The Congressional Record is a unique source of public documentation. It started in 1873, documenting nearly all the major and minor policies being discussed and debated.
“STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS” mentioning the U.S. Dept of State was published in the Senate section on pages S5634-S5637 on June 4, 1998.
The publication is reproduced in full below:
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
By Mr. GRAMS:
S. 2130. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide additional retirement savings opportunities for small employers, including self-employed individuals; to the Committee on Finance.
small employer nest egg act of 1998
Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I rise today to acknowledge the National Summit on Retirement Savings which is taking place here in Washington today and tomorrow. I also want to use this occasion to introduce legislation that will empower a greater number of working Americans to save for their retirement through employer-sponsored retirement plans.
In the course of the next 2 days, the 239 delegates to the National Summit on Retirement Savings will address an issue of great importance as the baby boom generation draws closer to retirement age and the future of Social Security remains uncertain.
With savings rates at a 59-year low, and the revelation in the 1998 Social Security Trustees Report that Social Security is actuarially bankrupt, it is evident that we face what amounts to a retirement crisis.
The less individuals save for their retirement, the greater the strain on an ailing Social Security system that is incapable of sustaining the fast-growing retired population.
Yet studies show that an increasing number of Americans are depending on Social Security for their retirement income. According to the Employee Benefit Research Institute, Social Security is the primary source of income for 80% of retired Americans, and practically the only source for 40% of retirees.
Those who depend on Social Security for their retirement can expect a standard of living far lower than the one they enjoyed while in the work force.
For instance, an individual who has an annual income of $15,000 per year who retires in 1998 at age 65 can expect Social Security to provide only one-half their previous income, and the replacement rate drops steadily when moving up the income bracket.
Indeed, Social Security was never intended to be the major source of retirement savings that it seems to have become--its purpose was to serve as a single leg in a three-legged stool that would sustain Americans in their retirement years.
Social Security's original purpose was to provide Americans with the minimal level of income in retirement that when combined with personal savings and employment-based pensions would give retirees the living standard they enjoyed before retirement.
Mr. President, given these facts about Social Security and the decline in savings among Americans, it is crucial that steps be taken to ensure that the three-legged stool does not collapse under the weight of the growing retired population.
It is true that recent steps taken by Congress, particularly the 1996 enactment of the SIMPLE retirement plan, have succeed in increasing employee participation in employer-sponsored retirement plans.
However, the complexity of qualification requirements under current law and the administrative expenses associated with setting up retirement plans, including the SIMPLE plan, remain significant impediments to widespread implementation of these types of employer-
based retirement systems.
This is particularly true for small employers with less than 100 employees, for whom the resulting benefits do not outweigh the administrative costs. Consequently, only 42% of all individuals employed by small businesses now participate in an employer-sponsored plan, as opposed to 78% of those who work for larger businesses.
To address this problem, I am introducing the Small Employer Nest Egg Act of 1998.
This legislation will create a new retirement option for small business owners with 100 or fewer employees and it would be similar to the SIMPLE plan and the SMART plan President Clinton proposed in his fiscal year 1999 budget.
However, my proposal differs somewhat from these two plans in that it would allow the same level of benefits--both to employers and employees--as larger employers who maintain traditional qualified plans.
Furthermore, upon retirement or separation of service, employees would receive 100% account value.
To offset the high costs associated with starting a pension plan, at the centerpiece of this proposal is a tax cut equal to 50% of the administrative and retirement education expenses incurred for the first five years of a plan's operation.
In addition, participating businesses would be exempt from some of the more burdensome administrative requirements associated with qualified plans.
That exemption would be in exchange for the employers' agreement to provide a minimum benefit of 3% to all employees who satisfy a minimum age requirement of 21 years old and the minimum service requirement of 1,000 hours during the preceding calendar year.
Mr. President, small businesses are the lifeblood of our communities, providing millions of jobs nationwide.
