[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 1]
[Senate]
[Pages 1390-1400]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. ASHCROFT (for himself, Mr. Abraham, Mr. Inhofe, Mr. 
        DeWine, Mr. Grassley, Ms. Landrieu, and Mr. Roberts):
  S. 2074. A bill to amend title II of the Social Security Act to 
eliminate the social security earnings test for individuals who have 
attained retirement age; to the Committee on Finance.


         social security earnings test elimination act of 2000

  Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I rise today in favor of repealing the 
Social Security earnings test, the onerous tax burden the United States 
government places on seniors who wish to continue working. In order to 
ease this unfair burden, I am hereby introducing the Social Security 
Earnings Test Elimination Act of 2000.
  The earnings test limits the amount a person older than 65 and 
younger than 70 can earn without having his or her Social Security 
benefits reduced. Currently, benefits are reduced by $1 for each $3 of 
earnings over $17,000. This test provides a disincentive for seniors to 
work by reducing seniors' Social Security benefits according to the 
amount of income they earn.
  It is time to repeal that limit. Right now, Social Security is 
scheduled to go bankrupt in 2034. One of the reasons for the looming 
bankruptcy of Social Security is the declining ratio of workers to 
beneficiaries, which worsens as our elderly population continues to 
grow much faster than the number of workers entering the workforce. In 
1960 the ratio was 5:1, today it is a little more than 3:1, and in 
thirty years it is expected to be only 2:1. This decreasing number of 
workers paying for retirees benefits is making it increasingly 
difficult to make the Social Security books balance.
  Instead of helping to fix this problem, the earnings test exacerbates 
this situation. By providing a disincentive to work, the earnings test 
keeps seniors at home instead of at work and paying the payroll taxes 
that keep the Social Security system solvent.
  The earnings test is based on a misconception of the U.S. economy. 
The Social Security Earnings Test is a relic of the Great Depression, 
designed to move older people out of the workforce and create 
employment for younger individuals. The idea behind the earnings test 
is that if seniors were penalized for working, they would stay home and 
open up employment opportunities for younger workers. Not only was this 
view wrong in earlier times, but it is

[[Page 1391]]

counterproductive in today's economy. Today, we do not have a labor 
surplus, but a labor shortage. Unemployment is at a long-time low of 
4.0%, one-and-a-half points lower than the so-called ``full 
employment'' mark of 5.5%.
  Low unemployment is a great development, but it contributes to a 
labor shortage that will worsen when the ``baby boom'' generation ages. 
Employers will have to develop new sources of labor to fill this 
shortage, and seniors represent the most experienced, most skilled 
workers. Many senior citizens can make a significant contribution, and 
often their knowledge and experience complements or exceeds that of 
younger employees. Thirty-five million Americans are over the age of 
65, and together they have over a billion years of cumulative work 
experience. It is both counterproductive and harmful to our growing 
economy to keep willing, diligent workers out of the American economy.
  In addition to the negative consequences for the economy as a whole, 
the Social Security Earnings Test is also bad for seniors. The earnings 
test punishes Americans between the ages of 65 and 70 for their 
attempts to remain productive after retirement. This is particularly 
problematic for low income seniors, many who exist on fixed incomes, 
and are burdened with a 33.3 percent tax on their earned income. When 
combined with federal, state and other Social Security taxes, taxes on 
the elderly can total nearly 55 or 65 percent. An individual who is 
struggling to make ends meet should not be faced with an effective 
marginal tax rate which exceeds 55 percent.
  While the earnings test harms lower-income people, it only affects 
seniors who must work and depend on their earned income for survival. 
Wealthy seniors are not affected by the earnings limit. Their 
supplemental, ``unearned'' sources of income are safe and not subject 
to the earnings threshold. At the same time, many of the older 
Americans penalized by the earnings test need to work in order to cover 
their basic expenses: health care, housing and food. Many seniors do 
not have significant savings or a private pension. For this reason, 
low-income workers are particularly hard-hit by the earnings test.
  In addition to all of the policy reasons for elimination of the 
earnings test, the most important reason to eliminate the test is that 
it is fundamentally unfair. The earnings test discriminates against 
seniors. Nobody, regardless of creed, color, gender, or age should be 
penalized for working or discouraged from engaging in work.
  Furthermore, the earnings test takes money from seniors that is 
rightfully theirs. The Social Security benefits which working seniors 
are losing due to the earnings test penalty are benefits they have 
rightfully earned by contributing to the system throughout their 
working years before retiring. These are benefits which they should not 
be losing because they are trying to survive by supplementing their 
Social Security income.
  Mr. President, it is time to eliminate this counterproductive and 
unfair penalty. With the Social Security and Medicare Trusts Funds 
facing long-term insolvency, it is now more important than ever to 
encourage work. More people working means more people paying into the 
Social Security Trust Fund and Medicare. I ask my colleagues to join me 
in supporting this unfair burden placed on elderly Americans.
  Mr. President, I ask that the text of this bill be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 2074

       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 ``Social Security Earnings 
     Test Elimination Act of 2000''.

     SEC. 2. ELIMINATION OF EARNINGS TEST FOR INDIVIDUALS WHO HAVE 
                   ATTAINED RETIREMENT AGE.

       (a) In General.--Section 203 of the Social Security Act (42 
     U.S.C. 403) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (c)(1), by striking ``the age of 
     seventy'' and inserting ``retirement age (as defined in 
     section 216(l))'';
       (2) in paragraphs (1)(A) and (2) of subsection (d), by 
     striking ``the age of seventy'' each place it appears and 
     inserting ``retirement age (as defined in section 216(l))'';
       (3) in subsection (f)(1)(B), by striking ``was age seventy 
     or over'' and inserting ``was at or above retirement age (as 
     defined in section 216(l))'';
       (4) in subsection (f)(3)--
       (A) by striking ``33\1/3\ percent'' and all that follows 
     through ``any other individual,'' and inserting ``50 percent 
     of such individual's earnings for such year in excess of the 
     product of the exempt amount as determined under paragraph 
     (8),''; and
       (B) by striking ``age 70'' and inserting ``retirement age 
     (as defined in section 216(l))'';
       (5) in subsection (h)(1)(A), by striking ``age 70'' each 
     place it appears and inserting ``retirement age (as defined 
     in section 216(l))''; and
       (6) in subsection (j)--
       (A) in the heading, by striking ``Age Seventy'' and 
     inserting ``Retirement Age''; and
       (B) by striking ``seventy years of age'' and inserting 
     ``having attained retirement age (as defined in section 
     216(l))''.
       (b) Conforming Amendments Eliminating the Special Exempt 
     Amount for Individuals Who Have Attained Retirement Age.--
       (1) Uniform exempt amount.--Section 203(f)(8)(A) of the 
     Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 403(f)(8)(A)) is amended by 
     striking ``the new exempt amounts (separately stated for 
     individuals described in subparagraph (D) and for other 
     individuals) which are to be applicable'' and inserting ``a 
     new exempt amount which shall be applicable''.
       (2) Conforming amendments.--Section 203(f)(8)(B) of the 
     Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 403(f)(8)(B)) is amended--
       (A) in the matter preceding clause (i), by striking 
     ``Except'' and all that follows through ``whichever'' and 
     inserting ``The exempt amount which is applicable for each 
     month of a particular taxable year shall be whichever'';
       (B) in clauses (i) and (ii), by striking ``corresponding'' 
     each place it appears; and
       (C) in the last sentence, by striking ``an exempt amount'' 
     and inserting ``the exempt amount''.
       (3) Repeal of basis for computation of special exempt 
     amount.--Section 203(f)(8)(D) of the Social Security Act (42 
     U.S.C. (f)(8)(D)) is repealed.
       (c) Additional Conforming Amendments.--
       (1) Elimination of redundant references to retirement 
     age.--Section 203 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 403) 
     is amended--
       (A) in subsection (c), in the last sentence, by striking 
     ``nor shall any deduction'' and all that follows and 
     inserting ``nor shall any deduction be made under this 
     subsection from any widow's or widower's insurance benefit if 
     the widow, surviving divorced wife, widower, or surviving 
     divorced husband involved became entitled to such benefit 
     prior to attaining age 60.''; and
       (B) in subsection (f)(1), by striking clause (D) and 
     inserting the following: ``(D) for which such individual is 
     entitled to widow's or widower's insurance benefits if such 
     individual became so entitled prior to attaining age 60,''.
       (2) Conforming amendment to provisions for determining 
     amount of increase on account of delayed retirement.--Section 
     202(w)(2)(B)(ii) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 
     402(w)(2)(B)(ii)) is amended--
       (A) by striking ``either''; and
       (B) by striking ``or suffered deductions under section 
     203(b) or 203(c) in amounts equal to the amount of such 
     benefit''.
       (3) Provisions relating to earnings taken into account in 
     determining substantial gainful activity of blind 
     individuals.--The second sentence of section 223(d)(4)(A) of 
     the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 423(d)(4)(A)) is amended 
     by striking ``if section 102 of the Senior Citizens' Right to 
     Work Act of 1996 had not been enacted'' and inserting the 
     following: ``if the amendments to section 203 made by section 
     102 of the Senior Citizens' Right to Work Act of 1996 and by 
     the Social Security Earnings Test Elimination Act of 2000 had 
     not been enacted''.
       (d) Effective Date.--The amendments and repeals made by 
     this section shall apply with respect to taxable years ending 
     after December 31, 2000.

