[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 71 (Thursday, June 4, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5634-S5637]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. GRAMS:
  S. 2130. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide 
additional retirement savings opportunities for small employers, 
including self-employed individuals; to the Committee on Finance.


                  small employer nest egg act of 1998

  Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I rise today to acknowledge the National 
Summit on Retirement Savings which is taking place here in Washington 
today and tomorrow. I also want to use this occasion to introduce 
legislation that will empower a greater number of working Americans to 
save for their retirement through employer-sponsored retirement plans.
  In the course of the next 2 days, the 239 delegates to the National 
Summit on Retirement Savings will address an issue of great importance 
as the baby boom generation draws closer to retirement age and the 
future of Social Security remains uncertain.
  With savings rates at a 59-year low, and the revelation in the 1998 
Social Security Trustees Report that Social Security is actuarially 
bankrupt, it is evident that we face what amounts to a retirement 
crisis.
  The less individuals save for their retirement, the greater the 
strain on an ailing Social Security system that is incapable of 
sustaining the fast-growing retired population.
  Yet studies show that an increasing number of Americans are depending 
on Social Security for their retirement income. According to the 
Employee Benefit Research Institute, Social Security is the primary 
source of income for 80% of retired Americans, and practically the only 
source for 40% of retirees.
  Those who depend on Social Security for their retirement can expect a 
standard of living far lower than the one they enjoyed while in the 
work force.
  For instance, an individual who has an annual income of $15,000 per 
year who retires in 1998 at age 65 can expect Social Security to 
provide only one-half their previous income, and the replacement rate 
drops steadily when moving up the income bracket.
  Indeed, Social Security was never intended to be the major source of 
retirement savings that it seems to have become--its purpose was to 
serve as a single leg in a three-legged stool that would sustain 
Americans in their retirement years.
  Social Security's original purpose was to provide Americans with the 
minimal level of income in retirement that when combined with personal 
savings and employment-based pensions would give retirees the living 
standard they enjoyed before retirement.
  Mr. President, given these facts about Social Security and the 
decline in savings among Americans, it is crucial that steps be taken 
to ensure that the three-legged stool does not collapse under the 
weight of the growing retired population.
  It is true that recent steps taken by Congress, particularly the 1996 
enactment of the SIMPLE retirement plan, have succeed in increasing 
employee participation in employer-sponsored retirement plans.
  However, the complexity of qualification requirements under current 
law and the administrative expenses associated with setting up 
retirement plans, including the SIMPLE plan, remain significant 
impediments to widespread implementation of these types of employer-
based retirement systems.
  This is particularly true for small employers with less than 100 
employees, for whom the resulting benefits do not outweigh the 
administrative costs. Consequently, only 42% of all individuals 
employed by small businesses now participate in an employer-sponsored 
plan, as opposed to 78% of those who work for larger businesses.
  To address this problem, I am introducing the Small Employer Nest Egg 
Act of 1998.
  This legislation will create a new retirement option for small 
business owners with 100 or fewer employees and it would be similar to 
the SIMPLE plan

[[Page S5635]]

and the SMART plan President Clinton proposed in his fiscal year 1999 
budget.
  However, my proposal differs somewhat from these two plans in that it 
would allow the same level of benefits--both to employers and 
employees--as larger employers who maintain traditional qualified 
plans.
  Furthermore, upon retirement or separation of service, employees 
would receive 100% account value.
  To offset the high costs associated with starting a pension plan, at 
the centerpiece of this proposal is a tax cut equal to 50% of the 
administrative and retirement education expenses incurred for the first 
five years of a plan's operation.
  In addition, participating businesses would be exempt from some of 
the more burdensome administrative requirements associated with 
qualified plans.
  That exemption would be in exchange for the employers' agreement to 
provide a minimum benefit of 3% to all employees who satisfy a minimum 
age requirement of 21 years old and the minimum service requirement of 
1,000 hours during the preceding calendar year.
  Mr. President, small businesses are the lifeblood of our communities, 
providing millions of jobs nationwide.
  This bill I am introducing has been endorsed by the U.S. Chamber of 
Commerce. It has also been endorsed by the National Association of 
Women Small Business Owners and also of 220 small businesses in 
Minnesota alone. So it has very strong endorsement from the small 
business community.
  Small business owners want to help their employees to save for their 
retirement, yet many are unable to do so as a result of rigid 
Government policies that seemingly have little regard for the plight of 
the small employer.
  I urge my colleagues to support this legislation and to give small 
employers the ability they have long sought to help their employees 
save for their retirement.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. CHAFEE (for himself, Mr. Warner, and Mr. Baucus) (by 
        request):
  S. 2131. A bill to provide for the conservation and development of 
water and related resources, to authorize the Secretary of the Army to 
construct various projects for improvements to rivers and harbors of 
the United States, and for other purposes; to the Committee on 
Environment and Public Works.


