting, and
sustaining the health of the Chesapeake Bay and its
tributaries.
Additionally, the Bill directly supports policies of the
Chesapeake Executive Council. The Executive Council recently
adopted the Local Government Partnership Initiative and the
Local Government Participation Action Plan. The aim of these
policies is to broaden the efforts of local governments in
restoring and protecting the Chesapeake Bay and its
tributaries. The Action Plan includes a commitment to seek a
small watershed grants program through reauthorization of the
Clean Water Act.
Over 14.9 million people live within the jurisdiction of
more than 1,650 local governments within the Chesapeake Bay
watershed. Each local government has the statutory authority
to manage land use, manage infrastructure, including sewage
treatment facilities and stormwater, and take a leadership
role in fostering a land stewardship ethic in its community.
Supporting local governments' collective efforts to restore,
protect and sustain the health of Chesapeake Bay is a
critical element of the Bay effort.
The Chesapeake Bay is a regional and nation treasure that
local governments throughout the watershed cherish and value.
The LGAC commends the leadership role you have taken in
furthering the efforts being made to protect and sustain the
health of the Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries.
Sincerely,
Russell Pettyjohn,
Chair.
____
Chesapeake Bay Local
Government Advisory Committee,
Easton, MD, April 7, 1997.
Hon. Senator Paul Sarbanes,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Sarbanes: On behalf of the Washington, D.C.
Delegation of the Chesapeake Bay Local Government Advisory
Committee (LGAC), I would like to offer support for the Bill
to amend section 117 of the Clean Water Act which specifies a
financial commitment by the Federal Government to the
Chesapeake Bay protection effort. Specifically, the District
of Columbia Delegation is in strong support of the Small
Watershed Grants Program component of the Bill. This Program
holds much promise to augment the important efforts being
made by local governments in restoring, protecting, and
sustaining the health of the Chesapeake Bay and its
tributaries.
Additionally, the Bill directly supports policies of the
Chesapeake Executive Council. The Executive Council recently
adopted the Local Government Partnership Initiative and the
Local Government Participation Action Plan. The aim of these
policies is to
[[Page S3370]]
broaden the efforts of local governments in restoring and
protecting the Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries. The Action
Plan includes a commitment to seek a small watershed grants
program through reauthorization of the Clean Water Act.
Over 14.9 million people live within the jurisdiction of
more than 1,650 local governments within the Chesapeake Bay
watershed. Each local government has the statutory authority
to manage land use, manage infrastructure, including sewage
treatment facilities and stormwater, and take a leadership
role in fostering a land stewardship ethic in its community.
Supporting local governments' collective efforts to restore,
protect and sustain the health of Chesapeake Bay is a
critical element of the Bay effort.
The Chesapeake Bay is a regional and national treasure that
local governments throughout the watershed cherish and value.
The LGAC commends the leadership role you have taken in
furthering the efforts being made to protect and sustain the
health of the Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries.
Sincerely,
William Rumsey, Jr.,
Vice-Chair.
______
By Mr. GREGG (for himself, Mr. Roth, Mrs. Hutchison, Mr.
Jeffords, Mr. Murkowski, Mr. Faircloth, Mr. Santorum, Mr. Bond,
Ms. Collins, Mr. DeWine, Mr. Roberts, Mr. Craig, Mr. Nickles,
Mr. McConnell, Mr. Kyl, Ms. Snowe, Mr. Mack, Mr. Hagel, and Mr.
Grassley):
S. 620. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide
greater equity in savings opportunities for families with children, and
for other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.
the women's investment and savings equity act
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I rise to introduce important and unique
legislation known as the Women's Investment and Savings Equity Act, or
the WISE bill.
As chairman of the Republican Task Force on Retirement Security, I
have worked with other task force members to explore various ways that
the Federal Government might better facilitate adequate savings for
retirement. I am extremely pleased that Majority Leader Lott convened
this task force, and asked me to lead it, because the problem of
ensuring adequate retirement savings has been one in which I have
become increasingly engaged. I am extremely pleased to have had the
assistance and cooperation of all of the other Senators in the task
force.
We are currently in the process of drafting a comprehensive package
of legislation designed to increase retirement saving through a diverse
variety of means. However, one of these legislative initiatives, the
WISE bill, has struck us as being so important that it warrants
separate introduction and action. I am very proud of this legislation,
and I am gratified to see the rapid growth in support for it.
One thing has become ever more clear in the course of our work: this
Nation must increase retirement saving--at every level--in order to
meet retirement needs in the 21st century.
The problem for women is particularly severe. They live longer than
men, and they have less saving. As a result, they are almost twice as
likely as men to spend their retirement years in poverty.
If you wan to see a demonstration of why it is important that we
permit greater saving by women in their own name, all that you must do
is to review the poverty rates for widows and divorcees. Overall,
elderly women have a poverty rate of 15.7 percent. For men, the level
is 8.9 percent. Divorcees suffer poverty rates of 29.1 percent, widows
21.5 percent. For too many women, it is the case that they enter their
elderly years, after devoting much of their lives to raising a family,
only to find themselves alone and without sufficient means of financial
support. That is not right.