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the 
legislation of my colleague Senator John Ashcroft to repeal the Social 
Security earnings limit. Under current law, workers aged 65-69, can 
earn only up to $17,000 without losing out on their Social Security 
benefits. This ``earnings limit'' penalizes hard-working seniors by 
docking them $1 for every $3 of earnings over the limit. In fact, an 
older worker's entire Social Security benefit could be eliminated by 
the earnings limit if he or she earns more than $45,944. A few years 
ago, I worked successfully to increase the limit to $30,000 by 2002. 
But we can do better. Penalizing older workers sends the wrong message 
to those who choose to stay in the workforce beyond normal retirement 
age. And in today's tight labor market, we need to do a better job 
about recruiting

[[Page 1392]]

and retaining good employees. In fact, in my state of Iowa, the jobless 
rate for December was 2.2 percent. That rate is even below the national 
jobless rate of 4.1 percent. We cannot afford to discourage older 
Americans who want to work from remaining in the labor market.
  I am a strong supporter of efforts under way this year to repeal the 
earnings limit. Eliminating the penalty would help 800,000 older 
workers who now lose part or all of their benefits simply because they 
have the will and ability to stay on the job after 65. From my home 
State alone, many Iowans have contacted me in frustration over the 
earnings limit.
  For the first time in years, I am confident we can get the job done 
once and for all. The proposal has overwhelming bipartisan support from 
Congress and the White House. We could see swift action on this 
commonsense proposal.
  While fixing this inequity in the retirement system will give fair 
treatment to those ages 65-69 who have paid into the program during 
their entire working years, it will not address Social Security's long-
term demographic challenges. When the baby boom generation comes on 
board, the revenue and benefit structure will not be able to sustain 
the obligations under current law. That is why I have worked with six 
of my Senate colleagues, Senators Judd Gregg, Bob Kerrey, John Breaux, 
Fred Thompson, Craig Thomas, and Chuck Robb, to craft bipartisan Senate 
reform legislation. Our bill, the ``Bipartisan Social Security Reform 
Act'' S. 1383 is the only reform legislation which has been put forth 
in the Senate which would make the Social Security trust fund 
permanently solvent. I will continue to press ahead and work to build a 
consensus among our colleagues to save Social Security and achieve 
long-term solvency for generations to come.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. SCHUMER (for himself, Mr. Moynihan, Mr. Santorum, Mr. 
        Specter, Mr. Bayh, Mr. Brownback, Mr. Durbin, Ms. Landrieu, and 
        Mr. Stevens):
  S. 2076. A bill to authorize the President to award a gold medal on 
behalf of the Congress to John Cardinal O'Connor, Archbishop of New 
York, in recognition of his accomplishments as a priest, a chaplain, 
and a humanitarian; to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban 
Affairs.


 legislation to authorize a congressional gold medal for john cardinal 
                    o'connor, archbishop of new york

 Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, it is a pleasure for me to rise 
alongside my distinguished colleagues Senators Moynihan, Specter, 
Santorum, Bayh, Brownback, Durbin, Landrieu, and Stevens, to honor the 
enormous contributions made by John Cardinal O'Connor to religion, 
humanity, international relations, and service to America, by bestowing 
upon him the Congressional Gold Medal.
  I believe this simple gesture would be our opportunity, as members of 
Congress, as representatives of this nation, to thank his Eminence for 
the care, compassion, and spiritual guidance that he has provided to 
millions of people throughout his lifetime. The work he has done from 
the treasured St. Patrick's Cathedral has reinforced the traditional 
teaching and practices of the Roman Catholic church, and helped bring 
to life the spirit and mission of the Vatican.
  Since being ordained 54 years ago, John Cardinal O'Connor has 
dedicated his life to the noblest of deeds, that of service. He has 
been an advocate of the poor, the sick, the elderly, and America's 
young children. He has heeded his country's call to service, serving 
first as a military chaplain, and rising, with distinction, to become 
Navy Chief Chaplain. He has served as an international ambassador, 
traveling the world over, Israel, Jordan, Haiti, Bosnia-Herzegovina, 
and Russia, as a messenger of peace, humanity, and freedom. Wherever 
war, oppression, and poverty have threatened to weaken the human 
spirit, he has been there--a tireless servant of the Roman Catholic 
church and as an American citizen.
  With the recent celebration of his 80th birthday, and the prospects 
of his retirement growing, it is truly the proper time for America to 
pay tribute to John Cardinal O'Connor. Last week, the members of the 
House overwhelmingly supported similar legislation, introduced by 
Congressman Fossella, by a 413 to 1 vote. It is my hope that this 
legislation will receive similar support here in the Senate, and that 
all of our colleagues will join us in this effort.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. SANTORUM (for himself and Mr. Coverdell):
  S. 2077. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow 
nonitemizers a deduction for a portion of their charitable 
contributions; to the Committee on Finance.


                  THE CHARITABLE GIVING TAX RELIEF ACT

 Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, today, I am introducing the 
Charitable Giving Tax Relief Act along with my colleague Senator 
Coverdell. This legislation will allow non-itemizers to deduct 50 
percent of their charitable giving, after they exceed a cumulative 
total of $500 in annual donations.
  As we approach another tax deadline, more than 84 million Americans 
cannot deduct any of their charitable contributions because they do not 
itemize their tax returns. In contrast, there are 34 million Americans 
who itemize and receive this benefit. In Pennsylvania, there are nearly 
4 million taxpayers who do not itemize deductions while slightly more 
than 1.5 million taxpayers do itemize.
  While Americans are already giving generously to charities making a 
significant positive impact in our communities, this legislation 
provides an incentive for additional giving and allows non-itemizers 
who typically have middle to lower middle incomes to also benefit from 
additional tax relief. In fact, non-itemizers earning less than $30,000 
give the highest percentage of their household income to charity. It is 
estimated that restoring this tax relief provision which existed in the 
1980's would encourage more than $3 billion of additional charitable 
giving a year. According to Price Waterhouse, the Charitable Giving 
Relief Act would result in $725 million in additional charitable giving 
in Pennsylvania alone over a five year period.
  Representative Philip Crane of Illinois has previously introduced 
identical bipartisan legislation, H.R. 1310, with 122 cosponsors in the 
House of Representatives. The legislation is also supported by a long 
list of nonprofit groups and the Independent Sector, a coalition of 
more than 700 nonprofits, foundations, and other charitable groups.
  President Clinton in his FY2001 budget has included a provision which 
would allow non-itemizers to deduct 50 percent of their charitable 
contributions in excess of $1,000 for single filers and $2,000 for 
joint filers. The President's proposal would eventually lower the 
threshold to $500 in 2006 in a manner consistent with the Charitable 
Giving Tax Relief Act.
  One important dimension of my involvement in promoting charitable 
efforts helping to revitalize our communities, empower individuals and 
families, and enhance educational opportunities is encouraging 
charitable giving. This legislation is a great opportunity to lower the 
tax burden on the many Americans who have not received any tax relief 
for their charitable contributions since 1986.
  As Senate Co-Chair of the Congressional Empowerment Caucus with 
Senator Lieberman and in my efforts with the Renewal Alliance, I am 
committed to helping further unleash the potential of charitable 
organizations and harness the generosity of Americans to improve the 
quality of life of all Americans. I look forward to working with my 
colleagues and the President to provide additional tax relief and 
incentives for charitable giving this year.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill appar in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:
  The text of the bill follows:

                                S. 2077

       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 ``Charitable Giving Tax Relief 
     Act''.

