[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.

                          ____________________