Richard Lugar

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, the Senator from Alaska has asked the Senate to consider adding wild salmon to the list of crops for a pilot study is to be conducted as a basis for making federally-sponsored crop insurance available to fishermen. My understanding is that this is not the first time that the Department of Agriculture would be reviewing fish stocks for crop insurance. In the past, there was concern that wild fish can be too hard to track, and that fisheries managers don't really know when the stocks have failed. However, fisheries managers track fish stocks, especially wild salmon, very closely.

Mr. LUGAR. I thank the Senator from Alaska for informing us of these aspects of fish harvests.

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the vote in relation to the pending amendment No. 2888 occur at 11 a.m. Thursday morning, with 2 minutes equally divided for closing remarks prior to the vote. I further ask consent that following that vote the bill be read the third time, under the previous consent, and the Senate proceed to vote on passage of H.R. 2559, the crop insurance risk management bill, as amended, with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I would like to announce that the Subcommittee on Forestry, Conservation, and Rural Revitalization of the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry will meet on March 22, 2000 in SR-328A at 3:00 p.m. The purpose of this meeting will be to discuss legislation regarding the appraisal process to make it fair for cabin owners and taxpayers. Committee on Energy and Natural resources

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I would like to announce that the Subcommittee on Forestry, Conservation, And Rural Revitalization of the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry will meet on March 8, 2000 in SR-328A at 2:30 p.m. The purpose of this meeting will be to discuss the National Rural Development Council.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I wish to say a few words, and perhaps echo some of those of my colleague. I am proud to sponsor this important piece of legislation with Senator Lautenberg. I was a co- sponsor of a similar bill in the last Congress, and am glad to join him again in this effort. I also thank my colleagues Senator Durbin and Senator Chafee for their co-sponsorship of this good policy initiative. Let me start by saying that this bill is about health education and responsible individual decision-making. As Mayor of Indianapolis and in the U.S. Senate, I have advocated good health and fitness. I have integrated running into my daily routine and encourage my staff to do the same. In 1977, I founded the annual Dick Lugar Fitness festival in Indiana, which is an event I look forward to every year. A good health and fitness regimen requires an assumption of personal responsibility and an active role on the part of the individual, but it also requires a knowledge of two essential components of good health-- proper diet and exercise. I speak on a regular basis on the exercise component, but would like to make a couple of basic points about proper diet that are well within the scope of the federal government's responsibilities. We have taken great strides in the area of food packaging and labeling, pointing out to consumers vitamin and fat content; caloric and cholesterol facts. We require data on tests done on artificial sweeteners. But, in a product that threatens the life of one out of three regular users, we ignore those basic principles. Mr. President, we all know that in a food product, the discovery of even a single carcinogen can trigger media attack, consumer outrage and FDA regulation. However, under current law, a cigarette package is not even required to list its ingredients despite the presence of dozens of carcinogens. Applying a simple content labeling standard to tobacco in the interest of consistency and public health is overdue considering the massive health problems inflicted by tobacco. As Chairman of the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry, which has jurisdiction over some aspects of tobacco, I believe that our government must speak consistently and clearly about tobacco's risks. That has not always been the case. In the past, our government has sent mixed messages, for example, subsidizing the cultivation of tobacco and including cigarettes in military rations, even as it warned against tobacco's dangers. If public health warnings are to be trusted, they should not be ambiguous. The small, side-panel warnings currently in use on tobacco packages are not adequate in reflecting the risks of tobacco use as we now know them. We can and we should speak the truth with a clearer voice. Prominent labels on cigarette packages in plain English would be a steady reminder of the risks smokers face when they light up. True, almost every smoker understands that cigarettes are bad for health, but fewer know the degree of risk. Many smokers have tried to quit, some more than once. These labels will encourage them in this endeavor and remind them why they should try again. Most importantly, Mr. President, as Senator Lautenberg stated, the warnings will be prominent and readily understood by young Americans, thousands of whom light up for the first time every day. This bill does not interfere with an adult's freedom to choose to smoke, it does not raise tobacco prices, and it does not expand government regulatory authority beyond the labeling requirement. It is a modest and conservative step, but a decisive and important step in good public policy.