[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 96 (Tuesday, July 16, 2002)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6869-S6872]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
By Mr. GRAHAM (for himself and Mr. Nelson of Florida):
S. 2730. A bill to modify certain water resources projects for the
Apalachicola Chattahoochee, and Flint Rivers, Georgia, Florida and
Alabama; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, the locals call it ``God's country.'' The
Apalachicola River, beginning at the confluence of the Chattahoochee
and Flint River, near the borders of Alabama, Florida, and Georgia, was
and remains an important waterway in the southeast. The river's purpose
as a waterway, however, has changed since its colonial fame.
The Apalachicola is the largest river east of the Mississippi. In its
heyday, the Apalachicola was an important tributary that served as the
largest port on the Gulf of Mexico, harboring ships carrying cotton to
Europe and New England.
In the 21st century, while no longer an essential route of transport,
the Apalachicola River is an important environmental and commercial
asset. The history of the Apalachicola River is an Army Corps of
Engineers project began in 1945 with the Rivers and Harbors Act, which
authorized dredging of navigation channels. Over the past 57 years,
millions of taxpayer dollars have been swept down the river in an
effort to dredge and maintain the 9 foot deep channel.
The Corps has had difficulty maintaining the channel, and combines
dredging with water releases in order to raise water levels and provide
navigation windows. This system is hopelessly flawed. Dredging is
unmanageable and navigation windows are unreliable, making the process
a fiscal waste.
Add to this fact over the last few years, commercial barge traffic
has slowed from an intermittent stream to a virtually non-existent
trickle. River traffic dropped dramatically in the late 1990's, with
fewer than 200 barges a year using the river system. By 2001, only 30
barges used the entire tri-river system with the cost of dredging the
channel exceeding $30,000 per barge. The past November, the only
company that used barges to carry cargo on the upper reaches of the
river ceased operations.
Furthermore, the Congressional Budget Office estimates that the
average cost per ton-mile from 1995-98 at 14.1 cents, almost 24 times
more than the cost of the Upper Mississippi River at .597 cents. In
light of these circumstances, continuing to dredge Florida's largest
river is not just wasteful, it is foolish.
Ending the dredging is not just about how wasteful this project is,
it is also about the environmental destruction that is being inflicted
on the Apalachicola River and Bay. There are now beaches of sand where
there were once river banks. There are now walls of sand, some towering
like buildings four stories high, where the river waters used to
meander. To date, dredged sand has resulted in the destruction of
approximately one-quarter of the banks of the Apalachicola. The large
amounts of sand have choked sloughs and cut off the water supply to
surrounding habitat, ultimately threatening the local economy.
Navigation windows remain a threat to endanger species like the Gulf
Sturgeon, the Fat Three-Ridge and the Purple Bank Climber. The April
2000 navigation window resulted in an almost complete failure of
sportfish spawn along the entire Apalachicola River and reservoirs
upstream. Sportfish populations have been in rapid decline along the
river since 1990. This time frame corresponds with the Corps' continued
reliance on water releases to provide adequate water for navigation.
The constant and gross interruptions of nature have degraded the
environment of the Apalachicola River and quality of life of those who
depend upon it. Because of this, the Apalachicola recently earned the
designation by American Rivers as one of our nation's Most Endangered
Rivers. The Apalachicola has also been included in the 2000 Troubled
Waters Report and the 2001 and 2002 Green Scissors Reports.
Manipulation of the Apalachicola poses a serious risk to the local
economy. Important businesses, such as farmers who produce Tupelo honey
and the fishermen who harvest oysters and shrimp in Apalachicola Bay,
are dependent on the river's overall health. Commercial fishing
operations along the Gulf Coast also rely on the Bay for their
livelihood.
The negative impacts of dredging and the low commercial use of the
Apalachicola River led former Secretary of the Army for Civil Works,
Joe Westphal, to describe the project as not ``economically justified
or environmentally defensible.''
Dredging the Apalachicola exacts too high a price from both taxpayers
and the environment. Clearly it is time to rethink this expensive and
ecologically devastating practice. The bill I offer today, the Restore
the Apalachicola River Ecosystem, RARE, Act, provides for the actions
necessary to reform the Apalachicola River project.