[[Page 1393]]



     SEC. 2. DEDUCTION FOR PORTION OF CHARITABLE CONTRIBUTIONS TO 
                   BE ALLOWED TO INDIVIDUALS WHO DO NOT ITEMIZE 
                   DEDUCTIONS.

       (a) In General.--Section 170 of the Internal Revenue Code 
     of 1986 (relating to charitable, etc., contributions and 
     gifts) is amended by redesignating subsection (m) as 
     subsection (n) and by inserting after subsection (l) the 
     following new subsection:
       ``(m) Deduction for Individuals Not Itemizing Deductions.--
     In the case of an individual who does not itemize his 
     deductions for the taxable year, there shall be taken into 
     account as a direct charitable deduction under section 63 an 
     amount equal to 50 percent of the excess of the amount 
     allowable under subsection (a) for the taxable year over 
     $500.''
       (b) Direct Charitable Deduction.--
       (1) In general.--Subsection (b) of section 63 of such Code 
     is amended by striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (1), 
     by striking the period at the end of paragraph (2) and 
     inserting ``, and'', and by adding at the end the following 
     new paragraph:
       ``(3) the direct charitable deduction.''
       (2) Definition.--Section 63 of such Code is amended by 
     redesignating subsection (g) as subsection (h) and by 
     inserting after subsection (f) the following new subsection:
       ``(g) Direct Charitable Deduction.--For purposes of this 
     section, the term `direct charitable deduction' means that 
     portion of the amount allowable under section 170(a) which is 
     taken as a direct charitable deduction for the taxable year 
     under section 170(m).''
       (3) Conforming amendment.--Subsection (d) of section 63 of 
     such Code is amended by striking ``and'' at the end of 
     paragraph (1), by striking the period at the end of paragraph 
     (2) and inserting ``, and'', and by adding at the end the 
     following new paragraph:
       ``(3) the direct charitable deduction.''
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to taxable years beginning after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. BURNS:
  S. 2079. A bill to facilitate the timely resolution of back-logged 
civil rights discrimination cases of the Department of Agriculture, and 
for other purposes; to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and 
Forestry.


              THE USDA CIVIL RIGHTS RESOLUTION ACT OF 2000

 Mr. BURNS. Mr. President. I am pleased today to introduce a 
bill that is designed to clean up a terrible mess at the U.S. 
Department of Agriculture, dealing with civil rights.
  Last year, a finding was made that the USDA had, for decades, been 
guilty of violating many of America's producer's civil rights. When 
these producers tried to take advantage of the programs offered by the 
USDA they were treated differently than their friends and neighbors.
  Many cases have been pending for too long. At least one has been on 
the list for up to ten years. Due to USDA's inaction, Congress waived 
the statute of limitations on certain USDA discrimination cases, giving 
farmers until October 21, 2000, to file or re-file cases that allegedly 
occurred between 1981 through 1997. In addition to the cases that have 
been pending, that added another major backlog.
  While we realize there is a massive backlog of cases to be dealt 
with, we feel Congress has made a good-faith effort to assist the 
Office of Civil Rights (OCR) in every way possible. We have written 
countless letters and met with Rosalind Gray, the Director of the OCR 
to discuss this issue. In addition, in 1998 the Senate included money 
in the agricultural appropriations bill, to deal with this back-log of 
cases.
  However, despite numerous phone calls and letters, no progress has 
been made in resolving these cases. I have invited Department officials 
to come to Montana and speak with the civil rights complainants so that 
we may solve these cases more quickly. So far, I have not seen enough 
action and not nearly enough closure.
  The horror stories about the treatment civil rights complainants have 
received from the USDA are numerous and unbelievable. These complaints 
are simply being ignored. The inadequacy of this process is adding 
insult to injury. These people are being put on hold while the USDA 
plods through their cases. Many have been forced to the brink. They 
don't even know if they can still make agriculture their livelihood 
should USDA finally decide in their favor. Operating costs alone are 
placing many producers at a disadvantage. Add to that, the costs 
associated with filing a complaint and you can see why many feel 
completely helpless, and hopeless.
  I have constituents calling my staff at home because they are on 
their last leg. The OCR has continually ignored requests for 
information from my staff, or delayed sending pertinent information to 
these people. Those affected by these decisions cannot afford to waste 
more precious time listening to the USDA's excuses while they try to 
find a way to buy next month's food. Allowing these cases to go on for 
years and years is a travesty. How can these people get on with their 
life? The USDA has taken away their livelihood. Without equal treatment 
from the USDA they can't run their operations. Without a working farm, 
they have lost everything they had.
  Secretary Glickman has stated publicly and repeatedly that the civil 
rights issue within the Department of Agriculture is an extremely high 
priority on his agenda. It should be. But still, I have seen very 
little action.
  These constituents cannot get on with their lives until the USDA does 
take action. My bill will give the OCR 270 days to resolve the 
complaint after it has been investigated. If, after 270 days the 
complaint is not resolved, the complainant may petition the Civil 
Rights Division of the Department of Justice (DOJ). The DOJ shall then 
conduct a review and make a recommendation to the OCR within 30 days.
  This law will also broaden the statute of limitations. As I said 
earlier, legislation passed by Congress waived the statute of 
limitations on certain USDA discrimination cases, giving farmers until 
October 21, 2000, to file or re-file cases that allegedly occurred 
between 1981 through 1997. However, I want to make sure that civil 
rights cases do not fall through the cracks of that waiver. If an act 
occurred prior to February 22, 1998, for example, that person could not 
file for discrimination. This legislation will cover that gap.
  These cases must be resolved soon. These producers have suffered too 
much already. They cannot afford to wait any longer. We look forward to 
working with members of other states affected by this abuse of the 
civil rights program to resolve these complaints as quickly as 
possible.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mrs. BOXER:
  S. 2080. A bill to amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to 
require that food that contains a genetically engineered material, or 
that is produced with a genetically engineered material, must be 
labeled accordingly, and for other purposes; to the Committee on 
Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.


           the genetically engineered food right-to-know act

 Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce the 
Genetically Engineered Food Right-to-Know Act. This legislation 
requires that all foods containing or produced with genetically 
engineered material bear a neutral label stating that: ``this product 
contains a genetically engineered material or was produced with a 
genetically engineered material.''
  The bill adds this labeling requirement to the provisions of the 
Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), the Federal Meat 
Inspection Act, and the Poultry Products Inspection Act which contain 
the general standards for labeling foods.
  Recent polls have demonstrated that Americans want to know if they 
are eating genetically engineered food. A January 1999 Time magazine 
poll revealed that 81% of respondents wanted genetically engineered 
food to be labeled. A January 2000 MSNBC poll showed identical results.
  This pressure has already led some companies not to use genetically 
engineered materials in their foods. Gerber and Heinz have said they 
will no longer use genetically engineered material in their baby food. 
Whole Foods and Wild Oats Supermarkets also have said they will use no 
genetically engineered material in their own products.
  Great Britain, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg, 
Denmark, Sweden, Finland, Ireland, Spain, Austria, Italy, Portugal, 
Greece, New Zealand, and Japan already require genetically engineered 
food to be labeled.