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. I would like to enter into a colloquy with my distinguished colleague, Senator Murkowski, Chairman of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee. I want to inform my colleague that any action taken by the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry in relation to S. 935 is not an attempt to encroach on the jurisdiction of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Further, the fact that S. 935 was reported from the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry does not affect the jurisdiction of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources over energy matters, including biofuels and bioenergy. Specifically, USDA biomass research and development programs remain within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry and DOE biomass research and development programs remain within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I rise to recommend that the Senate pass S. 935. At a time when American farmers and rural communities are having a difficult time making ends meet, it is appropriate for the Senate to support this initiative that holds great promise for agriculture, strengthens America's energy security and helps clean America's air and water while dramatically reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Early civilizations relied on plants and trees for all their energy and food needs. With the passage of time and technological advancement, however, an increasing share of the world's energy demands shifted from plants and trees toward fossil fuels. Time and technology march on, and today we witness the beginning of a revolution from non-renewable fossil fuels toward renewable resources that can help meet the energy demands of a world now numbering six billion people. Ironically, plants and trees are once again being valued as raw material for energy production because they contain an enormous store of energy freely delivered by the sun. Using nature's renewable raw material for production of needed fuels, chemicals and energy is not a new idea. What is new, however, is a better understanding of chemistry and molecular biology which has led to the development of advanced biotechnologies and processing techniques for efficiently converting plants to energy. With these advances, it is now possible to envisage a future where the world's thirst for additional sources of energy is fueled by biomass. Biobased fuels are our best means of reducing American dependence on imported oil. Reliance on the unstable states of the Middle East adversely impacts American strategic security, and massive oil imports skew our balance of payments. Fuels and chemicals derived from biomass will reduce our dependence on Middle Eastern oil without necessitating a rebuilding of the existing gasoline infrastructure. With the need for affordable energy rising as population grows, the Middle East will control nearly three-quarters of the world's oil this century. We have stark options: submit to increased influence of foreign oil cartels; wrangle over pipeline routes to new oil supplies at the ends of the Earth, such as the Caspian region; or, support research that could lead to a revolution in the way we produce energy. In addition to fuels, biobased chemicals have the potential to replace essentially all chemicals currently derived from petroleum, and they are often endowed with superior performance characteristics. The manufacturing of biobased products is generally more environmentally friendly than analogue petrochemical processes. Fuels, cloth fibers, plastics and adhesives are already produced from corn; the new genetic engineering techniques will make it possible to use entire plants, rather than just the tiny portion of edible grains. With sound land use policies, local crops that enrich the soil, prevent erosion and improve local environmental conditions can be planted and then harvested for co-production of food, fuel, chemicals, electricity and materials. Rural communities will be strengthened through the diversification of marketable agricultural products and farmers will have expanded sources of income. Before we are able to reap the outstanding benefits offered through utilization of America's sustainable biomass resource, costs of the new conversion technology must be significantly reduced. Research offers the only systematic means for creating the innovations and technical improvements that will lower the costs of biomass processing. Given the relatively short-term horizon characteristic of private sector investments, and because many benefits of biomass processing are in the public interest, the Federal government has a compelling mandate to fund the necessary innovation-driven research that will result in cost effective technologies for biomass conversion. Although government sponsored research programs have been largely responsible for demonstrating the potential of biomass conversion technology, coordination among key Federal agencies is disjointed and funding levels are declining. The Biomass Research and Development Act is designed to address these shortcomings. America's leading technical experts from universities, national laboratories and the private sector will be brought together in a dynamic research initiative with the purpose of overcoming technical barriers to low cost biomass conversion. At a time when political compromise seems elusive and progress on environmental and energy issues often seems slow, I am convinced that the idea of encouraging human ingenuity to create a sustainable resource for clean fuels and chemicals represents a remarkable opportunity for consensus. Working together we can promote research that will improve our national security and balance of payments, reduce greenhouse gas emissions and strengthen rural economies. Mr. President, I would like to take this opportunity to thank Dr. Joseph Michels, my science policy adviser, for the excellent advice he has provided me on this issue. Dr. Michels is leaving my staff to assume an important post at Princeton University. I shall miss him. I urge my colleagues to support this bill. jurisdictional clarification