First, my bill puts a stop to navigational dredging.
Secondly, it instructs the Corps to develop a comprehensive
restoration plan to be submitted to Congress that corrects the past
harms done to the Apalachicola.
This legislation is widely supported in the State of Florida.
Governor Jeb Bush and his Cabinet recently passed a resolution that
calls the end of navigational dredging on the Apalachicola. My bill is
supported by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, the
Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, the Northwest
Florida Water Management District, Taxpayers for Common Sense, American
Rivers, Audubon Society, Florida Wildlife Federation, the Apalachicola
Bay and River Keepers, Help Save the Apalachicola River, the Nature
Conservancy, the Apalachee Ecological Conservancy, the Chipola River
Economic and Environmental Council, the League of Conservation Voters
Education Fund, Florida PIRG, the Florida Fishermen Federation, and
1000 Friends of Florida.
The only way to restore the Apalachicola River to its former
greatness is to cease navigational dredging. This designation of the
Apalachicola as one of the nation's most endangered rivers should be a
wake-up call to Congress and the Army Corps of Engineers to permanently
end the dredging of the Apalachicola and allow the river to return to
its natural state free of man's manipulation.
I urge my colleagues to support this legislation, which is both
fiscally sound and environmentally responsible.
Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I rise to day in support of the
Graham-Nelson bill to de-authorize the dredging of the Apalachicola
River.
The time has come to end the dredging of the Apalachicola river in
north Florida. The detriments far outweigh the benefits of this
expensive Army Corps of Engineers river project. The barge traffic is
negligible; and the environmental and economic impact to the area
surrounding this river are harmful.
Since 1998, fewer than 140 barges have used the Florida portion of
the Apalachicola River. And of the barge traffic that does navigate
this waterway, most is confined to a 6 mile long stretch of the
Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint ACF River System for the transport of
sand and gravel, the principal commodity shipped on the system.
The dredging to keep this small amount of barge traffic going has
resulted in sand mountains that have destroyed one-quarter of the banks
of the Apalachicola River and choked sloughs cutting off water supply
to surrounding habitat. In addition, the releases of large quantities
of water to allow barge traffic to navigate the river disrupts the
spawning behavior of three endangered species: the Gulf Sturgeon, the
Fat Three-Ridge and the Purple Bank Climber.
Another concern is the effect of pulses of this fresh water on the
balance of salt and fresh water in Apalachicola Bay. The Apalachicola
Bay is the largest oyster harvesting area in the Gulf of Mexico and one
of the principal nurseries for Gulf Shrimp and blue crabs. Commercial
fishing operations along the Gulf coast rely heavily on the Bay for
their continued prosperity. The fresh water influxes threaten this
important industry. For these reasons, this project must end.
I urge my colleagues support for this important piece of legislation.
[[Page S6870]]
____
By Mr. CORZINE (for himself and Mr. Torricelli):
S. 2731. A bill to establish the Crossroads of the American
Revolution National Heritage Area in the State of New Jersey, and for
other purposes; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, today along with Senator Torricelli I am
introducing legislation, the Crossroads of the American Revolution
National Heritage Area Act of 2002, to establish the Crossroads of the
American Revolution National Heritage Area in the State of New Jersey.
I am proud to be joining my New Jersey colleagues, Representatives
Rodney Frelinghuysen and Rush Holt, who have introduced this
legislation in the House of Representatives with the support of the
entire New Jersey delegation.
This legislation recognizes the critical role that New Jersey played
during the American Revolution. In fact, New Jersey was the site of
nearly 300 military engagements that helped determine the course of our
history as a nation. Many of these locations, like the site where
George Washington made his historic crossing of the Delaware River, are
well known and preserved. Others, such as the Monmouth Battlefield
State Park in Manalapan and Freehold, and New Bridge Landing in River
Edge, are less well known and are threatened by development or in
critical need of funding for rehabilitation.