This bill I am introducing has been endorsed by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. It has also been endorsed by the National Association of Women Small Business Owners and also of 220 small businesses in Minnesota alone. So it has very strong endorsement from the small business community.
Small business owners want to help their employees to save for their retirement, yet many are unable to do so as a result of rigid Government policies that seemingly have little regard for the plight of the small employer.
I urge my colleagues to support this legislation and to give small employers the ability they have long sought to help their employees save for their retirement.
______
By Mr. CHAFEE (for himself, Mr. Warner, and Mr. Baucus) (by request):
S. 2131. A bill to provide for the conservation and development of water and related resources, to authorize the Secretary of the Army to construct various projects for improvements to rivers and harbors of the United States, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
water resources development act of 1998
Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, in my capacity as chairman of the Committee on Environment and Public Works, I join with Senators Warner and Baucus today to introduce the Administration's 1998 Water Resources Development Act by request.
After 16 years of stalemate over the appropriate cost sharing of navigation, flood control, environmental restoration, and other types of water projects, the Reagan administration and Congress were able to reach agreement on the landmark Water Resource Development Act
(``WRDA'') of 1986. As a part of that important compromise there was a general understanding that a two-year cycle of water project authorization bills would be established. With the exception of 1994, the administration and Congress have successfully worked together toward that end.
It is time once again to continue the biennial water resources authorization cycle with a 1998 WRDA. The bill we introduce today on behalf of the administration represents an effort to identify worthwhile projects and policies in support of the Army Corps of Engineers Civil Works program.
I and other members of the Committee on Environment and Public Works will conduct a thorough review of the administration's WRDA request, and the project and policy requests of individual Senators, to make sure that any bill reported to the full Senate later this year is economically and environmentally justified.
Mr. President, this legislation is important to communities throughout the nation. I look forward to working closely with colleagues in the coming weeks to ensure enactment of WRDA '98.
______
By Mr. DOMENICI (for himself and Mr. Bingaman):
S. 2133. A bill to designate former United States Route 66 as
``America's Main Street'' and authorize the Secretary of the Interior to provide assistance; to the Committee on energy and Natural Resources.
ROUTE 66 LEGISLATION
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, on behalf of myself and Senator Bingaman from New Mexico, I am pleased to introduce today what we will call the Route 66 Preservation Act of 1998. Some here in the Senate may recall that I introduced the Route 66 Study Act of 1990, which directed the National Park Service to determine the best way to preserve, commemorate and interpret ``America's Main Street''--Route 66.
Public Law 102-400 directed the National Park Service to conduct a study on the impact of that route, that highway on America's culture. The study was completed in 1995, and addressed the feasibility of preserving what remains of the highway and the facilities associated with it through private and public efforts.
Most nonprofit Route 66 organizations and other interested parties preferred preservation Alternative 5, asking for national recognition of Route 66 and partnerships between private and public groups for preservation. This bill is based on that alternative, and authorizes the National Park Service to join with Federal, State and private efforts to preserve aspects of historic Route 66, the Nation's most important thoroughfare for east-west migration in the 20th century.
Designated in 1926, the 2,200-mile Route 66 stretched from Chicago to Santa Monica, CA. The thoroughfare became the first completely paved highway across the United States in 1938. It rolled through Illinois, Missouri, Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas, New Mexico, Arizona and California. In my home State of New Mexico, it went through the communities of Tucumcari, Santa Rosa, Albuquerque, Grants, and Gallup.
The Legislation I am introducing today would have the National Park Service designate an ``Office for Preservation of America's Main Street'' with officials from the 8 affected States. The Preservation Office would be authorized to:
Support State, local and private efforts to preserve Route 66 by providing technical assistance, participating in cost-sharing programs, and making grants and loans;
Act as a clearing house for communication among Federal, State, local and private entities interested in the preservation of Route 66;
Assist States in determining the appropriation form of a non-Federal entity or entities to perform functions of the Preservation Office once it is terminated 10 years after enactment of this legislation; and,
Sponsor a road sign program on Route 66 to be implemented on a cost-
sharing basis with State and local organizations.