                water resources development act of 1998

 Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, in my capacity as chairman of the 
Committee on Environment and Public Works, I join with Senators Warner 
and Baucus today to introduce the Administration's 1998 Water Resources 
Development Act by request.
  After 16 years of stalemate over the appropriate cost sharing of 
navigation, flood control, environmental restoration, and other types 
of water projects, the Reagan administration and Congress were able to 
reach agreement on the landmark Water Resource Development Act 
(``WRDA'') of 1986. As a part of that important compromise there was a 
general understanding that a two-year cycle of water project 
authorization bills would be established. With the exception of 1994, 
the administration and Congress have successfully worked together 
toward that end.
  It is time once again to continue the biennial water resources 
authorization cycle with a 1998 WRDA. The bill we introduce today on 
behalf of the administration represents an effort to identify 
worthwhile projects and policies in support of the Army Corps of 
Engineers Civil Works program.
  I and other members of the Committee on Environment and Public Works 
will conduct a thorough review of the administration's WRDA request, 
and the project and policy requests of individual Senators, to make 
sure that any bill reported to the full Senate later this year is 
economically and environmentally justified.
  Mr. President, this legislation is important to communities 
throughout the nation. I look forward to working closely with 
colleagues in the coming weeks to ensure enactment of WRDA '98.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. DOMENICI (for himself and Mr. Bingaman):
  S. 2133. A bill to designate former United States Route 66 as 
``America's Main Street'' and authorize the Secretary of the Interior 
to provide assistance; to the Committee on energy and Natural 
Resources.


                          ROUTE 66 LEGISLATION

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, on behalf of myself and Senator Bingaman 
from New Mexico, I am pleased to introduce today what we will call the 
Route 66 Preservation Act of 1998. Some here in the Senate may recall 
that I introduced the Route 66 Study Act of 1990, which directed the 
National Park Service to determine the best way to preserve, 
commemorate and interpret ``America's Main Street''--Route 66.
  Public Law 102-400 directed the National Park Service to conduct a 
study on the impact of that route, that highway on America's culture. 
The study was completed in 1995, and addressed the feasibility of 
preserving what remains of the highway and the facilities associated 
with it through private and public efforts.
  Most nonprofit Route 66 organizations and other interested parties 
preferred preservation Alternative 5, asking for national recognition 
of Route 66 and partnerships between private and public groups for 
preservation. This bill is based on that alternative, and authorizes 
the National Park Service to join with Federal, State and private 
efforts to preserve aspects of historic Route 66, the Nation's most 
important thoroughfare for east-west migration in the 20th century.
  Designated in 1926, the 2,200-mile Route 66 stretched from Chicago to 
Santa Monica, CA. The thoroughfare became the first completely paved 
highway across the United States in 1938. It rolled through Illinois, 
Missouri, Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas, New Mexico, Arizona and California. 
In my home State of New Mexico, it went through the communities of 
Tucumcari, Santa Rosa, Albuquerque, Grants, and Gallup.
  The Legislation I am introducing today would have the National Park 
Service designate an ``Office for Preservation of America's Main 
Street'' with officials from the 8 affected States. The Preservation 
Office would be authorized to:
  Support State, local and private efforts to preserve Route 66 by 
providing technical assistance, participating in cost-sharing programs, 
and making grants and loans;
  Act as a clearing house for communication among Federal, State, local 
and private entities interested in the preservation of Route 66;
  Assist States in determining the appropriation form of a non-Federal 
entity or entities to perform functions of the Preservation Office once 
it is terminated 10 years after enactment of this legislation; and,
  Sponsor a road sign program on Route 66 to be implemented on a cost-
sharing basis with State and local organizations.
  Route 66 is really a modern-day equivalent to the Santa Fe Trail. I 
believe this bill will provide States and local communities a more 
tangible means of gaining Federal assistance to preserve aspects of 
Route 66.
  At one time, Route 66 was the most famous highway in the United 
States. Now it is fading from the American landscape. If we want to 
preserve Route 66, it is now time to act.
  Up to 500,000 Americans--one quarter of all entrants to California 
during that era--migrated to California from the Dust Bowl on Route 66 
from 1935 to 1940. John Steinbeck captured this journey and christened 
Route 66 the ``Mother Road'' in his classic novel of the Depression: 
``The Grapes of Wrath.''
  After World War II, another generation of Americans trekked across 
America on Route 66, not to escape despair, but to embrace economic 
opportunities in the West. Songwriter Bobby Troup expressed the 
enthusiasm and sense of adventure of this generation in his song, ``Get 
Your Kicks on Route 66!''
  Route 66 also allowed generations of vacationers to travel to 
previously remote areas and experience the natural beauty and cultures 
of the Southwest and Far West.
  Route 66 began to decline with the enactment of the Interstate 
Highway Act in 1956. In 1984, the last federally designated portion of 
Route 66 was decommissioned when interstate 40 was completed in 
Arizona.