[[Page 1394]]

  If the U.S. wants to sell its genetically engineered food to these 
countries, it will have to label the food for foreign consumers. It is 
only fair that American consumers be given similar information.
  Why do I feel it's important for consumers to know that their food is 
genetically engineered?
  First, we don't know whether genetically engineered food is harmful 
or whether it is safe. However, scientists have raised concerns about 
genetically engineered food. These concerns include the risks of 
increased exposure to allergens, decreased nutritional value, increased 
toxicity and increased antibiotic resistance.
  In addition, scientists have raised concerns about the ecological 
risks associated with genetically engineered food. Some of those risks 
include the destruction of species, cross pollination that breeds new 
weeds that are resistant to herbicides, and increases in pesticide use 
over the long-term.
  Earlier this year, for example, researchers at Cornell University 
reported that Monarch butterflies were either killed or developed 
abnormally when eating milkweed dusted with the pollen of Bt-corn, a 
genetically engineered food.
  Second, the Food and Drug Administration does not require pre-market 
health and safety testing of genetically engineered foods. Therefore, 
it is only fair that consumers know they are eating products that have 
not been tested.
  Third, the Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of 
Agriculture do not require substantive environmental review of 
genetically engineered materials under their jurisdiction.
  My Genetically Engineered Food Right-to-Know Act not only mandates 
labels, but does something even more important: it authorizes $5 
million in grants to conduct studies into the health and environmental 
risks raised by genetically engineered food.
  Specifically, it directs the Secretary of HHS to make grants to 
individuals, organizations and institutions to study risks like 
increased toxicity, increased allergenicity, negative effects on soil 
ecology and on the environment in general.
  What is the extent of genetically engineered crops today?
  Last year, 98.6 million acres in the U.S. were planted with 
genetically engineered crops. More than one-third of the U.S. soybean 
crop and one-quarter of corn were genetically engineered. This 
represents a 23-fold increase in genetically engineered crop production 
from just four years ago.
  And waiting to come into the marketplace are more than 60 different 
genetically engineered crops--from apples and strawberries to potatoes 
and tomatoes.
  Providing consumers with information about the foods they eat is 
hardly new.
  For example, I was proud to be the author of the law to provide for 
the ``dolphin safe'' label on tuna. The label indicated that the tuna 
was harvested by methods that don't harm dolphins.
  I was also proud to lead the fight in the Senate to make sure that 
chicken frozen as solid as a bowling ball could not be labeled fresh. 
At the time, USDA's position was that frozen chicken could be labeled 
``fresh.''
  In 1996, I succeeded in amending the Safe Drinking Water Act to 
require that drinking water providers give their consumers annual 
reports concerning the quality of their water.
  Others in Congress led the fight to tell consumers whether their 
products contain artificial colors or sweeteners, preservatives, 
additives, and whether they are from concentrate. I supported those 
labels as well.
  Food manufacturers also label their products with information that is 
of little value to consumers. Certain brands of pretzels, for example, 
bear a label which states that the manufacturer is a ``Member of the 
Snack Food Association: An International Trade Association.''
  I don't think this is information consumers are clamoring for, yet 
the manufacturer is willing to go through the trouble of putting it on 
the bag.
  My legislation builds on the existing food labeling system, and would 
be simple to implement. It would require that all foods containing or 
made with genetically engineered foods be labeled with this 
information: ``this product contains a genetically engineered material 
or was produced with a genetically engineered material.''
  For example, corn flakes made with genetically engineered corn would 
be a ``product that contains'' genetically engineered material. To take 
another example, milk from a cow treated with genetically engineered 
bovine growth hormone would be a product ``produced with'' genetically 
engineered material.
  Specifically, my bill requires that food that contains or was 
produced with genetically engineered material be labeled at each stage 
of the food production process--from seed company to farmer to 
manufacturer to retailer. The labeling requirement in my bill, however, 
does not apply to drugs or to food sold in restaurants, bakeries, and 
other similar establishments.
  Genetically engineered material is defined under the bill as material 
that ``has been altered at the molecular or cellular level by means 
that are not possible under natural conditions or processes.'' Food 
developed through traditional processes such as crossbreeding is not 
considered to be genetically engineered, and the legislation's labeling 
requirement would not apply to foods produced in that way.
  Under the bill, persons need not label food if they obtain a written 
guaranty from the party from whom they received the food that the food 
does not contain and was not produced with genetically engineered 
material. Persons who obtain a valid guaranty are not subject to 
penalties under the bill if they are later found to have failed to 
label food that contains genetically engineered material.
  For example, a farmer who plants genetically engineered corn must 
label that corn. Each person who then buys and then sells that corn, or 
food derived from it, will also be required to label it as genetically 
engineered.
  Conversely, farmers who obtain a guaranty that the corn they are 
planting is not genetically engineered may issue a guaranty to 
purchasers that their corn is not genetically engineered. The purchaser 
then would not have to label that corn or product made with that corn.
  If the corn or food is later found to have contained or been produced 
with genetically engineered material but was not labeled accordingly, 
the purchaser would not be subject to penalties under the bill.
  This guaranty system is used today to enforce provisions of existing 
law concerning the distribution of adulterated or mislabeled foods. The 
system is much less expensive than a system which would require food to 
be tested at every phase of the food production process.
  Failure to label food that contains or was produced with genetically 
engineered material carries a civil penalty of up to $1,000 amount for 
each violation.
  Importantly, the bill provides that if a party fraudulently warrants 
that a product is not genetically engineered, no party further down the 
chain of custody may be held liable for mislabeling. This provision is 
particularly meant to protect small farmers from the possibility that 
their suppliers would by contract provide that any liability for 
mislabeling be borne by the farmer regardless of the suppliers' own 
actions.
  The bill also provides another protection for farmers. Under the 
bill, a farmer who plants a non-genetically engineered crop, but whose 
crop came to contain genetically engineered material from natural 
causes such as wind carrying pollen from a genetically engineered plant 
is not subject to penalties under the bill. This is the case so long as 
the farmer did not intend or did not negligently permit this to occur.
  And, finally, the bill directs the Secretary of HHS to make grants to 
study the possible health and environmental risks associated with 
genetically engineered foods. The bill authorizes $5 million for this 
purpose.
  In closing, Mr. President, during the recent negotiations on the 
Biosafety Protocol, it was the United States' negotiating position that 
international shipments of seeds, grains and plants

[[Page 1395]]

that may contain genetically engineered material be labeled 
accordingly.
  If the United States took the position that it is appropriate to 
provide this information to its trading partners, shouldn't we make 
similar information available to American consumers?
  I am hopeful that my House and Senate colleagues can act quickly to 
ensure the passage of my legislation to give American families the 
right-to-know whether their food contains or was produced with 
genetically engineered material.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill appear in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 2080

       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 ``Genetically Engineered Food 
     Right-to-Know Act''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       Congress finds the following:
       (1) In 1999, 98,600,000 acres in the United States were 
     planted with genetically engineered crops, and more than \1/
     3\ of the soybean crop, and \1/4\ of the corn crop, in the 
     United States was genetically engineered.
       (2) The process of genetically engineering foods results in 
     the material change of such foods.
       (3) The health and environmental effects of genetically 
     engineered foods are not yet known.
       (4) Individuals in the United States have the right to know 
     whether food contains or has been produced with genetically 
     engineered material.
       (5) Federal law gives individuals in the United States the 
     right to know whether food contains artificial colors and 
     flavors, chemical preservatives, and artificial sweeteners by 
     requiring the labeling of such food.
       (6) Requirements that genetically engineered food be 
     labeled as genetically engineered would increase consumer 
     knowledge about, and consumer control over consumption of, 
     genetically engineered food.
       (7) Genetically engineered material can be detected in food 
     at levels as low as 0.1 percent by reasonably available 
     technology.

     SEC. 3. LABELING REGARDING GENETICALLY ENGINEERED MATERIAL; 
                   AMENDMENTS TO FEDERAL FOOD, DRUG, AND COSMETIC 
                   ACT.