Route 66 is really a modern-day equivalent to the Santa Fe Trail. I believe this bill will provide States and local communities a more tangible means of gaining Federal assistance to preserve aspects of Route 66.
At one time, Route 66 was the most famous highway in the United States. Now it is fading from the American landscape. If we want to preserve Route 66, it is now time to act.
Up to 500,000 Americans--one quarter of all entrants to California during that era--migrated to California from the Dust Bowl on Route 66 from 1935 to 1940. John Steinbeck captured this journey and christened Route 66 the ``Mother Road'' in his classic novel of the Depression:
``The Grapes of Wrath.''
After World War II, another generation of Americans trekked across America on Route 66, not to escape despair, but to embrace economic opportunities in the West. Songwriter Bobby Troup expressed the enthusiasm and sense of adventure of this generation in his song, ``Get Your Kicks on Route 66!''
Route 66 also allowed generations of vacationers to travel to previously remote areas and experience the natural beauty and cultures of the Southwest and Far West.
Route 66 began to decline with the enactment of the Interstate Highway Act in 1956. In 1984, the last federally designated portion of Route 66 was decommissioned when interstate 40 was completed in Arizona.
Hopefully, the Senate will join me in once again allowing another generation to ``get its kicks'' on Route 66.
The study has been completed, and now it is time to give the Park Service some direction--let them set up a small office for the preservation of Route 66. The bill authorizes partnerships between the private sector, State entities and the Federal Government through existing programs in an effort to preserve various aspects of this rather magnificent American roadway--Route 66.
Many songs have been written about it. Many dreams are described by people who lived part of their lives there. Part of the Grapes of Wrath took place on Route 66. I think before all of what remains of America's Main Street disappears, it is a good time to pass this kind of bill and see if we can't preserve parts of it. Much is made of preserving historic things in the United States. It would be a shame, since there are so many people out there who care about this piece of American history and want to try to preserve the remnants of Route 66, if we did not do something now to help them in that effort.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I am pleased to speak in support of this important legislation being introduced today by my friend Senator Domenici. The bill designates the old Highway 66 as ``America's Main Street'' and authorizes the National Park Service to help state, tribal and local governments in their efforts to preserve this unique piece of our national heritage.
Mr. President, Route 66 is more than a 2400-mile highway from Chicago to Los Angeles. In many ways it represents the American dream, the open road, and our unending search for opportunity and adventure. This is the ``Mother Road'' of John Steinbeck's classic 1939 novel ``The Grapes of Wrath.'' This is the road immortalized by Cole Porter and Jack Kerouac. In the 1950s, this is the road that gave us the popular television series ``Route 66.''
In my state of New Mexico, Route 66 ran nearly 400 miles from Glenrio in Quay County on the east to Manuelito in McKinley County on the West. Before 1937, the road looped north through Santa Fe and Bernalillo and south through Isleta and Los Lunas. Many of us believe the state of New Mexico has some of the most compelling scenery along the highway.
Mr. President, from the beginning Route 66 was intended to link America's rural and urban areas. Much of the original roadway remains along with those old classic filling stations, cafes, motels, and, of course, those unforgettable neon signs. Indeed, the old highway remains the ``main street'' in many New Mexico cities, including Albuquerque, Tucumcari, Santa Rosa, Bernalillo, Gallup, and Grants.
I think it is unfortunate that many drivers on our modern Interstate 40 cross New Mexico without pausing to enjoy the nostalgia of the old highway. That's why I am pleased that New Mexico is already working aggressively to preserve and memorialize the old highway. The route in New Mexico is now designated a scenic byway. Our state has worked hard to provide appropriate signage, and the familiar brown and white shield signs are now prominent along the old route. A number of New Mexico towns and pueblos have permanent exhibits on the history of Route 66 in their areas. The city of Tucumcari has a whimsical monument to Route 66 modeled after a Cadillac tail fin. Soon there will be a Route 66 interpretative center at the Pueblo of Acoma that will showcase the historic and cultural attractions of the region. A similar center is planned for the Indian Pueblo Cultural Center in Albuquerque.