[[Page S5636]]

  Hopefully, the Senate will join me in once again allowing another 
generation to ``get its kicks'' on Route 66.
  The study has been completed, and now it is time to give the Park 
Service some direction--let them set up a small office for the 
preservation of Route 66. The bill authorizes partnerships between the 
private sector, State entities and the Federal Government through 
existing programs in an effort to preserve various aspects of this 
rather magnificent American roadway--Route 66.
  Many songs have been written about it. Many dreams are described by 
people who lived part of their lives there. Part of the Grapes of Wrath 
took place on Route 66. I think before all of what remains of America's 
Main Street disappears, it is a good time to pass this kind of bill and 
see if we can't preserve parts of it. Much is made of preserving 
historic things in the United States. It would be a shame, since there 
are so many people out there who care about this piece of American 
history and want to try to preserve the remnants of Route 66, if we did 
not do something now to help them in that effort.
 Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I am pleased to speak in support 
of this important legislation being introduced today by my friend 
Senator Domenici. The bill designates the old Highway 66 as ``America's 
Main Street'' and authorizes the National Park Service to help state, 
tribal and local governments in their efforts to preserve this unique 
piece of our national heritage.
  Mr. President, Route 66 is more than a 2400-mile highway from Chicago 
to Los Angeles. In many ways it represents the American dream, the open 
road, and our unending search for opportunity and adventure. This is 
the ``Mother Road'' of John Steinbeck's classic 1939 novel ``The Grapes 
of Wrath.'' This is the road immortalized by Cole Porter and Jack 
Kerouac. In the 1950s, this is the road that gave us the popular 
television series ``Route 66.''
  In my state of New Mexico, Route 66 ran nearly 400 miles from Glenrio 
in Quay County on the east to Manuelito in McKinley County on the West. 
Before 1937, the road looped north through Santa Fe and Bernalillo and 
south through Isleta and Los Lunas. Many of us believe the state of New 
Mexico has some of the most compelling scenery along the highway.
  Mr. President, from the beginning Route 66 was intended to link 
America's rural and urban areas. Much of the original roadway remains 
along with those old classic filling stations, cafes, motels, and, of 
course, those unforgettable neon signs. Indeed, the old highway remains 
the ``main street'' in many New Mexico cities, including Albuquerque, 
Tucumcari, Santa Rosa, Bernalillo, Gallup, and Grants.
  I think it is unfortunate that many drivers on our modern Interstate 
40 cross New Mexico without pausing to enjoy the nostalgia of the old 
highway. That's why I am pleased that New Mexico is already working 
aggressively to preserve and memorialize the old highway. The route in 
New Mexico is now designated a scenic byway. Our state has worked hard 
to provide appropriate signage, and the familiar brown and white shield 
signs are now prominent along the old route. A number of New Mexico 
towns and pueblos have permanent exhibits on the history of Route 66 in 
their areas. The city of Tucumcari has a whimsical monument to Route 66 
modeled after a Cadillac tail fin. Soon there will be a Route 66 
interpretative center at the Pueblo of Acoma that will showcase the 
historic and cultural attractions of the region. A similar center is 
planned for the Indian Pueblo Cultural Center in Albuquerque.
  Mr. President, Route 66 received its original designation in 1926 as 
a result of the first national highway plan. Now, over seventy years 
later, Congress has just passed a new highway bill that clearly 
recognizes through the Enhancements and Scenic Byways Programs the 
importance of preserving and protecting our national heritage. With the 
automobile firmly entrenched in our culture today, highways such as 
Route 66 are a genuine part of our heritage. This bill will help assure 
that heritage is preserved. I am pleased to co-sponsor this bill with 
Senator Domenici, and I thank him for his efforts.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. ALLARD:
  S. 2134. A bill to provide for air transportation between Denver, 
Colorado, and London, England; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, 
and Transportation.