Mr. LUGAR. I agree and thank the Senator from Alaska.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I wish to say a few words, and perhaps echo some of those of my colleague. I am proud to sponsor this important piece of legislation with Senator Lautenberg. I was a co- sponsor of a similar bill in the last Congress, and am glad to join him again in this effort. I also thank my colleagues Senator Durbin and Senator Chafee for their co-sponsorship of this good policy initiative. Let me start by saying that this bill is about health education and responsible individual decision-making. As Mayor of Indianapolis and in the U.S. Senate, I have advocated good health and fitness. I have integrated running into my daily routine and encourage my staff to do the same. In 1977, I founded the annual Dick Lugar Fitness festival in Indiana, which is an event I look forward to every year. A good health and fitness regimen requires an assumption of personal responsibility and an active role on the part of the individual, but it also requires a knowledge of two essential components of good health-- proper diet and exercise. I speak on a regular basis on the exercise component, but would like to make a couple of basic points about proper diet that are well within the scope of the federal government's responsibilities. We have taken great strides in the area of food packaging and labeling, pointing out to consumers vitamin and fat content; caloric and cholesterol facts. We require data on tests done on artificial sweeteners. But, in a product that threatens the life of one out of three regular users, we ignore those basic principles. Mr. President, we all know that in a food product, the discovery of even a single carcinogen can trigger media attack, consumer outrage and FDA regulation. However, under current law, a cigarette package is not even required to list its ingredients despite the presence of dozens of carcinogens. Applying a simple content labeling standard to tobacco in the interest of consistency and public health is overdue considering the massive health problems inflicted by tobacco. As Chairman of the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry, which has jurisdiction over some aspects of tobacco, I believe that our government must speak consistently and clearly about tobacco's risks. That has not always been the case. In the past, our government has sent mixed messages, for example, subsidizing the cultivation of tobacco and including cigarettes in military rations, even as it warned against tobacco's dangers. If public health warnings are to be trusted, they should not be ambiguous. The small, side-panel warnings currently in use on tobacco packages are not adequate in reflecting the risks of tobacco use as we now know them. We can and we should speak the truth with a clearer voice. Prominent labels on cigarette packages in plain English would be a steady reminder of the risks smokers face when they light up. True, almost every smoker understands that cigarettes are bad for health, but fewer know the degree of risk. Many smokers have tried to quit, some more than once. These labels will encourage them in this endeavor and remind them why they should try again. Most importantly, Mr. President, as Senator Lautenberg stated, the warnings will be prominent and readily understood by young Americans, thousands of whom light up for the first time every day. This bill does not interfere with an adult's freedom to choose to smoke, it does not raise tobacco prices, and it does not expand government regulatory authority beyond the labeling requirement. It is a modest and conservative step, but a decisive and important step in good public policy.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I would like to announce that the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry will meet on March 1, 2000, in SD-192 at 9 a.m. The purpose of this meeting will be to discuss the agriculture trade agreement with China. committee or agriculture, nutrition, and forestry

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I would like to announce that the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry will meet on March 2, 2000, in SR-328A a 10 a.m. The purpose of this meeting will be to discuss risk management/crop insurance and possibly other issues before the agriculture committee. subcommittee on forests and public land management

Mr. LUGAR

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.

Mr. LUGAR

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.

Mr. LUGAR

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.