Mr. President, Route 66 received its original designation in 1926 as a result of the first national highway plan. Now, over seventy years later, Congress has just passed a new highway bill that clearly recognizes through the Enhancements and Scenic Byways Programs the importance of preserving and protecting our national heritage. With the automobile firmly entrenched in our culture today, highways such as Route 66 are a genuine part of our heritage. This bill will help assure that heritage is preserved. I am pleased to co-sponsor this bill with Senator Domenici, and I thank him for his efforts.
______
By Mr. ALLARD:
S. 2134. A bill to provide for air transportation between Denver, Colorado, and London, England; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
DENVER INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LEGISLATION
Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I am introducing legislation today to encourage the Secretary of the Department of Transportation to act expeditiously in the interest of fairness and in support of the economy of my home state of Colorado.
I would like to explain the situation that causes me to make this proposal. There exists an agreement between the United States and the United Kingdom to allow US Airways to operate a direct flight from Charlotte, North Carolina, to Gatwick Airport in London, England. In accordance with fair and recognized practices, the airlines with established routes and time slots that have served Gatwick Airport for years were not disturbed, and US Airways was given landing rights for a time slot that is not currently occupied. Although it may not be US Airways' top choice, the time slot that has been allocated appears to be commercially viable. US Airways, however, refuses to begin service unless they are given a better time slot at Gatwick. This request is beyond the provisions of the approved agreement.
An unrelated agreement to allow British Airways to provide non-stop service from Denver, Colorado, to London, England, is currently pending approval by the United States Department of Transportation. The Department has chosen to deliberately delay approval of the British Airways' agreement in order to pressure British Airways and the authorities at Gatwick Airport to give US Airways the most desirable time slots. The Department is simply holding the Denver-London flights hostage until the demands of US Airways are met. This is not proper use of the Department of Transportation's authority; it sets a negative precedent for airline competition and cooperation between the United States and Europe, and it is impacting the growth of Colorado's economy.
The Secretary has been kind enough to meet with me personally, along with my colleague from Colorado, Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell, to discuss this issue. In spite of our concerns about Colorado, the Department still resists any effort to progress on the approval of the British Airways Denver-London flights. The date for beginning service was postponed from June 1st to August 1st, and unfortunately British Airways will announce tomorrow that the delay in approval will preclude them from starting service by August 1st. The start date for Denver-
London direct service has been indefinitely postponed.
This postponement denies Colorado its first overseas international flight at Denver International Airport. It prohibits our tourism industry from growing, especially during the upcoming ski season. It prevents increased competition that would result from connecting flights at DIA. It creates a problem for the employees in Denver who have already been hired by British Airways, but who have no jobs.
I hope that the Department of Transportation takes immediate action on the pending British Airways agreement, and I encourage my colleagues to support me and my efforts to ensure that the British Airways agreement is justly considered, and that Colorado is not harmed as the Department of Transportation deals with the separate concerns of US airways.
______
By Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire (for himself and Mr. Helms):
S.J. Res. 47. A joint resolution disapproving the extension of the waiver authority contained in section 402(c) of the Trade Act of 1974 with respect to Vietnam; to the Committee of Finance.
Joint Resolution Disapproving Waiver Authority for Vietnam
Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to require Vietnam to provide freedom of emigration for the Vietnamese people before tax dollars from our constituents across America are used to further expand our government's trade relations with this communist regime. As provided for in the Trade Act of 1974, my resolution prohibits implementation of the President's decision yesterday to waive the freedom of emigration requirements with Vietnam.
