[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 65 (Monday, May 23, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: May 23, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. WARNER (for himself and Mr. Robb):
  S. 2142. A bill to designate certain lands in the Commonwealth of 
Virginia as a National Scenic Area for protection of the watershed and 
scenic values, recreation use, protection of wildlife and their 
habitat, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Agriculture, 
Nutrition, and Forestry.


                  mount pleasant national scenic area

  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, today on behalf of myself and Senator Robb 
to introduce legislation to designate certain lands in the Commonwealth 
of Virginia as a national scenic area for protection of the watershed 
and scenic values, recreation use, and for protection of wildlife and 
their habitat. This is a companion measure to legislation, H.R. 2942, 
introduced in the House of Representatives by Virginia Congressman Bob 
Goodlatte.
  My bill may be referred to as the Mount Pleasant National Scenic Area 
Act of 1994.
  The purpose of my legislation is to protect an area surrounding Mount 
Pleasant in Amherst County, VA, by designating approximately 7,580 
acres in the region as a national scenic area. Such a designation will 
help to protect Mount Pleasant from environmental damage, allow fish 
and other wildlife to flourish and preserve old forest stands within 
the area.
  It is important to point out to my colleagues that the Mount Pleasant 
Scenic Area Act has the support of the entire Virginia congressional 
delegation. Each member from the 11 congressional district's in the 
Commonwealth has signed onto H.R. 2942. My colleague in the Senate, 
Senator Robb, is an original cosponsor of my legislation.
  This legislation was developed at the grassroots level with the 
strong support and influence of the Amherst County Board of 
Supervisors, local sportsmen, business leaders, hikers, and area 
families. They all expressed their desire to permanently protect the 
Mount Pleasant area and its valuable natural resources such as the 
Buffalo River's watershed, native wild trout streams, a portion of the 
historic Appalachian Trail, and many other valuable features.
  While all of those involved in this process agreed on the need for 
protecting the Mount Pleasant area, a broad range of options and 
opinions were expressed and considered prior to the consensus reached 
on a scenic area designation. In the end, it was overwhelmingly agreed 
upon that the scenic area approach would provide a permanent framework 
for sound management with the flexibility needed to manage the 
protected area locally. This legislation will ensure that the Mount 
Pleasant area will be available for everyone to enjoy for years to 
come.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of my 
legislation be printed in the Congressional Record at the conclusion of 
my remarks.
  Finally, I ask my colleagues to support this measure and hope for its 
swift consideration and approval.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 2142

       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 ``Mount Pleasant National 
     Scenic Area Act.''

     SEC. 2. PURPOSES.

       The purposes of this Act with respect to the Mount Pleasant 
     National Scenic Area are to--
       (1) ensure appropriate protection and preservation of the 
     scenic quality, water quality, natural characteristics, and 
     water resources;
       (2) protect and manage vegetation to provide wildlife and 
     fish habitat, consistent with paragraph (1) above;
       (3) provide areas that may develop characteristics of old-
     growth forests; and
       (4) provide a variety of recreation opportunities that are 
     not inconsistent with the purposes set forth above.

     SEC. 3. ESTABLISHMENT OF THE NATIONAL SCENIC AREA.

       (a) In General.--(1) There is hereby established in the 
     George Washington National Forest, Virginia, the Mount 
     Pleasant National Scenic Area (hereinafter referred to in 
     this Act as the ``scenic area'').
       (2) The scenic area shall consist of certain lands in the 
     George Washington National Forest, Virginia, which comprise 
     7,580 acres, more or less, as generally depicted on a map 
     entitled ``Mount Pleasant National Scenic Area--Proposed'', 
     dated June 21, 1993.
       (b) Administration.--The Secretary of Agriculture, 
     (hereinafter referred to in this Act as the ``Secretary'') 
     shall administer the scenic area in accordance with this Act 
     and the laws and regulations generally applicable to the 
     National Forest System. In the event of conflict between this 
     Act and other laws and regulations, this Act shall take 
     precedence.
       (c) Roads.--After the date of enactment of this Act, no new 
     permanent roads shall be constructed within the scenic area; 
     Provided, that this provision shall not be construed to deny 
     access to private lands or interests therein in the scenic 
     area.
       (d) Vegetation Management.--No timber harvest shall be 
     allowed within the scenic area, except as may be necessary in 
     the control of fire, insects, and diseases and to provide for 
     public safety and trail access. Notwithstanding the 
     foregoing, the Secretary may engage in vegetation 
     manipulation practices for maintenance of existing wildlife 
     clearings and visual quality. Firewood may be harvested for 
     personal use along perimeter roads under such conditions as 
     the Secretary may impose.
       (e) Motorized Travel.--Motorized travel shall be allowed on 
     State Route 635 and on Forest Development Road 51, such Road 
     51 shall be subject to those motorized travel conditions the 
     Secretary may impose. Other than as provided above, motorized 
     travel shall not be permitted within the scenic area, except 
     that such travel may be permitted within the area as 
     necessary for administrative use in furtherance of the 
     purposes of this Act and on temporary routes in support of 
     wildlife management projects.
       (f) Fire.--Wildfires shall be suppressed in a manner 
     consistent with the purposes of this Act, using such means as 
     the Secretary deems appropriate.
       (g) Insects and Disease.--Insect and disease outbreaks may 
     be controlled in the scenic area to maintain scenic quality, 
     prevent tree mortality, reduce hazards to visitors or to 
     protect private lands.
       (h) Water.--The scenic area shall be administered so as to 
     maintain or enhance existing water quality.
       (i) Maps and Descriptions.--As soon as practicable after 
     the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall file a 
     map and boundary description of the scenic area with the 
     Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry of the 
     United States Senate and the Committee on Agriculture of the 
     United States House of Representatives. The map and 
     description shall have the same force and effect as if 
     included in this Act, except that the Secretary is authorized 
     to correct clerical and typographical errors in such boundary 
     description and map. Such map and boundary description shall 
     be on file and available for public inspection in the Office 
     of the Chief of the Forest Service, Department of 
     Agriculture. In the case of any discrepancy between the 
     acreage and the map described in subsection (a)(2), the map 
     shall control.
       (j) Management Plan.--Within 3 years of enactment of this 
     Act, the Secretary shall develop a management plan for the 
     scenic area as an amendment to the Land and Resource 
     Management Plan for the George Washington National Forest. 
     Such an amendment shall conform to the provisions of this 
     Act. Nothing in this Act shall require the Secretary to 
     revise the Land and Resource Management Plan for the George 
     Washington National Forest pursuant to section 6 of the 
     Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of 
     1974.
       (k) Withdrawal.--Subject to valid existing rights, all 
     federally owned lands within the scenic area are hereby 
     withdrawn from disposition under the mining, mineral, and 
     geothermal leasing laws, including all amendments thereto.
                                 ______