To help preserve New Jersey's Revolutionary War sites, this
legislation would establish a Crossroads of the American Revolution
National Heritage, linking about 250 sites in 15 counties. This
designation would authorize $10 million to assist preservation,
recreational and educational efforts by the State, county and local
governments as well as private cultural and tourism groups. The program
would be managed by the non-profit Crossroads of the American
Revolution Association.
A National Heritage Area would bring many benefits to New Jersey.
First, it would help our communities and state preserve our history and
educate our citizens. It would also encourage the protection of open
space within the area, which is so critical to our quality of life.
Finally, National Heritage Areas create significant economic
opportunities, providing local communities with incentives and
resources to work together to increase tourism in the region by
highlighting historic sites and cultural events.
Simply put, we are the Nation that we are today because of the
critical events that occurred in New Jersey during the American
Revolution and the many who died fighting there. By enacting the
Crossroads of the American Revolution National Heritage Area Act of
2002, we will pay tribute to the patriots who fought and died in New
Jersey so that we might become a Nation free from tyranny.
I am proud to introduce this legislation to ensure that we properly
honor New Jersey's pivotal role in our Nation's history as the true
crossroads of the American Revolution.
____
By Mrs. BOXER (for herself and Ms. Snowe):
S. 2732. A bill to allow a custodial parent a bad debt deduction for
unpaid child support payments, and to require a parent who is
chronically delinquent in child support to include the amount of the
unpaid obligation in gross income; to the Committee on Finance.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, the bill I am introducing today is long
overdue. The Child Support Enforcement Act will bring much-needed
relief to the millions of families who are not receiving the child
support they are legally due.
The importance of this bill is clear. Each year, nearly 60 percent of
parents owed child support receive less than the amount they are due.
And more than 30 percent receive no payment at all. California is no
exception: preliminary findings from the 2000 Census Report found that
of the more than 2.3 million Californians who were owed child support,
only 39 percent received those payments.
Clearly, millions of individuals, women and children, are in crisis
when it comes to child support. It is time to treat delinquent child
support the same way bad debt is treated in the tax law.
The Child Support Enforcement Act would allow custodial parents to
deduct the amount of child support they are owed from their adjusted
gross income on their income taxes. This is true for all taxpayers,
regardless of whether they itemize. So while we are not providing the
full amount they are due, this bill will provide much-needed relief.
This bill will also penalize the non-custodial parent who is not
paying his or her legally obligated child support. It will force the
deadbeat parent to add the owed amount to his adjusted gross income,
creating a tax penalty.
This is not creating new tax law. It is extending current tax law on
bad debts to delinquent child support payments. It's that simple.
The relief provided in this bill is extremely important for single
parents. Child support payments can literally mean the difference
between paying rent or being homeless; the difference between putting
food on the table or being forced to let children go hungry; the
difference between making ends meet or going on welfare.
I am pleased to be joined in this effort by Senator Snowe. And
Representative Cox is introducing the House version of the bill today
as well. As you can see, this is not a partisan issue, this is a family
issue. It will help families and children nationwide. I urge my
colleagues to cosponsor this bill.
____
By Mr. BINGAMAN:
S. 2733. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to expand
retirement savings for moderate and lower income workers, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on Finance.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the
``Retirement Security for All Americans Act,'' legislation that will
help all of our Nation's workers save for their retirement. Although
there are several ways to measure pension and retirement plan coverage,
there is one constant statistic, less than half of the workers in our
country are covered by an employer sponsored pension plan. In spite of
numerous incentives provided by Congress over the years, our Nation's
coverage rate has remained virtually unchanged for the past three
decades. New Mexico, my home State is the worst, with a coverage rate
of 30 percent. In real terms, this means that 70 percent of New
Mexicans working in the private sector will have to fund their
retirement on the other 2 legs of the proverbial 3 legged stool,
personal savings and Social Security. In truth, it seems unlikely that
private sector workers who do not have a pension or retirement plan
will have any significant savings, leaving them to get by on a one
legged stool, not an easy trick.
Not surprisingly, the coverage rate is substantially reduced for
lower income workers and minorities. For example, the 1999 U.S. Census
Current Population Survey illustrates that only 27 percent of Hispanics
in the private sector have an employer sponsored pension or retirement
plan while it is 47 percent for whites and 44 percent for all workers.
