THIS SEARCH     THIS DOCUMENT     THIS CR ISSUE     GO TO
Next Hit        Forward           Next Document     New CR Search
Prev Hit        Back              Prev Document     HomePage
Hit List        Best Sections     Daily Digest      Help
                Doc Contents      

   Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the RECORD.

   There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

   Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

   SECTION 1. REVOCATION BY MEMBERS OF THE CLERGY OF EXEMPTION FROM SOCIAL SECURITY COVERAGE.

   (a) IN GENERAL.--Notwithstanding section 1402(e)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, any exemption which has been received under section 1402(e)(1) of such Code by a duly ordained, commissioned, or licensed minister of a church, a member of a religious order, or a Christian Science practitioner, and which is effective for the taxable year in which this Act is enacted, may be revoked by filing an application therefor (in such form and manner, and with such official, as may be prescribed in regulations made under chapter 2 of such Code), if such application is filed no later than the due date of the Federal income tax return (including any extension thereof) for the applicant's second taxable year beginning after December 31, 1999.

[Page: S599]  GPO's PDF

   (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.--Subsection (a) shall apply with respect to service performed (to the extent specified in such subsection) in taxable years beginning after December 31, 1999, and with respect to monthly insurance benefits payable under title II of the Social Security Act on the basis of the wages and self-employment income of any individual for months in or after the calendar year in which such individual's application for revocation (as described in such subsection) is effective (and lump-sum death payments payable under such title on the basis of such wages and self-employment income in the case of deaths occurring in or after such calendar year).

   Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, today I join my colleague, Senator BOB SMITH of New Hampshire, in introducing a bill to allow certain members of the clergy who are currently exempt from Social Security an open season to ``opt in.''

   Under section 1402 of the Internal Revenue Code, a member of the clergy who is conscientiously, or because of religious principles, opposed to participation in a public insurance program generally, may elect to be exempt from Social Security coverage and payroll taxes by filing an application of exemption with the Internal Revenue Service within two years of beginning the ministry. To be eligible for the exemption, the member of the clergy must be an ``individual who is a fully ordained, commissioned, or licensed minister of a church, or a member of a religious order who has not taken a vow of poverty.'' Once elected this exemption is irrevocable.

   This legislation would allow members of the clergy who are not eligible for Social Security a two-year open season in which they could revoke their exemption. At the time of exemption, many clergy did not fully understand the ramifications of their actions, and it is not until later in life, when they are blocked from coverage, that they realize their need for Social Security and Medicare. This decision to ``opt in'' would be irrevocable and all post-election earnings would be subject to the payroll tax and credited for the purposes of Social Security and Medicare.

   The Congressional Budget Office estimates that this legislation would affect approximately 3,500 members of the clergy and would increase revenues by about $45 million over the next five years. Similar legislation was passed both in the 1977 Social Security Amendments (Section 316) and in the Tax Reform Act of 1986 (Section 1704).

   This bill has been endorsed by the United States Catholic Conference and the National Conference of Catholic Bishops. It is a simple but much-needed measure, and I urge every member of the Senate to support it.

   By Mr. MOYNIHAN (for himself, Mr. LEVIN, Mr. LEAHY, Mr. SCHUMER, Mrs. BOXER, and Mr. CLELAND).

   S. 171. A bill to amend the Clean Air Act to limit the concentration of sulfur in gasoli ne used in m otor vehicles; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.

   THE ACID DEPOSITION AND OZONE CONTROL ACT OF 1999

   By Mr. MOYNIHAN (for himself, Mr. SCHUMER, and Mr. LIEBERMAN):

   S. 172. A bill to reduce acid deposition under the Clean Air Act, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.

   THE CLEAN GASOLINE ACT OF 19 99

   Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce two bills which will make significant reductions in the pollutants which most degrade our national air quality. The Acid Deposition and Ozone Control Act of 1999 and the Clean Gasoline Act of 19 99 would reduce sulfur dioxide a nd nitrogen oxide emissions through national ``cap and trade'' programs, and reduce the sulfur content i n gasoline, respecti vely.

   We have come a long way since the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990. Since that last reauthorization effort, we have successfully reduced emissions of the pollutants we set out to regulate and tremendously expanded our understanding of the causes and effects of major environmental problems such as acid deposition, ozone pollution, decreased visibility, and eutrophication of coastal waters. We can be proud of these accomplishments, but we have along way to go yet. Since 1990 we have learned, for instance, that the sulfur dioxide ( SO

   2) emissions reductions required under the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 are insufficient to prevent continued damage to human health and sensitive ecosystems. We have also learned that nitrogen oxides (NO

   X), which we largely ignored nine years ago, are significant contributors to our nation's many air quality deficiencies. And finally, we have demonstrated that legislation containing regulatory flexibility and market incentives is preferable to the traditional ``command and control'' approach. My bills seek to build upon this new body of knowledge by combining the best and most current scientific evaluation of our environmental needs with the most effective and efficient regulatory framework.

