for its employees (or their beneficiaries) by a church or by a convention or association of churches which is exempt from tax under section 501. "(2) CERTAIN PLANS EXCLUDED.-The term 'church plan' does not include a plan "(A) which is established and maintained primarily for the benefit of employees (or their beneficiaries) of such church or convention or association of churches who are employed in connection with one or more unrelated trades or businesses (within the meaning of section 513); or "(B) which includes individuals less than substantially all of whom are described in paragraphs (1), (3) (B), or (3) (E) (or their beneficiaries). 66 '(3) DEFINITIONS AND OTHER PROVISIONS.—For purposes of this subsection "(A) A plan established and maintained by a church or by a convention or association of churches shall include a plan established and maintained by an organization, whether a civil law corporation or otherwise, the principal purpose or function of which is the administration or funding of a plan or program for the provision of retirement benefits or welfare benefits, or both, for the employees of a church or a convention or association of churches, if such orga nization is controlled by or associated with a church or a convention or association of churches. “(B) The term 'employee' of a church or a convention or association of churches shall include"(i) a duly ordained, commissioned, or licensed minister of a church in the exercise of his ministry, regardless of the source of his compensation; "(ii) an employee of an organization, whether a civil law corporation or otherwise, which is exempt from tax under section 501 and which is controlled by or associated with a church or a convention "(iii) an individual described in paragraph (3) (E). "(C) A church or a convention or association of churches which is exempt from tax under section 501 shall be deemed the employer of any individual included as an employee under paragraph (3) (B). "(D) An organization, whether a civil law corporation or otherwise, is associated with a church or a convention or association of churches if it shares. common religious bonds and convictions with that church or convention or association of churches, "(E) If an employee who is included in a church plan separates from the service of a church or a convention or association of churches or an organization described in clause (ii) of paragraph (3) (B), the church plan shall not fail to meet the requirements of this subsection merely because it"(i) retains his accrued benefit or account for the payment of benefits to him or his beneficiaries pursuant to the terms of the plan; or "(ii) receives contributions on his behalf after his separation from such service, but only for a period of five years after the employee's separation from service, unless the employee is disabled (within the meaning of the disability provisions of the church plan or, if there are no such provisions in the church plan, within the meaning of section 72 (m) (7)) at the time of such separation from service. "(4) CORRECTION OF FAILURE TO MEET CHURCH PLAN REQUIREMENTS.-If a plan established and main tained for its employees (or their beneficiaries) by a church or by a convention or association of churches which is exempt from tax under section 501 fails to meet one or more of the requirements of this subsection and 22 2 21 23 corrects its failure to meet such requirements within the correction period, the plan shall be deemed to meet the requirements of this subsection for the year in which the correction was made and for all prior years. If a correc tion is not made within the correction period, the plan shall not be deemed to meet the requirements of this sub section beginning with the date on which the earliest failure to meet one or more of such requirements occurred. The term 'correction period' means the period ending with the later of the following: (1) 270 days after the date of mailing by the Secretary of a notice of default with respect to the plan's failure to meet one or more of the requirements of this subsection; (2) such period as may be set by a court of competent jurisdiction after a determination that has become final that the plan fails to meet such requirements, or, if the final court determination does not specify such period, a reasonable period depending upon all the facts and circumstances, but in any event not less than 270 days after the determination has become final; or (3) any additional period which the Secretary determines is reasonable or neces sary for the correction of the default." SEC. 2. The amendments made by this Act shall be effec 24 tive as of January 1, 1974. H 3450 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE Eel River Streambank Erosion Demonstration Project. Eel River Delta Alternatives to Levees. The Eel River Comprehensive Basin Investigation. The latter study and the Russian Comprehensive were unique in that it provided the Corps a new role in water resource planning and basin assistance. These resolutions direct the Corps to investigate all facets of the watershed, from forestry and fishing to water quality and flood control. as Por the Eel Delta. we've authorized the Corps to evaluate and develop non-structural flood control alternatives such flood proofing of buildings, possible relocaand tion, dredging, channel stabilization cattle evacuation plans. While it would not control a major flood such as in 1964, it could minimize damage and afford Bome the jesser protection and security from floods that occur. In Lake County, there has also been a concentrated effort to deal with the water quality and supply problems at Clear Lake with nonstructural alternatives. In this endeavor, EDA, EPA, Bureau of Reclamation and the Corps have all been involved. These ideas of a new and more flexible role for the Corps are being accepted. Recently. Lt. General John Morris, Chief of Engineers, in a speech to the Water Resources Congress, entitled "Where are We Headed" noted, "Water resources problems will continue to arise from population growth, economic expansion and unpredictable natural events will force more effective national water conservation measures supported by a proper blend of structural and non-structural solutions which are well engineered and developed. The key to resolving water resource problems is the formulation of clear, comprehensive national water policies which are in tune with today's public and national objectives." These changes in thinking by the Corps are indicative of the re-evaluations of National Water Policy currently taking place in the Congress and the Administration One administration report advises the President to propose laws and adopt procedures that would require federal and state planners to