The Census data further illustrates that minorities are more likely to
work at jobs that do not offer their workers a retirement plan. For
instance, only 40 percent of Hispanics work at jobs that offer
retirement plans while 62 percent of whites and 58 percent of all
workers have this employee benefit. If, on the other hand, an employer
does offer its employees a retirement plan, the Census data indicates
that all workers, regardless of race or ethnicity tend to participate
at the same rate. While it is not conclusive, this data indicates that
if workers are offered a plan, they tend to take advantage of this
benefit and save for their retirement.
We cannot continue to have a national retirement policy that results
in the majority of Americans not having adequate savings for what is
supposed to be their golden years. This is unacceptable. The
legislation that I am introducing today addresses this need by
encouraging employers to not only offer plans, but to provide
contributions to their lower paid workers. While each of these
provisions standing alone would improve coverage and our national
savings rate, combined, there is a strong synergic effect among the
provisions, making passage of all three imperative.
The first provision expands and makes permanent the current Savers'
[[Page S6871]]
Credit that was signed into law last year. Under this new provision,
employees earning up to $15,000, $30,000 for married couples, will
receive $0.50 for every dollar that they save in their 401(k) or IRA.
The credit rate gradually phases down for those with incomes between
$15,000 and $27,500, $30,000 and $55,000 for married couples.
Currently, the Savers' Credit drops from 50 percent to 20 percent once
a worker makes $15,001. We get rid of this cliff by phasing the credit
out so as to not have disincentives to save more.
For those taxpayers without income tax liability, we will provide a
tax credit of 50 cents on the dollar for their contributions through a
new series of indexed government bonds. These bonds are not
transferable and not redeemable until the worker retires to avoid
abuses and to guarantee the funds are saved for retirement. By giving
new savers bonds, it will encourage them to save more and help them
realize the benefits of long term savings plans.
The second provision of the bill requires all employers with more
than 10 employees, who do not currently offer their employees a
qualified retirement plan, to provide their workers with the option of
a payroll deduction IRA. Presently, all employers remit payments to
financial institutions for a variety of reasons, including the deposit
of payroll taxes, it is something that they already have to do. This
provision would simply ask them to set up accounts at a financial
institution so that workers can to send part of their own paychecks
directly to an IRA set up at a financial institution of the employer's
choice.
To offset any administrative cost, a tax credit of $200 for the first
year and $50 for subsequent years is provided to the employer, though
in most cases there will be no additional expense. Employers are also
allowed to remit the employee's contributions to their IRAs on the same
schedule as they currently remit payroll tax deposits to the same
financial institutions or the IRS.
The benefits to the employee are clear. A payroll deduction IRA will
allow workers to save small amounts out of each paycheck instead of
making periodic or annual contributions to an IRA. As little as $10 a
week saved could result in an employee saving over $750 dollars a year
when combined with the Savers Credit. Saving is a learned response, the
first step is to get people to save the first dollar and experience the
benefits of compounding interest.
The final section incorporates the Senate passed provision that was
dropped in the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of
2001 conference that provides small businesses with a tax credit for
their contributions to the retirement accounts of their non-highly
compensated employees. This provision, which has been pushed by
Chairman Baucus and others for many years, will greatly increase the
amount that employers contribute to workers' retirement plans.
Essentially it allows employers to receive a 50 percent tax credit on
contributions up to 3 percent of an employee's annual compensation, but
only to the non-highly compensated. To keep the costs of the proposal
down, it is only available for a limited time, 3 years, to new plans.
This should encourage many employers to not only offer a plan for the
first time, but creates a noteworthy incentive to contribute to these
employees' accounts.
