[Pages S680-S689]
From the Congressional Record Online through the 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

[[Page S681]]

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 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. 35 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.

[[Page S682]]

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 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

<bullet> 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.<bullet>
______

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

<bullet> 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.

[[Page S683]]

Mr. President, I ask that the text of the bill be printed in the
Record.<bullet>
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''.

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

<bullet> 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.<bullet>
______

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

<bullet> 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 S684]]

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 blowing 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 to 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 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?

[[Page S685]]

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 that the text of my legislation be printed in the Record.
The text of the legislation 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 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

[[Page S686]]

``(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.<bullet>
______

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.

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--

[[Page S687]]

(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

<bullet> 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.
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.<bullet>
<bullet> 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.

[[Page S688]]

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.<bullet>
______

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 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

[[Page S689]]

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 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.

____________________