       (a) In General.--Section 403 of the Federal Food, Drug, and 
     Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 343) is amended by adding at the end 
     the following paragraph:
       ``(t)(1) If it contains a genetically engineered material, 
     or was produced with a genetically engineered material, 
     unless it bears a label (or labeling, in the case of a raw 
     agricultural commodity) that provides notices in accordance 
     with each of the following requirements:
       ``(A) The label or labeling bears the following notice: 
     `GENETICALLY ENGINEERED'.
       ``(B) The label or labeling bears the following notice: 
     `THIS PRODUCT CONTAINS A GENETICALLY ENGINEERED MATERIAL, OR 
     WAS PRODUCED WITH A GENETICALLY ENGINEERED MATERIAL'.
       ``(C) The notice required in clause (A) immediately 
     precedes the notice required in clause (B) and the type for 
     the notice required in clause (A) is not less than twice the 
     size of the type for the notice required in clause (B).
       ``(D) The notice required in clause (B) is the same size as 
     would be required if the notice provided nutrition 
     information that is required in paragraph (q)(1).
       ``(E) The notices required in clauses (A) and (B) are 
     clearly legible and conspicuous.
       ``(2) This paragraph does not apply to food that--
       ``(A) is served in restaurants or other similar eating 
     establishments, such as cafeterias and carryouts;
       ``(B) is a medical food as defined in section 5(b) of the 
     Orphan Drug Act; or
       ``(C) was grown on a tree that was planted before the date 
     of enactment of the Genetically Engineered Food Right-to-Know 
     Act, in a case in which the producer of the food does not 
     know if the food contains a genetically engineered material, 
     or was produced with a genetically engineered material.
       ``(3) In this paragraph:
       ``(A) The term `genetically engineered material' means 
     material derived from any part of a genetically engineered 
     organism, without regard to whether the altered molecular or 
     cellular characteristics of the organism are detectable in 
     the material.
       ``(B) The term `genetically engineered organism' means--
       ``(i) an organism that has been altered at the molecular or 
     cellular level by means that are not possible under natural 
     conditions or processes (including recombinant DNA and RNA 
     techniques, cell fusion, microencapsulation, 
     macroencapsulation, gene deletion and doubling, introduction 
     of a foreign gene, and a process that changes the positions 
     of genes), other than a means consisting exclusively of 
     breeding, conjugation, fermentation, hybridization, in vitro 
     fertilization, or tissue culture; and
       ``(ii) an organism made through sexual or asexual 
     reproduction, or both, involving an organism described in 
     subclause (i), if possessing any of the altered molecular or 
     cellular characteristics of the organism so described.
       ``(C) The term `produced with a genetically engineered 
     material', used with respect to a food, means a food if--
       ``(i) the organism from which the food is derived has been 
     injected or otherwise treated with a genetically engineered 
     material (except that the use of manure as a fertilizer for 
     raw agricultural commodities may not be construed to be 
     production with a genetically engineered material);
       ``(ii) the animal from which the food is derived has been 
     fed genetically engineered material; or
       ``(iii) the food contains an ingredient that is a food to 
     which subclause (i) or (ii) applies.''.
       (b) Guaranty.--
       (1) In general.--Section 303(d) of the Federal Food, Drug, 
     and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 333(d)) is amended--
       (A) by striking ``(d)'' and inserting ``(d)(1)''; and
       (B) by adding at the end the following paragraph:
       ``(2)(A) No person shall be subject to the penalties of 
     subsection (a)(1) or (h) for a violation of section 301(a), 
     301(b), or 301(c) involving food that is misbranded within 
     the meaning of section 403(t) if such person (referred to in 
     this paragraph as the `recipient') establishes a guaranty or 
     undertaking that--
       ``(i) is signed by, and contains the name and address of, a 
     person residing in the United States from whom the recipient 
     received in good faith the food (including the receipt of 
     seeds to grow raw agricultural commodities); and
       ``(ii) contains a statement to the effect that the food 
     does not contain a genetically engineered material or was not 
     produced with a genetically engineered material.
       ``(B) In the case of a recipient who, with respect to a 
     food, establishes a guaranty or undertaking in accordance 
     with subparagraph (A), the exclusion under such subparagraph 
     from being subject to penalties applies to the recipient 
     without regard to the manner in which the recipient uses the 
     food, including whether the recipient is--
       ``(i) processing the food;
       ``(ii) using the food as an ingredient in a food product;
       ``(iii) repacking the food; or
       ``(iv) growing, raising, or otherwise producing the food.
       ``(C) No person may avoid responsibility or liability for a 
     violation of section 301(a), 301(b), or 301(c) involving food 
     that is misbranded within the meaning of section 403(t) by 
     entering into a contract or other agreement that specifies 
     that another person shall bear such responsibility or 
     liability, except that a recipient may require a guaranty or 
     undertaking as described in this subsection.
       ``(D) In this paragraph, the terms `genetically engineered 
     material' and `produced with a genetically engineered 
     material' have the meanings given the terms in section 
     403(t).''.
       (2) False guaranty.--Section 301(h) of the Federal Food, 
     Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 331(h)) is amended by 
     inserting ``or 303(d)(2)'' before ``, which guaranty or 
     undertaking is false'' the first place it appears.
       (c) Unintended Contamination.--Section 303(d) of the 
     Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, as amended by 
     subsection (b)(1), is further amended by adding at the end 
     the following paragraph:
       ``(3)(A) No person shall be subject to the penalties of 
     subsection (a)(1) or (h) for a violation of section 301(a), 
     301(b), or 301(c) involving food that is misbranded within 
     the meaning of section 403(t) if--
       ``(i) such person is an agricultural producer and the 
     violation occurs because food that is grown, raised, or 
     otherwise produced by such producer, which food does not 
     contain a genetically engineered material and was not 
     produced with a genetically engineered material, is 
     contaminated with a food that contains a genetically 
     engineered material or was produced with a genetically 
     engineered material (including contamination by mingling the 
     2 foods); and
       ``(ii) such contamination is not intended by the 
     agricultural producer.
       ``(B) Subparagraph (A) does not apply to an agricultural 
     producer to the extent that the contamination occurs as a 
     result of the negligence of the producer.''.
       (d) Civil Penalties.--Section 303 of the Federal Food, 
     Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 333) is amended by adding 
     at the end the following subsection:
       ``(h)(1) With respect to a violation of section 301(a), 
     301(b), or 301(c) involving food that is misbranded within 
     the meaning of section 403(t), any person engaging in such a 
     violation shall be liable to the United States for a civil 
     penalty in an amount not to exceed $1,000 for each such 
     violation.
       ``(2) Paragraphs (3) through (5) of subsection (g) apply 
     with respect to a civil penalty assessed under paragraph (1) 
     to the same extent and in the same manner as such paragraphs 
     (3) through (5) apply with respect

[[Page 1396]]

     to a civil penalty assessed under paragraph (1) or (2) of 
     subsection (g).''.

     SEC. 4. GRANTS FOR RESEARCH ON GENETICALLY ENGINEERED FOOD.

       Chapter IX of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 
     U.S.C. 391 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:

     ``SEC. 908. GRANTS FOR RESEARCH ON GENETICALLY ENGINEERED 
                   FOOD.

       ``(a) In General.--The Secretary may make grants to 
     appropriate individuals, organizations, and institutions to 
     conduct research into the public health and environmental 
     risks associated with genetically engineered materials, food 
     that contains a genetically engineered material, and food 
     that is produced with a genetically engineered material, 
     including risks related to--
       ``(1) increased allergenicity;
       ``(2) increased toxicity;
       ``(3) cross-pollination between genetically engineered 
     materials and materials that are not genetically engineered 
     materials; and
       ``(4) interference with the soil ecosystem and other 
     impacts on the ecosystem.
       ``(b) Authorization of Appropriations.--
       ``(1) In general.--There is authorized to be appropriated 
     $5,000,000 for fiscal year 2001 to carry out the objectives 
     of this section.
       ``(2) Availability.--Any sums appropriated under the 
     authorization contained in this subsection shall remain 
     available, without fiscal year limitation, until expended.
       ``(c) Definitions.--The terms `genetically engineered 
     material' and `produced with a genetically engineered 
     material' have the meanings given the terms in section 
     403(t)(3) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.''.

     SEC. 5. CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.

       (a) Section 1(n) of Public Law 90-201 is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (11), by striking ``or'' at the end;
       (2) in paragraph (12), by striking the period at the end 
     and inserting ``; or''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(13) if--
       ``(A) it contains a genetically engineered material, or was 
     produced with a genetically engineered material; and
       ``(B)(i) it does not bear a label or labeling, as 
     appropriate, that provides the notices required under the 
     terms and conditions of section 403(t) of the Federal Food, 
     Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 343(t)); or
       ``(ii) it is the subject of a false guaranty or 
     undertaking,

     subject to the terms and conditions of section 303(d) of that 
     Act (21 U.S.C. 333(d)) and subject to the penalties described 
     in section 303(h) of that Act (21 U.S.C. 333(h)) and remedies 
     available under this Act.''.
       (b) Section 4(h) of Public Law 85-172 is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (11), by striking ``or'' at the end;
       (2) in paragraph (12), by striking the period at the end 
     and inserting ``; or''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(13) if--
       ``(A) it contains a genetically engineered material, or was 
     produced with a genetically engineered material; and
       ``(B)(i) it does not bear a label or labeling, as 
     appropriate, that provides the notices required under the 
     terms and conditions of section 403(t) of the Federal Food, 
     Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 343(t)); or
       ``(ii) it is the subject of a false guaranty or 
     undertaking,

     subject to the terms and conditions of section 303(d) of that 
     Act (21 U.S.C. 333(d)) and subject to the penalties described 
     in section 303(h) of that Act (21 U.S.C. 333(h)) and remedies 
     available under this Act.''.