I am pleased that Senator Helms, the distinguished Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, has joined me as a sponsor of this joint resolution, and I commend my colleague, Congressman Rohrabacher, for introducing a companion measure in the House. I also note that our efforts are strongly supported by the Chairman of the House International Relations Committee, Congressman Gilman, the Chairman of that Committee's panel on International Operations and Human Rights, Congressman Christopher Smith, and several other Members on both sides of the aisle in that chamber. Frankly, Mr. President, given the support for this resolution by the relevant Committee chairmen, one has to question why the Administration moved forward on this in March of this year and again yesterday. This is particularly troublesome given the fact that the President's own National Security Advisor stated this past December that the President would not move forward unless consultations with Congress went well. Clearly, the consultations did not go well.
When Congress considered and passed the amendment by Senator Jackson and Representative Vanik in the Trade Act of 1974, everyone at the time understood Congressional intent--free emigration was to be a condition for expanding U.S. trade relations with non-market communist nations.
Today, nearly two and a half decades later, we do not have free emigration provided to the people of Vietnam by the communist regime that took over that entire country by force in 1975. Moreover, the Administration has failed to make a convincing case to the Congress to justify President Clinton's decision to waive freedom of emigration requirements. Hanoi's record does not support this decision. Yes, Hanoi has taken some steps to permit more orderly departures in recent years, but there are still unwarranted delays, and I am very concerned that recent promises and pledges of cooperation have yet to be satisfactorily fulfilled.
Congressional intent was clear in 1974, and it has not changed since that time. U.S. policy is supposed to put freedom of emigration ahead of the trade interests some might have with this one-party communist state. We are supposed to be putting principle over profit, not the other way around.
I believe America should not abandon the Vietnamese people who long for respect for human rights and democratic freedoms. They were abandoned over two decades ago, and we simply cannot let it happen again. Jackson-Vanik requirements should not be waived for Vietnam if it is not absolutely clear that such a waiver would ``substantially promote'' freedom of emigration requirements as the law requires. This past March, State Department witnesses testified there had been
``measurable'' progress. The term measurable does not imply to me that we are seeing dramatic positive changes by Vietnam. I do not believe we have seen ``significantly more rapid progress'' which was the standard set by Secretary of State Albright herself last year during her visit to Vietnam. And I fail to see how the President's first waiver for Vietnam on March 9, 1998 has substantially promoted progress these past three months. If more people had been permitted to leave Vietnam in the last three months than we had seen over the last three years, then maybe the waiver would have, indeed, substantially promoted progress, but that has not happened, Mr. President, from what I have been told.
Today, as we introduce this joint resolution, there are still people in Vietnam who supported us and fought for us during the war who have not been allowed to freely emigrate. Some of them have not even been allowed to meet with U.S. officials for interviews. I understand that others have been forced to pay exorbitant bribes in order to be considered for exit visas.
Under the Trade Act of 1974, Congress has an opportunity to ensure that freedom of emigration requirements are met by Vietnam before further trade benefits are extended. The joint resolution introduced today by myself and Senator Helms provides my colleagues the opportunity to go on record in support of the people of Vietnam. If you want to send a message to the Government of Vietnam that they must fully comply with the promises and commitments they have made in recent years, this is the way to do it.
Additionally, for those of my colleagues who continue to be concerned, as I am, that Hanoi has not been fully forthcoming in their accounting for American POWs and MIAs, and their progress on human rights, then you should support this resolution. Some of my colleagues may recall that both the POW/MIA issue and human rights concerns were, indeed, central to the provisions first adopted in the Trade Act of 1974, and so it is appropriate that these concerns are made part of the current debate as well.
How far must we go, Mr. President, to embrace this communist regime before they fully address our long-standing concerns on all these important issues? I am certain that the time has come once again for Congress to go on record in support of the objectives behind this resolution.
Finally, Mr. President, I would note that the resolution we are introducing today is strongly supported by numerous organizations of Vietnamese-Americans, many of our national veterans and POW/MIA family organizations, several international refugee organizations, and a host of other concerned groups of Americans.
I look forward to the forthcoming debate on this timely and important issue.
____________________