                DENVER INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LEGISLATION

 Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I am introducing legislation today 
to encourage the Secretary of the Department of Transportation to act 
expeditiously in the interest of fairness and in support of the economy 
of my home state of Colorado.
  I would like to explain the situation that causes me to make this 
proposal. There exists an agreement between the United States and the 
United Kingdom to allow US Airways to operate a direct flight from 
Charlotte, North Carolina, to Gatwick Airport in London, England. In 
accordance with fair and recognized practices, the airlines with 
established routes and time slots that have served Gatwick Airport for 
years were not disturbed, and US Airways was given landing rights for a 
time slot that is not currently occupied. Although it may not be US 
Airways' top choice, the time slot that has been allocated appears to 
be commercially viable. US Airways, however, refuses to begin service 
unless they are given a better time slot at Gatwick. This request is 
beyond the provisions of the approved agreement.
  An unrelated agreement to allow British Airways to provide non-stop 
service from Denver, Colorado, to London, England, is currently pending 
approval by the United States Department of Transportation. The 
Department has chosen to deliberately delay approval of the British 
Airways' agreement in order to pressure British Airways and the 
authorities at Gatwick Airport to give US Airways the most desirable 
time slots. The Department is simply holding the Denver-London flights 
hostage until the demands of US Airways are met. This is not proper use 
of the Department of Transportation's authority; it sets a negative 
precedent for airline competition and cooperation between the United 
States and Europe, and it is impacting the growth of Colorado's 
economy.
  The Secretary has been kind enough to meet with me personally, along 
with my colleague from Colorado, Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell, to 
discuss this issue. In spite of our concerns about Colorado, the 
Department still resists any effort to progress on the approval of the 
British Airways Denver-London flights. The date for beginning service 
was postponed from June 1st to August 1st, and unfortunately British 
Airways will announce tomorrow that the delay in approval will preclude 
them from starting service by August 1st. The start date for Denver-
London direct service has been indefinitely postponed.
  This postponement denies Colorado its first overseas international 
flight at Denver International Airport. It prohibits our tourism 
industry from growing, especially during the upcoming ski season. It 
prevents increased competition that would result from connecting 
flights at DIA. It creates a problem for the employees in Denver who 
have already been hired by British Airways, but who have no jobs.
  I hope that the Department of Transportation takes immediate action 
on the pending British Airways agreement, and I encourage my colleagues 
to support me and my efforts to ensure that the British Airways 
agreement is justly considered, and that Colorado is not harmed as the 
Department of Transportation deals with the separate concerns of US 
airways.
                                 ______
                                 
       By Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire (for himself and Mr. Helms):
  S.J. Res. 47. A joint resolution disapproving the extension of the 
waiver authority contained in section 402(c) of the Trade Act of 1974 
with respect to Vietnam; to the Committee of Finance.


       Joint Resolution Disapproving Waiver Authority for Vietnam

 Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, today I am 
introducing legislation to require Vietnam to provide freedom of 
emigration for the Vietnamese people before tax dollars from our 
constituents across America are used to further expand our government's 
trade relations with this communist regime. As provided for in the 
Trade Act of 1974, my resolution prohibits implementation of the 
President's decision yesterday to waive the freedom of emigration 
requirements with Vietnam.