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.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I would like to announce that the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry will meet on February 23, 2000, in SD-106 at 9 a.m. The purpose of this meeting will be to discuss the EPA's water quality regulations of August 23, 1999. committee on indian affairs

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I would like to announce that the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry will meet on February 24, 2000, in SR-328A at 10 a.m. The purpose of this meeting will be to discuss risk management crop/insurance and possibly other issues before the Agriculture Committee. committee on energy and natural resources

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I would like to announce that the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry will meet on February 10, 2000, in SH-216 at 9 a.m. The purpose of this meeting will be to review the findings of the President's Working Group's Report on ``Over the Counter Derivatives Markets and the Commodity Exchange Act.'' committee on energy and natural resources

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I would like to announce that the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry will meet on February 9, 2000, in SR-328A at 9 a.m. The purpose of this meeting will be to review dairy policy. committee on agriculture, nutrition and forestry

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, in the fall of 1998 our majority leader named a bipartisan group of members to a Task Force on Plutonium Disposition to advise the Senate and the Administration on actions with respect to U.S. policy and approaches to bilateral negotiations with Russia on the disposition of weapons-excess plutonium. I was pleased to be invited to join the group and Senator Domenici was chosen to chair the Task Force. Mr. President, Senator Domenici has been a pioneer in the area of nuclear weapons material safety, security and elimination. He has spent a great deal of time researching this initiative and engaging our Russian colleagues on the issue. He was instrumental in creating a bilateral dialogue on plutonium disposition that led to the protocol on plutonium disposition signed in September 1998 at the Moscow Summit. This Protocol has led to ongoing negotiations to finalize a bilateral agreement to dispose of large quantities of weapons material. The need for leadership in this area was clear. Unclassified sources estimate that the United States has 100 tons of plutonium and Russia has more than 160 tons of plutonium. Most of this material is in pit form, or classified weapons shape. In other words, the material could easily be returned to weapons status. The U.S. and Russia have each declared that portions of their respective stockpiles are surplus. This material represents thousands of nuclear weapons on each side, including Russian weapons that until a short time ago were pointed at American cities. Mr. President, the United States has been working with Russia to dismantle their nuclear arsenal through the Nunn-Lugar Cooperative Threat Reduction program. All over Russia American firms are cooperating with Russian counterparts in deactivating nuclear warheads and dismantling long-range ballistic missiles, strategic submarines and bombers. The U.S. secured Russian agreement to remove the material from these warheads to safe and secure storage at the Fissile Material Storage Facility under construction at Mayak, Russia. But, the U.S. was still left with the challenge of how to get rid of the plutonium, to ensure that this material would never again threaten the American people. Through Senator Domenici's discussions it became evident that a wide gulf separated the views of the Administration and Russian leadership with regard to the appropriate disposition actions. The Russians hold the position that plutonium has great value, and want to ensure that any actions extract the energy resource remaining in the material by using it as reactor fuel. The U.S. was considering both recovery of this resource and immobilization. Immobilization mixes the plutonium with ceramic material and surrounds it with vitrified, high-level waste for long term storage. Some scientists and some Russian leaders have noted that immobilization may be a less secure means of disposition than use as a reactor fuel. Senator Domenici encouraged a solution wherein both nations would pursue the reactor fuel option, with so-called mixed oxide or MOX fuel. In addition, the U.S. can use immobilization for some of its less pure materials that would require significant purification to incorporate into reactor-grade fuel. This solution has been embraced in the current negotiations by both countries. Now both nations are moving toward parallel reductions in amounts of plutonium. Our Task Force has been briefed by the Departments of State and Energy on the current status of negotiations on a Framework Agreement to implement a plutonium disposition process in Russia and the United States. A U.S.-Russian agreement to dispose up to 50 metric tons of weapons grade material on each side is proceeding in a very positive direction. I am hopeful that they will soon produce a draft agreement. There are still important issues to be resolved and hurdles to be cleared but it is clear that we would not have enjoyed this significant progress if it were not for Senator Domenici's leadership. His efforts in cooperation with Senator Stevens, the Chairman of our Appropriations Committee, to secure forward funding for the implementation of this agreement was crucial in securing Russian participation. I commend my good friend, the senior Senator from New Mexico, for his leadership in this area and thank him for what I hope will be a tremendously valuable national security program. We will all watch the negotiations proceeding in Moscow and hope for a positive conclusion. When this agreement is finalized and implemented, which I believe it will be, each of us will owe Senator Domenici a debt of gratitude for making the world safer for our children and grandchildren.