I look forward to working with my colleagues to bridge this enormous
gap in pension coverage in our country. We must be realistic about how
much we can accomplish in one shot. Coverage hasn't improved in 30
years. We must therefore continue to advance proposals that will make
gradual but meaningful improvements. We cannot allow ourselves to
operate under the fiction that the system is currently working for all
Americans. At a time when Social Security solvency is at issue, we must
find ways to reduce the reliance of all our seniors on these benefits
for their retirement needs. It was never the intent of Social Security
to be a retiree's sole source of retirement income. This legislation
will begin the slow process of increasing our national pension
coverage. Because these benefits will not accrue over night, we must
act now while the spotlight is still on retirement policy. I hope all
my colleagues will join me in passing this important legislation.
____
By Mr. KERRY (for himself, Mr. Hollings, Ms. Landrieu, Mr.
Baucus, Mr. Bingaman, Mr. Daschle, and Mr. Johnson):
S. 2734. A bill to provide emergency assistance to non-farm small
business concerns that have suffered economic harm from the devastating
effects of drought; to the Committee on Small Business and
Entrepreneurship.
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce emergency
legislation to help small non-farm businesses across this Nation that
are in dire straits because of drought conditions in their State. They
need assistance, particularly access to working capital to pay the
bills and meet payroll, but they can't get it because they are falling
through the cracks of Federal disaster loan programs.
Why? Well, this is hard to believe, but it is because a drought is
not considered a disaster under the Small Business Administration's
disaster loan program, and under the Department of Agriculture's
disaster program, which does consider a drought a disaster, only
agriculture-related businesses are eligible for disaster assistance.
This assistance is critical to the survival of thousands of small
businesses that make their living in tourism and recreation industries,
as well as other industries dependent on water. Droughts are a cruel
phenomenon of nature. They are out of the control of a small business
owner, and it isn't fair that they aren't eligible for Federal disaster
assistance but the victims of floods, fires, and hurricanes are.
With a very small change, we can make all the difference to affected
small businesses. Specifically, I propose amending the Small Business
Act in order to make a drought a disaster.
More than 30 States are struggling with drought right now, according
to the National Drought Mitigation at the University of Nebraska, and
far more than agricultural, forestry and livestock businesses are hurt.
If you talk to the governors of your States, I am sure they will tell
you how bad the situation is. In northern Massachusetts, we have been
in a drought since last fall. In South Carolina, the conditions are so
bad that small businesses dependent upon lake and river tourism have
seen revenues drop anywhere from 17 to 80 percent. The victims range
from fish and tackle shops to rafting businesses, from restaurants to
motels, from marinas to gas stations. For those who are listening and
discount the serious impact of drought on small businesses, ask the
rafting businesses that went bankrupt in Texas in 1996. The rivers were
so low that these established businesses lost everything.
I thank my colleagues who are cosponsors, Senators Hollings,
Landrieu, Baucus, Bingaman, Daschle, and Johnson. I invite my other
colleagues with droughts in their States to cosponsor this bill and
call on the Administration to work with our Committee in passing this
emergency legislation before we go home for the break in August. These
small businesses cannot wait.
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. 2734
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. LOANS TO SMALL BUSINESS CONCERNS DAMAGED BY
DROUGHT.
(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Small
Business Drought Relief Act''.
(b) Findings.--Congress finds that--
(1) as of July 2002, more than 36 States (including
Massachusetts, South Carolina, and Louisiana) have suffered
from continuing drought conditions;
(2) droughts have a negative effect on State and regional
economies;
(3) many small businesses in the United States sell,
distribute, market, or otherwise engage in commerce related
to water and water sources, such as lakes and streams;
(4) many small businesses in the United States suffer
economic injury from drought conditions, leading to revenue
losses, job layoffs, and bankruptcies;
(5) these small businesses need access to low-interest
loans for business-related purposes, including paying their
bills and making payroll until business returns to normal;
(6) absent a legislative change, only agriculture-related
businesses are eligible for Federal disaster loan assistance
as a result of drought conditions; and
(7) it is necessary to amend the Small Business Act to
allow non-farm small businesses that have suffered economic
injury
[[Page S6872]]
from drought to receive financial assistance through Small
Business Administration Economic Injury Disaster Loans.
(c) Expansion of Disaster Definition.--Section 3(k) of the
Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 632(k)) is amended by inserting
``drought,'' after ``windstorms,''.
____________________