[[Page S5637]]

  I am pleased that Senator Helms, the distinguished Chairman of the 
Senate Foreign Relations Committee, has joined me as a sponsor of this 
joint resolution, and I commend my colleague, Congressman Rohrabacher, 
for introducing a companion measure in the House. I also note that our 
efforts are strongly supported by the Chairman of the House 
International Relations Committee, Congressman Gilman, the Chairman of 
that Committee's panel on International Operations and Human Rights, 
Congressman Christopher Smith, and several other Members on both sides 
of the aisle in that chamber. Frankly, Mr. President, given the support 
for this resolution by the relevant Committee chairmen, one has to 
question why the Administration moved forward on this in March of this 
year and again yesterday. This is particularly troublesome given the 
fact that the President's own National Security Advisor stated this 
past December that the President would not move forward unless 
consultations with Congress went well. Clearly, the consultations did 
not go well.
  When Congress considered and passed the amendment by Senator Jackson 
and Representative Vanik in the Trade Act of 1974, everyone at the time 
understood Congressional intent--free emigration was to be a condition 
for expanding U.S. trade relations with non-market communist nations.
  Today, nearly two and a half decades later, we do not have free 
emigration provided to the people of Vietnam by the communist regime 
that took over that entire country by force in 1975. Moreover, the 
Administration has failed to make a convincing case to the Congress to 
justify President Clinton's decision to waive freedom of emigration 
requirements. Hanoi's record does not support this decision. Yes, Hanoi 
has taken some steps to permit more orderly departures in recent years, 
but there are still unwarranted delays, and I am very concerned that 
recent promises and pledges of cooperation have yet to be 
satisfactorily fulfilled.
  Congressional intent was clear in 1974, and it has not changed since 
that time. U.S. policy is supposed to put freedom of emigration ahead 
of the trade interests some might have with this one-party communist 
state. We are supposed to be putting principle over profit, not the 
other way around.
  I believe America should not abandon the Vietnamese people who long 
for respect for human rights and democratic freedoms. They were 
abandoned over two decades ago, and we simply cannot let it happen 
again. Jackson-Vanik requirements should not be waived for Vietnam if 
it is not absolutely clear that such a waiver would ``substantially 
promote'' freedom of emigration requirements as the law requires. This 
past March, State Department witnesses testified there had been 
``measurable'' progress. The term measurable does not imply to me that 
we are seeing dramatic positive changes by Vietnam. I do not believe we 
have seen ``significantly more rapid progress'' which was the standard 
set by Secretary of State Albright herself last year during her visit 
to Vietnam. And I fail to see how the President's first waiver for 
Vietnam on March 9, 1998 has substantially promoted progress these past 
three months. If more people had been permitted to leave Vietnam in the 
last three months than we had seen over the last three years, then 
maybe the waiver would have, indeed, substantially promoted progress, 
but that has not happened, Mr. President, from what I have been told.
  Today, as we introduce this joint resolution, there are still people 
in Vietnam who supported us and fought for us during the war who have 
not been allowed to freely emigrate. Some of them have not even been 
allowed to meet with U.S. officials for interviews. I understand that 
others have been forced to pay exorbitant bribes in order to be 
considered for exit visas.
  Under the Trade Act of 1974, Congress has an opportunity to ensure 
that freedom of emigration requirements are met by Vietnam before 
further trade benefits are extended. The joint resolution introduced 
today by myself and Senator Helms provides my colleagues the 
opportunity to go on record in support of the people of Vietnam. If you 
want to send a message to the Government of Vietnam that they must 
fully comply with the promises and commitments they have made in recent 
years, this is the way to do it.
  Additionally, for those of my colleagues who continue to be 
concerned, as I am, that Hanoi has not been fully forthcoming in their 
accounting for American POWs and MIAs, and their progress on human 
rights, then you should support this resolution. Some of my colleagues 
may recall that both the POW/MIA issue and human rights concerns were, 
indeed, central to the provisions first adopted in the Trade Act of 
1974, and so it is appropriate that these concerns are made part of the 
current debate as well.
  How far must we go, Mr. President, to embrace this communist regime 
before they fully address our long-standing concerns on all these 
important issues? I am certain that the time has come once again for 
Congress to go on record in support of the objectives behind this 
resolution.
  Finally, Mr. President, I would note that the resolution we are 
introducing today is strongly supported by numerous organizations of 
Vietnamese-Americans, many of our national veterans and POW/MIA family 
organizations, several international refugee organizations, and a host 
of other concerned groups of Americans.
  I look forward to the forthcoming debate on this timely and important 
issue.

                          ____________________