Current law has an unequal impact on women because they are more
likely to interrupt their periods of paid employment in order to raise
children. When they finally do return to the work force, and when they
finally may have surplus money for saving, the law places tight limits
on what they can contribute towards their own retirement.
We shouldn't force women to choose between attentive parenting and
saving for retirement. Women shouldn't be more likely to enter poverty
in retirement simply because they have taken time out from work to
raise a child.
Our legislation would do three things:
First, it would strengthen the homemaker IRA law. We would permit
homemakers--and other workers without a pension--to make deductible
contributions to IRA, regardless of whether their spouse participates
in a pension plan.
This is good for saving. It is also good for women; we shouldn't
deprive homemakers of the opportunity to save on the basis of their
spouse's participation in a pension plan. This is an idea that already
has broad bipartisan support.
Second, we would permit catch-up contributions to 401(k) retirement
plans--and other types of elective deferral plans--for parents who miss
time from work for maternity or paternity leave.
Under current law, if an individual goes on unpaid leave from work
for service in the National Guard or certain other military service,
they may make ``catch-up'' contributions to their 401-(k) or similar
retirement plans for the time that they missed.
We would make similar ``catch-up'' contributions available to cover
the employee portion of contributions that would have been made by
parents had they not gone on parental leave. This is good savings
policy, and good family policy.
Third, and this is the most creative aspect of the legislation: We
would create higher contribution limits--in ``catch-up years''--for
parents who have returned to work after a long period of
nonparticipation in a pension plan.
Consider a too-familiar story: A woman spends 15 years working at
home, raising a family. Or--and let me stress that our provision
applies in this case, too--maybe she works part-time, but she cannot
contribute to a pension plan because she needs that money for day care.
Either way, she spends a large amount of her life, unable to contribute
to a pension plan.
If she returns to the workforce at age 45 or 50, and her children are
``out of the nest,'' perhaps only then does she have surplus money to
put into retirement savings. But current law is inflexible; she can't
``catch-up'' for the lost years. She is limited by a short number of
working years, and tight annual limits on what she can contribute.
Our legislation would simply do the following: For every year that
you are unable to participate in a pension plan, and during which you
are caring for a dependent child, you may take that number of ``catch-
up'' years when you return to plan participation.
During that catch-up year, you can make your normal allowed
contribution to a 401-(k) or similar plan, and you can make an
additional contribution of equal size to ``catch-up'' for a missed
year. You can do this for up to 18 years.
Working people have been telling us that they need some flexibility
in being allowed to ``catch-up'' for missed opportunities to save. Not
everyone has the money to save when they are 25. The problem is most
severe for parents--for mothers. The least we can do is to make the law
flexible enough to permit additional retirement contributions when they
can afford it.
These issues are not abstractions. For too many women, this is how
life works. Maybe they suddenly become widows, or they go through a
divorce. And they have forever lost their opportunity to generate
saving in their own name. We see the results in the comparatively large
number of women in poverty.
This legislation would build additional flexibility into the law so
that women--and all parents--are not penalized for making the choice to
raise a child.
Current law assumes that you have the same opportunity to save in
every year of your life. That is just not so. Families with children
often find it very difficult to save money, and this legislation would
give them a chance to catch up when they reach a point where they at
last can save.
I believe this legislation is worthy of favorable consideration by
the Senate. I also believe that prospects are good that we can pass at
least a version of it. The chairman of the Finance Committee, Senator
Roth, has contributed his valuable support, as has the chairman of the
Labor Committee, Senator
[[Page S3371]]
Jeffords. With the support of the leadership, and the support of the
appropriate committee chairmen, I believe there is a basis for optimism
that such overdue reforms will be passed by the Senate.
Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, Today, I am proud to join the Republican
pension task force chaired by Senator Gregg to introduce the Women's
Investment and Savings Equity Act of 1997, known as the Wise bill. I
want to commend Senator Gregg for his leadership of the Republican
pension task force and his hard work in putting this bill together.
Of the 63 million baby boomers in America, a full 32 million of them
are saving less than one-third of what they will need for retirement.
This concerns me. It concerns me even further that the overwhelming
majority of these Americans, unprepared for retirement, are women.
According to the Census Bureau, retired women are almost twice as
likely as men to live in poverty. The poverty rate for elderly single
women is about four times greater than the rate for those who are
married.
I consider the Wise bill one of the beginning steps toward creating
an environment where Americans can work for self-reliance and a secure
future. It will go a long way toward establishing equity in the Tax
Code for stay-at-home parents who want to save for their retirement
years. And while it's called the women's investment and savings equity
bill--because the majority of those who will benefit are women--it
covers both mothers and fathers, whichever serves as homemaker.
The Wise bill of 1997 will allow homemakers and other workers without
a pension plan to make a full $2,000 tax-deductible IRA contribution
each year, regardless of their spouse's pension plan. In addition,
parents who take maternity or paternity leave will be allowed to make
catch-up payments to their retirement plans after they return to work.
Even homemakers who return to employment after an extended absence, and
working parents who cannot afford pension contributions while raising
children, will be able to catch-up for the years they were raising
children.
This bill is an important first step of a larger retirement savings
and security expansion bill by the Republican pension task force. It
will give families the tools for a secure retirement.
____________________