   The scientific data indicate that the 1990 Amendments did not go far enough to prevent continued human health and ecosystem damage from SO

   2 and NO

   X. We now know that ozone pollution, caused in large part by NO

   X emissions, can have a terrible effect on human respiratory functions. The Harvard University School of Public Health's 1996 study of ozone pollution established a strong link between ground level ozone pollution and 30,000-50,000 emergency room visits during the 1993 and 1994 ozone seasons. Ecosystems continue to suffer, too. The 1998 report of the National Acid Precipitation Assessment Program (NAPAP) indicates that sulfate concentrations of surface waters in the Southern Appalachian Mountains have been increasing steadily for more than a decade, making for an increasingly inhospitable environment for trout and other fish species. There are other types of problems, too. Visitors to our nation's national parks and wilderness areas find that it is more difficult than ever before to enjoy these scenic vistas. It is becoming increasingly difficult to see through the haze which clogs the air in our national parks.

   Scientists have produced volumes of scientific literature on ozone, acid deposition, regional haze, and other air quality problems over the past decade. We now know much more about the causes of these problems than we did in 1990. We know that NO

   X emissions, which we underestimated as a cause of air pollution, in fact play an important role in the formation of ground level ozone, acide deposition, and nitrogen deposition. We know that sulfur dioxide n ot only contributes significantly to acid deposition, but also to reduced visibility in our great scenic vistas.

   The most recent NAPAP report reflects this changing body of knowledge. The NAPAP report notes that NO

   X make a highly significant contribution to the occurrence of acid deposition and nitrogen saturation on both land and water. According to NAPAP, a majority of Adirondack lakes have not shown recovery from high acidity levels first detected decades ago. Forests, streams, and rivers outside of New York, in the Front Range of Colorado, the Great Smoky Mountains of Tennessee, and the San Gabriel and San Bernardino Mountains of California are also now showing the effects of acidification and nitrogen saturation.

   And mountains are not the only ecosystems affected. The Ecological Society of America, the nation's leading professional society of ecologists, issued a report in late 1997 which notes that airborne deposition of nitrogen accounts for a significant percentage of the nitrogen content of coastal water bodies stretching from the Gulf Coast up and around the entire length of the eastern seaboard. The Chesapeake Bay is believed to receive 27 percent of its

[Page: S600]  GPO's PDF

   Clearly, any serious effort to address these problems must address NO

   X emissions and further reduce SO

   2 emissions. My bills address the major sources of NO

   X and SO

   2. The Acide Deposition and Ozone Control Act of 1998 would affect ``stationary sources'' of NO

   X

   and SO

   2, mainly electric utilities, and the Clean Gasoline Act of 19 99 would affect ``mobile sources'', mainly cars and trucks, of NOx and other tailpipe emissions.

   ACID DEPOSITION AND OZONE CONTROL ACT: CONTROLLING STATIONARY SOURCES

   When we designed the SO

   2 Allowance Program in 1990, our task was simplified by the fact that over 85 percent of SO

   2 emissions originated in fossil fuel-fired electric utilities. Utility emissions account for just under 30 percent of total NO

   X emissions, a smaller share, but large enough to merit attention. My bill establishes a year-round cap-and-trade program for NO

   X emissions from the utility sector and mandates a further 50 percent cut in emissions of SO

   2 through the existing cap and trade program. Because of the human health risks of urban ozone pollution during the summer months, the Acid Deposition and Ozone Control Act requires utilities to surrender two allowances for each ton of NO

   X emitted between May and September. During the remainder of the year, only one allowance is required to produce one ton of NO

   X emissions. In this way, utilities are encouraged to make the greatest reductions during the summer, when the collective risk to human health from these emissions is higher.

   In light of the impressive success and cost effectiveness of the cap and trade program which regulates SO

   2, the Acid Deposition and Ozone Control Act is designed to build onto it as seamlessly as possible by establishing a ``Phase III'' under the existing program. Under the proposed Phase III, total utility emissions of SO

   2 would be reduced to just under 4.5 million tons per year, significantly reducing acid deposition and improving visibility in our Nation's scenic vistas.

   THE CLEAN GASOLINE ACT OF 19 99: ADDRESSING MOBILE SOURCES

   This bill establishes a national, year-round cap on the sulfur content o f gasoline sold in t he United States. The bill would extend the so-called California gasoline sulfur st andard nationwide. The benefits of reducing gasoline sulfur wo uld be dramatic and virtually immediate.