     SEC. 6. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       This Act and the amendments made by this Act take effect 
     180 days after the date of enactment of this Act.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. DeWINE (for himself, Mr. Warner, and Mr. Robb):
  S. 2082. A bill to establish a program to award grants to improve and 
maintain sites honoring Presidents of the United States; to the 
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.


               presidential sites improvement act of 2000

  Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I rise today to honor not only the 
birthday of our great nation's first president, George Washington, but 
all presidents who followed in his foot steps. I am introducing the 
Presidential Sites Improvement Act of 2000, which would create a new 
and innovative partnership with public and private entities to preserve 
and maintain Presidential birthplaces, homes, memorials, and tombs. Our 
Presidents have contributed so much to our country, and we have much to 
learn from them. It is fitting that we recognize their contributions as 
leaders of our country.
  Mr. President, there are numerous sites across the nation that pay 
tribute to our nation's chief executives, but the majority of these 
sites are not owned by the National Park Service. This means that these 
sites generally do not receive federal support. These sites must rely 
on donations, state and local assistance, and private endowments to pay 
for staff, maintenance, and restoration projects. Some of these sites 
have large endowments for operation expenses. Unfortunately, many other 
sites have a very difficult time making ends meet. In fact, many of 
these sites delay necessary capital improvement projects because site 
managers simply don't have the resources to pay for them. Over time, 
maintenance neglect will cause these historic sites to slowly fall 
apart.
  I have visited many of the Presidential historic sites throughout my 
home state of Ohio, a state that has been the home of eight presidents. 
It is disturbing to see at the Ulysses S. Grant birthplace the 
discoloration throughout the house and falling plaster because of water 
damage. At the home of President Warren Harding, the famous front porch 
where then candidate Harding gave his campaign speeches actually began 
to pull away from the house. Fortunately, we were able to obtain the 
funding to prevent these two historic treasures from deteriorating 
further. However, by providing some federal assistance for maintenance 
projects today, we can help prevent larger maintenance problems 
tomorrow.
  Mr. President, these Presidential sites are far too important to let 
them slowly decay. My legislation would authorize grants, administered 
by the National Park Service, for maintenance and improvement projects 
on presidential sites that are not federally owned or managed. A 
portion of the funds would be set aside for sites that are in need of 
emergency assistance. To administer this new program, this legislation 
would establish a five member committee, including the Director of the 
National Park Service, a member of the Trust for Historic Preservation, 
and a state historic preservation officer. This committee would make 
grant recommendations to the Secretary of the Interior. Each grant 
would require that half of the funds come from non-federal sources. Up 
to $5 million would be made available annually.
  With this legislation, we can do more than just set one day aside to 
honor our country's dedicated leaders. We can make a lasting commitment 
to preserve their memory and contributions for generations to come. Our 
children and grandchildren should have the opportunity to understand 
the richness of our country's history. If we do not make efforts to 
maintain these Presidential sites, we will lose these treasures 
forever. The funds given to these sites would be a great tribute to our 
nation's past and a lasting asset to our nation's future.
  Our Presidents have shaped this country, so it is fitting that we 
recognize their contributions as leaders. I invite my colleagues to 
join me, along with my colleagues from Virginia, Senators Warner and 
Robb, in cosponsoring this legislation.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the legislation be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 2082

       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 ``Presidential Sites 
     Improvement Act of 2000''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       Congress finds that--
       (1) there are many sites honoring Presidents located 
     throughout the United States, including Presidential 
     birthplaces, homes, museums, burial sites, and tombs;
       (2) most of the sites are owned, operated, and maintained 
     by non-Federal entities such as State and local agencies, 
     family foundations, colleges and universities, libraries, 
     historical societies, historic preservation organizations, 
     and other nonprofit organizations;
       (3) Presidential sites are often expensive to maintain;
       (4) many Presidential sites are in need of capital, 
     technological, and interpretive display improvements for 
     which funding is insufficient or unavailable; and
       (5) to promote understanding of the history of the United 
     States by recognizing and preserving historic sites linked to 
     Presidents of the United States, the Federal Government 
     should provide grants for the maintenance and improvement of 
     Presidential sites.

[[Page 1397]]



     SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act:
       (1) Grant commission.--The term ``Grant Commission'' means 
     the Presidential Site Grant Commission established by section 
     4(d).
       (2) Presidential site.--The term ``Presidential site'' 
     means a Presidentially-related site of national significance 
     that is--
       (A) managed, maintained, and operated for and is accessible 
     to, the public; and
       (B) owned or operated by--
       (i) a State; or
       (ii) a private institution, organization, or person.
       (3) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
     of the Interior, acting through the Director of the National 
     Park Service.

     SEC. 4. GRANTS FOR PRESIDENTIAL SITES.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary shall award grants for major 
     maintenance and improvement projects at Presidential sites to 
     owners or operators of Presidential sites in accordance with 
     this section.
       (b) Use of Grant Funds.--
       (1) In general.--A grant awarded under this section may be 
     used for--
       (A) repairs or capital improvements at a Presidential site 
     (including new construction for necessary modernization) such 
     as--
       (i) installation or repair of heating or air conditioning 
     systems, security systems, or electric service; or
       (ii) modifications at a Presidential site to achieve 
     compliance with requirements under titles II and III of the 
     Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 12131 et 
     seq.); and
       (B) interpretive improvements to enhance public 
     understanding and enjoyment of a Presidential site.
       (2) Allocation of funds.--
       (A) In general.--Of the funds made available to award 
     grants under this Act--
       (i) 15 percent shall be used for emergency projects, as 
     determined by the Secretary;
       (ii) 65 percent shall be used for grants for Presidential 
     sites with--

       (I) a 3-year average annual operating budget of less than 
     $700,000 (not including the amount of any grant received 
     under this section); and
       (II) an endowment in an amount that is less than 3 times 
     the annual operating budget of the site; and

       (iii) 20 percent shall be used for grants for Presidential 
     sites with--

       (I) an annual operating budget of $700,000 or more (not 
     including the amount of any grant received under this 
     section); and
       (II) an endowment in an amount that is equal to or more 
     than 3 times the annual operating budget of the site.

       (B) Unexpended funds.--If any funds allocated for a 
     category of projects described in subparagraph (A) are 
     unexpended, the Secretary may use the funds to award grants 
     for another category of projects described in that 
     subparagraph.
       (c) Application and Award Procedure.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than a date to be determined by 
     the Secretary, an owner or operator of a Presidential site 
     may submit to the Secretary an application for a grant under 
     this section.
       (2) Involvement of grant commission.--
       (A) In general.--The Secretary shall forward each 
     application received under paragraph (1) to the Grant 
     Commission.
       (B) Consideration by grant commission.--Not later than 60 
     days after receiving an application from the Secretary under 
     subparagraph (A), the Grant Commission shall return the 
     application to the Secretary a recommendation of whether the 
     proposed project should be awarded a Presidential site grant.
       (C) Recommendation of grant commission.--In making a 
     decision to award a Presidential site grant under this 
     section, the Secretary shall take into consideration any 
     recommendation of the Grant Commission.
       (3) Award.--Not later than 180 days after receiving an 
     application for a Presidential site grant under paragraph 
     (1), the Secretary shall--
       (A) award a Presidential site grant to the applicant; or
       (B) notify the applicant, in writing, of the decision of 
     the Secretary not to award a Presidential site grant.
       (4) Matching requirements.--
       (A) In general.--The Federal share of the cost of a project 
     at a Presidential site for which a grant is awarded under 
     this section shall not exceed 50 percent.
       (B) Non-federal share.--The non-Federal share of the cost 
     of a project at a Presidential site for which a grant is 
     awarded under this section may be provided in cash or in 
     kind.
       (d) Presidential Site Grant Commission.--
       (1) In general.--There is established the Presidential Site 
     Grant Commission.
       (2) Composition.--The Grant Commission shall be composed 
     of--
       (A) the Director of the National Park Service; and
       (B) 4 members appointed by the Secretary as follows:
       (i) A State historic preservation officer.
       (ii) A representative of the National Trust for Historic 
     Preservation.
       (iii) A representative of a site described in subsection 
     (b)(2)(A)(ii).
       (iv) A representative of a site described in subsection 
     (b)(2)(A)(iii).
       (3) Term.--A member of the Grant Commission shall serve a 
     term of 2 years.
       (4) Duties.--The Grant Commission shall--
       (A) review applications for Presidential site grants 
     received under subsection (c); and
       (B) recommend to the Secretary projects for which 
     Presidential site grants should be awarded.
       (5) Ineligibility of sites during term of representative.--
     A site described in clause (iii) or (iv) of paragraph (2)(B) 
     shall be ineligible for a grant under this Act during the 2-
     year period in which a representative of the site serves on 
     the Grant Commission.
       (6) Nonapplicability of faca.--The Grant Commission shall 
     not be subject to the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 
     U.S.C. App.).
       (e) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this Act $5,000,000 for each 
     of fiscal years 2001 through 2005, to remain available until 
     expended.

  Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleagues Senators 
DeWine and Warner to introduce a bill aimed at preserving an important 
part of our national heritage. The Presidential Sites Improvement Act 
will help preserve and protect some of our nation's greatest historical 
treasures, homes and other places close to the lives of U.S. 
Presidents. Mr. President, the Commonwealth of Virginia is the 
birthplace and home of some of our most illustrious Presidents. We have 
honored those Presidents by preserving their homes, and we honor our 
history by maintaining those homes and using them to educate and remind 
ourselves of what has gone before. Mount Vernon, Monticello, and 
Montpelier are famous for providing historic perspective on what the 
nation was like during the years when their owners served our country.
  Not all Presidential homes are as grand as Mount Vernon, nor were all 
Presidents as well remembered and honored as George Washington. But 
each President has an important place in American history, and their 
homes and other sites related to their lives, remain an important part 
of our nation's story.
  Many of these sites are owned by private citizens, small community 
organizations, universities, and historical societies. These 
organizations don't always have the funds available to keep the sites 
in good repair, provide fire protection, handicap access, and develop 
interpretive displays that teach our nation's history. The Presidential 
Sites Improvement Act is aimed primarily at those sites. We want to 
lend a hand to those local organizations and individuals who work to 
preserve the story of individual Presidents in order to preserve the 
story of America's growth, and America's greatness.
  Mr. President, I also want to thank each of these organizations for 
preserving our country's history, and for providing our generation and 
future generations with information on the backgrounds and influences 
that tie each President to his time in history, and his place in the 
national mosaic of our great democracy.
  I am pleased to be an original sponsor of this bill, and I hope the 
Senate will join us in supporting this legislation, and moving it to 
quick passage.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. ROBB (for himself, Mr. Moynihan, Mr. L. Chafee, Mr. Dodd, 
        Mr. Kerry, Mr. Lautenberg, Mr. Lieberman, Ms. Mikulski, Mr. 
        Sarbanes, Mr. Schumer, and Mr. Warner):
  S. 2083. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide 
a uniform dollar limitation for all types of transportation fringe 
benefits excludable from gross income, and for other purposes; to the 
Committee on Finance.


                  commuter benefits equity act of 2000

 Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, today with Senator Moynihan I 
introduce legislation that will continue our fight on urban sprawl by 
encouraging the use of public transportation. The Commuter Benefits 
Equity Act of 2000 increases the tax exemption for transit and van 
passes to the same level as parking. Currently, we allow employers to 
provide up to $175 a month in tax-free parking benefits, but only $65 a 
month for transit. This makes no sense when our goal is to reduce the 
amount of traffic on our highways.

[[Page 1398]]

  The Commuter Benefits Equity Act of 2000 raises the limit on transit 
and van passes up to the current limit for parking passes, $175 a 
month. Both of these benefits will then be adjusted for inflation 
annually. To ensure that federal employees can also take advantage of 
this benefit, the bill also eliminates an outdated provision that 
currently precludes an employee from cashing out his employer-provided 
parking pass and using an employer-provided transit pass instead. It is 
important that federal employees have the same access to public 
transportation benefits as do private sector employees.
  While this is but one step towards dealing with traffic congestion 
and the more comprehensive problem of sprawl, it is an important one. I 
will continue to push for sensible legislation, like this bill, that 
continues to improve our quality of life.
 Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I wish to say a few words about 
the Commuter Benefits Equity Act of 2000, which Senator Robb introduced 
today. I am proud to join Senators Schumer, Lautenberg, Lieberman, 
Dodd, Chafee, Mikulski, Warner, Kerry, and Sarbanes as a cosponsor of 
this legislation, which will provide substantial tax savings to 
American workers and move commuters out of their cars, off our 
congested highways, and onto mass transportation systems.
  The Commuter Benefits Equity Act of 2000 represents the latest in a 
decade-long series of Federal surface transportation policy reforms 
that began with the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 
1991 (ISTEA). Instead of building highways irrespective of need or 
economic justification, we have, since ISTEA, turned our focus to 
improving the mobility of Americans while reversing some of the 
environmental degradation caused by highway congestion. We have made 
great progress and built formidable constituencies for balanced 
transportation investments, but arguments over Federal transportation 
priorities extend back to Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson. In 
short, we must remain vigilant.
  Under current law, employers may permit employees to set aside up to 
$65 of their monthly pre-tax salary to pay for commuting costs. This 
benefit, known as the transit/vanpool ``qualified transportation 
fringe,'' excludes up to $780 of a worker's annual salary from Federal 
income taxes and reduces employer payroll taxes while encouraging mass 
transit usage. If employers prefer, they may choose to offer the 
benefit in addition to an employee's salary. Under this system, workers 
receive a Federal tax-free benefit of up to $780 per year, which 
employers may provide at a far lower cost than a commensurate salary 
increase.
  These are sensible measures that promote environmentally sound 
commuting practices, and reward working Americans. However, a similar 
benefit exists for employer-provided parking spaces with a monthly cap 
of $175 per month. For many commuters whose companies offer both the 
transit/vanpool and parking benefits, driving to work can be 
significantly cheaper. With this bill, my colleagues and I are stating 
that the Federal government should, at minimum, treat transit commuters 
and those who drive to work equally. Our proposal is to raise the cap 
on the transit/vanpool benefit to $175.
  A second feature of the bill expands the availability of the transit/
vanpool benefit to many Federal employees who are precluded from using 
it because of Federal employee compensation law. Specifically, under 
current law Federal employees may not ``cash-out'' their parking space 
benefit in exchange for either taxable income or the tax-free transit 
and vanpool benefit. This section of the bill permits Federal employees 
to enjoy the same benefits as their private sector counterparts.
  I believe that this bill is long overdue. Federal tax policy should 
not encourage people to drive to work, and Federal employees should not 
be prohibited from enjoying the same tax benefits as other working 
Americans. In passing this bill, we can institute a measure of fairness 
into both Federal tax policy and Federal employee compensation. In 
addition, we can reduce automobile congestion and air pollution from 
our highways.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. LUGAR:
  S. 2084. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to 
increase the amount of the charitable deduction allowable for 
contributions of food inventory, and for other purposes; to the 
Committee on Finance.


                  THE HUNGER RELIEF TAX INCENTIVE ACT

  Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Hunger Relief 
Tax Incentive Act. The United States is experiencing one of the 
greatest economic expansions in our nation's history. Our country is in 
the enviable position of experiencing both strong growth and record low 
unemployment and inflation.
  Unfortunately, some families have not shared in this rising economic 
tide. Last year, America's Second Harvest food banks, our nation's 
largest hunger relief network, provided food assistance to 26 million 
needy people.
  Food banks and other charities are finding it increasingly difficult 
to meet all of the demand for food assistance. Nearly 1 million needy 
and hungry people were turned away from food banks last year for a lack 
of food, according to Second Harvest. Statistics by the United States 
Department of Agriculture show that up to 96 billion pounds of food 
goes to waste each year in the United States. If a small percentage of 
that food could be captured and directed to food banks, significantly 
more food would be available to those in need.
  In the past, food banks have gained donations from the inefficiencies 
of manufacturing. Producing blemished product or manufacturing too much 
merchandise has provided charities with a steady flow of donations. 
However, technology has made businesses and manufacturers significantly 
more efficient. Although beneficial to the company's bottom-line, 
donations have lessened as a result. Furthermore, the advent of a 
seconds market, including dollar and value stores, has created 
additional demand for these over-produced or cosmetically flawed 
products, placing another strain on this source of food donations.
  As Chairman of the Senate Agriculture Committee, I realize the 
important assistance provided through federal nutrition programs. 
During the debate on welfare reform, I fought for our nation's school 
lunch program, opposing the block granting of such funds in order to 
ensure that low income children received at least one nutritious meal a 
day. I also fought successfully to maintain food stamps as an 
entitlement to ensure access to nutritious food for the nation's poor. 
In 1997, Congressman Lee Hamilton and I sponsored and passed 
legislation that gave charities that serve the poor preferential access 
to surplus federal property. The Hunger Relief Tax Incentive bill I am 
introducing today will complement these efforts and spur private 
donations of food products to food banks and soup kitchens around the 
country.
  Under current tax law, when a corporation donates food to a food 
bank, it is eligible to receive a ``special rule'' tax deduction. 
Congress created the ``special rule'' deduction in the Tax Reform Act 
of 1976 to provide a special incentive for the donation of food to 
charities that serve the poor. The ``special rule'' deduction allows a 
company to deduct the cost (or basis) of the donated product and up to 
\1/2\ the mark-up of the product's fair market value. This deduction is 
capped to not exceed twice the cost basis.
  Unfortunately, when the ``special rule'' deduction is applied to most 
donations, companies have found that they do not even recoup their 
actual production costs. Moreover, current tax law limits the ``special 
rule'' deduction to corporations, thus disallowing farmers, ranchers, 
small businesses and restaurant owners from receiving the same tax 
benefits afforded to corporate donors.
  The Hunger Relief Tax Incentive Act will encourage additional food 
donations with three changes to our current law. First, this bill will 
extend these favorable tax incentives now afforded only to corporate 
donors of food to all