consider much more carefully the building of huge government-financed water projects. This same report also recommends that states should be required to pay in advance 10% of the cost of the new water projects that they want built. Of course, Congress would have to assist and/or approve the establishment of any new water policy. This Congress has approved our committee's new "clean water" which program authorizes comprehensive waste water management and includes my new innovative technology Incentives amendments for communities that develop re-cycling, re-use and land treatment management alternatives. The implications of all of this are farreaching. For sure, it points to the need for building a cohesive political support group in the North Coast that will be able to articulate representative and clearly defined positions on the water related issues that Your Joint-powers agreement is properly The Miami and Muskingum watershed conservancy programs in Ohio are excellent examples of what can be done by local units of government joining together to address common water resource related problems. These organizations were initially formed to control the tremendous floods that used to frequent the Miami and Muskingum Valleys in Ohio. Over the years, they have matured into multi-purpose water management organizations whose primary goal was flood control and the maintenance of water quality in their regions They are actively involved in waste management, flow-augmentation. stream appearance, recreation facilities and other problems that affect water quality. I would strongly recommend that those who will be immediately involved in directing your joint-powers agreement look to the Miami and Muskingum programs as models of what can be done. The Corps will cooperate with you in developing its studies and resource inventories. Last week in Washington I met with Colonel John Atsid, of the San Francisco District. We talked of this joint-powers agreement and he re-affirmed his commitment to provide support. He also indicated that Charlie Elmore, whom most of you know and who is here today, would be designated ne the Corps' liaison person to work directly with you I think the Corps is the best federal agency to provide coordination in this area because of its long-standing knowledge of our region and its water resources. We also have in our own area tremendous talent and human resources that you can tap in developing your information base. I have discussed with the Presidents of Humboldt State, Sonoma State and the Community Colleges in the North Coast the idea of involving their forestry, fishery, remote sensing, environmental science and biology departments in your efforts. They have all expressed a ready willingness to participate. Given such a broad-based support effort we can continue to work at the Federal level to provide a mechanism to consolidate the tremendous amount of information that would be forthcoming. Several ideas that I have in mind might be the construction of a hydrology model of our North Coast, similar to the San Francisco Bay Model that the Corps operates in Sausalito. Or a computer simulation model of the region, like the one used to monitor water quality in the Miami Conservancy Program. Only after the establishment of such a data base and resource inventory will you be in a position to make the kinds of management and policy decisions that you envision in your joint-powers agreement. So, in conclusion, let us restate our purposes and objectives. As I stated in my 1971 speech advocating the Basin Watershed Conservancy concept, "The challenge to the North Coast is to strike a balance between conservation and development of our natural resources. The May 2, 1978 present and future economy of our area is tied directly to the way in which we meet this challenge." I want to assure you that I fully support your actions to date and I believe we are in unison toward meeting this challenge. The purposes of the Watershed Conservancy program is to provide information, direction and expertise necessary for the continued management, development. use and treatment of the surface and ground water of the Russian and Eel Basin so as to meet the water quality standards set by the State and approved by the federal government under our "Clean Water program. Simply put, our objectives are to say that the waters of the Russian and Eel Watersheds must be suitable for all woes at all places at all times. Water quality is everybody's business Water management is our mutual responsibility. Water is one of this nation's treasures. We cannot survive without it. A nation is no more than the sum of its natural resources and its people and only when the people and their governments properly manage their natural resources can they or the nation survive. Working together, we, on the North Coast of California, can demonstrate to our prople the kind of enlightened leadership required to meet this challenge. The people we are privileged to represent have a right to expect the best from all of us. Give us at the state and federal level a vehicle to work with and maybe we can supply some of the fuel. But, you the elected representa tives of the North Coast will be in the drivers seat. In addition to the water management I've discrased. I look forward to working with you on transportation and economic development programa that will revitalize and diversify the economies of our area. PENSION PLANS OF CHURCHES AND The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the gentleman from New York, (Mr. CONABLE) is recognized for 10 minutes. • Mr. CONABLE. Madam Speaker. I wish to discuss a bill, HR. 12172, which I recently introduced to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 to permit a church plan to continue after 1982 to provide benefits for employees of organizations controlled by or associated with the church and to make certain clarifying amendments to the definition of church plan. The major church denominations of this country all agree that they are seriously affected by the definition of church plan we provided in section 414(e) of the Internal Revenue Code. For many years our church plans have been operating responsibly and providing retirement coverage and benefits for the clergymen and lay employees of the churches and their agencles. Some of the church plans are extremely old, dating back to the 1700's. The median age of church plans is at least 40 years. Churches are among the first organizations to found retirement plans in the United States. In 1974, when we enacted the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. popularly called ERISA, we exempted church plans from the provisions of the act to avoid excessive Government entanglement with religion in violation of |