   The presence of sulfur in gasoli ne increases vehicle emissions because sulfur poisons t he catalytic converter used in the vehicle's emissions control system. Sulfur is a poll utant only: its presence (or absence) does not effect engine performance. In the 1970's, we fought to remove lead from gasoline to make p ossible the introduction of catalytic converters. Until recently, we did not appreciate that sulfur is a cata lyst poison, too. All vehicles in the national fleet with catalytic converters--virtually all vehicles--produce higher levels of NO

   X because of the high levels of sulfur in the ga soline they burn .

   The cost of gasoline would ris e under this bill--by a nickel a gallon at the retail level, at most. For a car driven 15,000 miles per year that achieves 15 miles per gallon, the cost of the Clean Gasoline Act would be $50 annually. Keep in mind, however, that gasoline prices, a djusted for inflation, are cheaper now than they have been at any time since 1950, the beginning point of our analysis. And the benefits to human health and the environment of reducing gasoline sulfur fa r outwe igh this modest cost.

   A recent study by the State and Territorial Air Pollution Program Administrators and the Association of Local Air Pollution Control Officials (STAPPA-ALAPCO) found that reducing gasoline sulfur le vels to 40 parts per million, the California standard, would bring an air quality benefit equivalent to removing nearly 54 million vehicles from our national fleet. New York City alone would have a benefit equal to removing 3 million vehicles from its streets. We must not pass up the opportunity to make such large gains in emissions reductions for such a minor cost.

   As I mentioned earlier, I am proud of what we accomplished in enacting the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990. The SO2 Allowance Program established by that legislation has achieved extraordinary benefits at program compliance costs less than half of initial projections. The efficacy of the approach is proven. The current science indicates, however, that we did not go far enough in 1990 in setting our emissions reduction targets. The bills I have introduced endeavor to build upon our accomplishments thus far, and to begin the work which remains to be done. I encourage my colleagues to join myself and Mr. Schumer in sponsoring the Acid Deposition and Ozone Control Act of 1999, and to join myself and Mr. LEVIN, Mr. LEAHY, Mr. SCHUMER, Mrs. BOXER, Mr. CLELAND, and Mr. JEFFORDS in sponsoring the Clean Gasoline Act of 19 99.

   Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bills be printed in the RECORD.

   There being no objection, the bills were ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

    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 ``Clean Gasoline Act of 19 99''.

   SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

    Congress finds that--

    (1) according to the National Air Quality and Emissions Trends Report of the Environmental Protection Agency, dated 1996, motor vehicles account for a major portion of the emissions that degrade the air quality of the United States: 49 percent of nitrogen oxides emissions, 26 percent of emissions of particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter smaller than or equal to 10 micrometers (PM-10), and 78 percent of carbon monoxide emissions;

    (2)(A) failure to control gasoline sulfur co ncentra tion adversely affects catalytic converter function for all vehicles in the national vehicle fleet; and

    (B) research performed collaboratively by the auto and oil industries demonstrates that when sulfur concentra tion in motor vehicle gasoline is reduce d from 450 parts per million (referred to in this section as ``ppm'') to 50 ppm--

    (i) hydrocarbon emissions are reduced by 18 percent;

    (ii) carbon monoxide emissions are reduced by 19 percent; and

    (iii) nitrogen oxide emissions are reduced by 8 percent;

    (3)(A) recent studies conducted by the the Association of International Automobile Manufacturers, and the Coordinating Research Council confirm that sulfur in vehicl e fuel impairs to an even greater degree the emission controls of Low-Emission Vehicles (referred to in this section as ``LEVs'') and Ultra-Low-Emission Vehicles (referred to in this section as ``ULEVs'');

    (B) because sulfur-induced i mpairment of advanced technology emission control systems is not fully reversible under normal in-use driving conditions, a nationwide, year-round sulfur standard is necessary to prevent impairment of vehicles' emission control systems as the vehicles travel across State lines;

    (C) industry research on LEVs and ULEVs demonstrates that when gasoline sulfur co ncentra tion is lowered from 330 ppm to 40 ppm--

    (i) hydrocarbon emissions are reduced by 34 percent;

    (ii) carbon monoxide emissions are reduced by 43 percent; and

    (iii) nitrogen oxide emissions are reduced by 51 percent;

    (D) failure to control sulfur in gasoli ne will inhi bit the introduction of more fuel-efficient technologies, such as direct injection engines and ``NO

THIS SEARCH     THIS DOCUMENT     THIS CR ISSUE     GO TO
Next Hit        Forward           Next Document     New CR Search
Prev Hit        Back              Prev Document     HomePage
Hit List        Best Sections     Daily Digest      Help
                Doc Contents