[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 148 (2002), Part 10]
[Senate]
[Pages 13065-13068]
[From the U.S. 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.

[[Page 13066]]

  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.
                                  ____

      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

[[Page 13067]]

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' 
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.

[[Page 13068]]

  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 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,''.

                          ____________________