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I rise today to congratulate a group of young Indiana students who have shown great educative achievement. I would like to bring to the attention of my colleagues the winners of the 1999-2000 Eighth Grade Youth Essay Contest which I sponsored in association with the Indiana Farm Bureau and Bank One of Indiana. These students have displayed strong writing abilities and have proven themselves to be outstanding young Hoosier scholars. I submit their names for the Congressional Record because they demonstrate the capabilities of today's students and are fine representatives of our Nation. This year, Hoosier students wrote on the theme, ``International Market Baskets Begin on Hoosier Farms.'' Considering the importance of our expanding global economy, students were asked to imagine themselves shopping in an exotic marketplace, anywhere in the world, and then describe what Hoosier agricultural products they might find there. I would like to submit for the Record the winning essays of Clayton Owsley of Washington County and Emily Ripperger of Franklin County. As state winners of the Youth Essay Contest, these two outstanding students are being recognized on Friday, February 4, 2000 during a visit to our Nation's Capitol. The essays are as follows: International Market Baskets Begin on Hoosier Farms (By Clayton Owsley, Washington County) Our ship arrived on the Island of Aruba early this morning. Our family had been sailing on the Caribbean all night. Our first stop was to shop in the town of Oranjestad. As we browsed in the marketplace, we saw Aruban art and merchants selling fresh fish off their boats. While we were in the marketplace we picked up some items to take back to the condominium. I forgot to pack my toothpaste, so I purchased a tube of Crest (peppermint flavored). As I was paying for it, I realized the peppermint used in it could have originated in Indiana. Indiana is the 4th leading peppermint exporter in the United States. My dad loves popcorn, so he bought some microwave popcorn to fix in the room. I told dad this popcorn might have come from Indiana, since Indiana is the number one popcorn exporter in the United States. Before we left to go back to our room we ate lunch at a restaurant by the marketplace. The special of the day was roast duckling, which is another export of Indiana. We tried to find many items on the menu that could have originated in Indiana. The vegetable oil and dressings may have come from Indiana soybeans. The soy sauce used to marinate the duckling could also have come from Indiana soybeans. Dad reminded us that the ketchup on the table could also have come from diced tomatoes grown in Indiana. He informed us that 55% of Aruban imports come from the United States. So it is possible these things could have originated in Indiana. We realized that there is a little bit of Indiana all over the world.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, the World Conference on Religion and Peace (WCRP) is an organization that is dedicated to promoting cooperation among the religions of the world on behalf of peace while maintaining respect for religious differences. Since its founding in 1970, the WCRP has become a genuinely global movement with over 30 national chapters and members in over 100 countries. Two months ago, in Amman, the capital city of Jordan, the WCRP held its 7th World Assembly, which brought together senior leaders of many of the major religions of the world as well as their civil and political counterparts. The Assembly was held on November 26 and 27, 1999, under the patronage of King Abdullah II and the chairmanship of Prince El Hassan bin Talal, and was attended by some 1,300 delegates from 68 countries. I note that among the participants in the Amman Assembly was our distinguished former colleague, a Member from Indiana for 22 years of the House of Representatives, where he was Majority Whip, and is now President Emeritus of New York University, Dr. John Brademas. Dr. Brademas, who is also Chairman of the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), presided at a discussion in Amman on ``The Shape of the Future as a Challenge to Religion.'' Mr. President, the Assembly also convened a ``Forum of South Eastern European Religious Leaders'' to promote inter-religious cooperation for reconciliation, reconstruction and development in the region. Representatives from more than 25 different religious communities in 10 countries from South Eastern Europe participated in the forum. I am pleased to note that the person who organized and chaired this forum, James Cairns, WCRP Project Director, South Eastern Europe, Sarajevo, lived several years in Elkhart, Indiana, where his father was a Presbyterian Church pastor. As the Secretary-General of WCRP, Dr. William F. Vendley, observed, ``This unprecedented gathering of religious leaders from South Eastern Europe will initiate a process of contact and a dialogue among the religious communities both within specific states and throughout the region to develop concrete inter-religious cooperation.'' Mr. President, together this group of leaders of several faiths, drawing on their diverse traditions and working together, produced a statement calling for the promotion of reconciliation, democracy and the peaceful development of South Eastern Europe, and committing themselves to opening dialogue among their communities. Mr. President, because of the great importance of the events in this troubled part of the world and the significant role of religious leadership in South Eastern Europe, I ask to have the statement printed in the Record. The statement follows: Statement of Religious Leaders on Reconstruction and Development in South Eastern Europe As leaders and responsible representatives of religious communities from South Eastern Europe we have gathered at this Forum in Amman Jordan on 26-27 November 1999, in the context of the Seventh World Assembly of the World Conference on Religion and Peace, to discuss the current situation in our region and to identify how our communities can work together to promote reconstruction and development both within our respective states and throughout the region as a whole. As religious people, we must affirm that in each of our traditions human life is sacred. Any violation of the rights of any person is not acceptable and must be condemned. Our religious traditions all seek to promote fullness of life through peace, justice, mercy and love.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Madam President, I would like to announce that the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry will meet on February 3, 2000 in SR-328A at 9 a.m. The purpose of this meeting will be to discuss Rural Satellite and Cable Systems Loan Guarantee Proposal and the Digital Divide in Rural America.