[[Page 1399]]

business taxpayers. That means farmers, ranchers, small business and 
restaurant owners will benefit through tax incentives for their 
donations of food to hungry people in their own community.
  Second, this legislation will enlarge the tax deduction for donated 
food to the fair market value of the product, not to exceed twice the 
product's cost (basis). Although most companies will continue to recoup 
less than the entire cost of production, the enhanced deduction from 
the donation and the resulting heightened good-will makes donating food 
a more economically sound proposition.
  Lastly, this bill will codify the Tax Court ruling in ``Lucky Stores, 
Inc. v. IRS''. In that case, the Court upheld the right of the taxpayer 
to determine the fair market value of donated food, rather than the 
IRS. I agree that taxpayers are in the best position to determine the 
appropriate fair market value of these products.
  Mr. President, the Hunger Relief Tax Incentive Act will help in our 
battle to feed needy Americans and I urge my colleagues to support this 
measure.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. LUGAR (for himself, Mr. Gregg, and Mr. Breaux):
  S. 2085. A bill to amend title II of the Social Security Act and the 
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide incentives for older Americans 
to remain in the workforce beyond the age of eligibility for full 
Social Security benefits; to the Committee on Finance.


            the retired americans right of employment act i

  S. 2086. A bill to amend title II of the Social Security and the 
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide incentives for older Americans 
to remain in the workforce beyond the age of eligibility for full 
Social Security benefits; to the Committee on Finance.


            the retired americans right of employment act ii

  Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I rise today with my colleagues, Senators 
Gregg and Breaux, to introduce two pieces of bipartisan legislation 
intended to encourage older Americans to remain in the workforce. Today 
more individuals wish to work and are capable of working beyond 
retirement age. Yet our laws discourage such behavior. Our policies 
should provide productive older Americans with incentives for staying 
in the workforce, paying taxes, and strengthening our economy and 
Social Security System.
  The American economy, its workforce, and ensuing retirement patterns 
have all changed dramatically since Congress passed the Social Security 
Act over sixty years ago. In 1935, when the Social Security retirement 
age was set at age 65, most workers were employed in physically 
demanding jobs in either the manufacturing or agricultural sectors. The 
physical strain of work and the resulting health problems made it 
difficult for individuals to continue to labor past the age of 65. 
Furthermore, most individuals were not expected to live much beyond the 
age of retirement. The life expectancy of individuals born in 1935 was 
only 61 years.
  Today's economy and workforce differs greatly from the industrial one 
that Social Security was designed to augment. The current American 
employment base is mostly service and technology driven. These sectors 
do not take as much of a physical toll on workers. Compared with the 
1950's that witnessed 20 percent of the workforce in physically taxing 
jobs, today those figures are closer to 7 percent.
  The health and life expectancy of older Americans also has improved 
dramatically since Social Security was enacted. In the past decade, the 
rate of disability among older Americans has been falling nearly three 
times as fast as the previous eight decades. Older Americans are living 
longer and healthier as a result of improvements in medicine and 
treatment. According to Frank Williams, a professor of medicine at the 
University of Rochester, the approaching trend for older Americans will 
be to experience a longer ``health span'' during their retirement years 
and a brief acute illness before death, rather than years of costly, 
chronic disability. Other studies have supported these findings. This 
suggests that older Americans have the physical abilities to continue 
to work beyond retirement age if they so choose.
  Unfortunately, laws remain on the books that are designed to penalize 
older Americans for staying in the workforce past retirement age. We 
cannot afford to discourage older Americans from working. As our 
economy grows and the baby-boomers approach retirement, productive 
workers will be scarce. Tapping into the pool of experienced older 
Americans will be important to continue to improve our economy and 
standard of living.
  The two bills I am introducing today each make four changes to our 
laws in an effort to encourage older Americans to remain in the 
workforce. The most significant disincentive for working past 
retirement age is the Social Security earnings test and both bills I 
have introduced would eliminate it. In 2000, the earnings test provides 
that recipients under age 65 may earn up to $10,080 a year in wages or 
self-employment income without having their Social Security benefits 
affected. Those aged 65-69 can earn up to $17,000 a year. For earnings 
above these amounts, recipients under age 65 lose $1 of benefits for 
each $2 of earnings, and those aged 65-69 lose $1 in benefits for each 
$3 of earnings.
  The earnings test was established during a time when our nation 
pushed older employees out of the workforce in order to make room for a 
younger generation. Our economy is in need of all productive workers, 
including the growing pool of experienced older Americans. The 
antiquated Social Security earnings test remains an onerous work 
disincentive for older Americans and it should be eliminated. The 
elimination of the earnings test was one of the recommendations 
contained in the final report of the 21st Century National Commission 
on Retirement Policy.
  The second provision contained in both pieces of legislation would 
change the Social Security benefit formula to include all earnings 
years in the calculation of an individual's benefit, including those 
that occur after retirement. Under current law, the Social Security 
Administration determines an individual's retirement benefit by using 
the average of the top 35 earnings years prior to an individual's 
eligibility age. For most people, retirement eligibility occurs at age 
62. This means that for most Americans, those earnings that occur after 
age 62 are not accounted for in an individual's benefit calculation. 
This anomaly in the law provides a disincentive to work past retirement 
age. Our two bills would address this by including all earnings years 
in the benefit formula. Retirees will be rewarded through a higher 
benefit for continuing to work and pay taxes.
  The third provision would make adjustments to the benefit formula for 
those who retire early and those who delay retirement. The 21st Century 
National Commission on Retirement Policy recommends adjustments to the 
early retirement benefit level and the delayed retirement credit to 
reflect more accurately the value of extra taxes paid if retirement is 
delayed. Actuarial studies have found that the Social Security benefit 
formula is currently weighted to favor those individuals who retire 
early and against those who delay retirement. These bills adjust the 
benefit calculation to ensure that there is not a bias in the benefit 
formula that discourages working.
  Where the two bills differ is in the fourth section, which uses the 
tax code to induce individuals to work past the retirement age. The 
RARE Act I would cut individuals' portion of the FICA tax by 10 percent 
once they reach full retirement age as an incentive for them to stay in 
the workforce. Retirees would see their FICA tax cut from 7.65 percent 
to 6.885 percent. Under current law, the Old-Age, Survivors, and 
Disability Insurance (OASDI) is currently funded with a 6.2 percent tax 
on employee wages up to $76,200 with a matching contribution by the 
employer. The Hospital Insurance (HI) or Medicare portion is funded 
through a 1.45 percent tax on all wages with a similar employer match. 
Because FICA taxes are levied on the first dollar of

[[Page 1400]]

wages earned, this tax reduction will benefit all income levels of 
retirees, including those who choose to work part-time after 
retirement.
  The second bill, the RARE Act II, takes a bolder tax cutting 
approach. It would provide individuals who have reached the full 
retirement age with a tax credit equal to the lesser of 10 percent of 
the amount of income tax owed or the earned income of an individual. 
This provision would effectively reward older Americans who continue to 
earn and to pay taxes past the age of retirement.
  Mr. President, the Retired Americans Right of Employment Acts are 
thoughtful pieces of legislation aimed at keeping productive workers 
engaged in our economy and I urge my colleagues to support these 
bipartisan efforts.

                          ____________________