Mr. LUGAR

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I take this opportunity to salute the outstanding public service of a conservationist and member of the agriculture community in the state of Indiana. After 42 years of service, Bob Eddleman, Indiana State Conservationist for the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Natural Resources Conservation Service, retired at the end of December. In his role as public servant, Bob set an example for everyone with his steadfast concern for conservation and dedication to the preservation of natural resources of his home state. Mr. Eddleman was born and raised on a farm in Crawford County, Indiana. He was an active member of 4-H and Future Farmers of America and took an interest in activities relating to the conservation of soil and water resources. He received a Bachelor of Science degree in Agriculture at Purdue University and a Master of Public Administration from the University of Oklahoma. His career of federal service began in 1957 as a student trainee for the USDA Soil Conservation Service in English, Indiana. After serving as a soil conservationist, a district conservationist and an area conservationist in Indiana, his career path took him to New York as assistant state conservationist and then back to the Midwest as deputy state conservationist in Illinois. In 1980 Bob returned to the Hoosier state as state conservationist. In his role as state conservationist with the Natural Resources Conservation Service, Mr. Eddleman has demonstrated an exceptional commitment to conserving Indiana's soil and water resources and has devoted himself to building a strong federal, state, and local partnership to provide services to Indiana citizens. He is also a leading advocate for Indiana's soil and water conservation districts. The individual accomplishments of Mr. Eddleman are many, but his years of service reflect his dedication to building working partnerships. As the result of his guidance and leadership, Indiana's Conservation Partnership is recognized as a model for other states to use to increase soil and water conservation practices on the land. Mr. Eddleman served on many state-wide natural resource work groups that have directed conservation actions in Indiana including: the Indiana Lakes Management Group; the Great Lakes Watershed Management Group; the Maumee River Basin Study; the Indiana Water Committee; and the Indiana Natural Resources Land Use work group. Bob has been a 4-H leader for 27 years, has served on the Marion County Extension Board for 9 years, was recognized as a fellow of the Soil and Water Conservation Society (SWCS), and currently serves on the SWCS Board of Directors. In 1995 he received the Distinguished Agricultural Alumni Award from Purdue University in recognition of his professional achievements and dedicated service to agriculture and society. Finally, Bob Eddleman served as a mentor and role model to others in federal service. There are a great number of leaders within the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service who have gained skills in leadership and partnership building by working for and with Bob. Mr. President, I regret that the State of Indiana and all conservationists will be losing Bob Eddleman. With special thanks, I salute him for his service and wish him well as he embarks upon new endeavors.