      By Mr. MITCHELL (for Mr. Hollings):
  S. 2143. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to impose 
a value added tax and to use the receipts from the tax to reduce the 
Federal budget deficit and Federal debt and to finance health care 
reform; to the Committee on Finance.


    deficit and debt reduction and health care financing act of 1994

 Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Deficit 
Reduction and Health Care Finance Act of 1994. This bill would create a 
5-percent national value-added tax, with all revenues set aside in a 
trust fund to finance deficit reduction and health care reform.
  Mr. President, I offer this bill under duress. It is the only way I 
know--in tandem with deeper spending cuts--to deal with the fiscal 
recklessness that has gotten out of hand in this city.
  Congress is now talking about an additional $700 million for Head 
Start. Earlier it was $900 million more for housing. Before that, it 
was millions more for peacekeeping in Rwanda and $750 million for South 
Africa. The push for new spending is endless. And both Republicans and 
Democrats are leading the charge. Both want health reform that will 
increase the deficit $150 billion over 5 years, welfare reform $46 
billion, trade reform or GATT $34 billion, crime reform $25 billion, 
maritime reform $1 billion, immigration reform $1 billion, 
environmental reform $2 billion, technology reform $2 billion, 
education reform $700 million, California earthquake $8.8 billion, and 
on and on. Both parties are driving to spend $200 billion more on 
reforms while this minute we are already spending $300 billion a year 
more than we are taking in. Let me be specific. In the Senate Budget 
Committee report on page 7, section 3 is entitled ``Debt Increase as a 
Measure of Deficit'' and reads: ``The amounts of the increase in the 
public debt subject to limitation are as follows:
  Fiscal year 1995: $306,700,000,000.
  Fiscal year 1996: $315,200,000,000.
  Fiscal year 1997: $332,400,000,000.
  Fiscal year 1998: $334,200,000,000.
  Fiscal year 1999: $344,200,000,000.
  These are the amounts we borrow each year. These are the annual 
deficits. The deficit for the present fiscal year is $338 billion, 
meaning that to cut spending, to put the government operating in the 
black, which we all contend for would require a cut of $338 billion. 
Add to this the $200 billion or more in reform spending and you must 
cut $500 billion from a budget of $1.5 trillion to put us on a pay-as-
you-go basis. This would require eliminating the domestic departments 
of government such as the President, the Congress, the courts, the FBI, 
the DEA, the Departments of Interior, Commerce, Agriculture, Treasury, 
Environment, Energy, et cetera, and eliminating two-thirds of the 
defense budget. Of course this couldn't and shouldn't happen.
  But the point is that yes, we have got to cut spending. But yes, we 
have got to raise taxes. ``But the people won't go for that'' is a 
typical rejoinder. The trouble is that the people are already going for 
a daily increase in taxes of a billion dollars and don't know it. How 
is this? This year, the national debt will be $4.7 trillion and the 
annual interest cost is $300 billion. This means that almost every day 
except Sunday, the first thing the Government does each morning is go 
down and borrow a billion a day and add it to the national debt. The 
debt will soar to $5 trillion by next year. And the daily increase in 
interest taxes will continue. The only way we can prevent a fiscal 
catastrophe is to both cut spending and raise taxes. These tax revenues 
should be allocated to a trust fund to pay for health reform and to 
reduce the deficit and the debt. Bluntly put, the only way we can stop 
increasing taxes is to increase taxes.
  All of us in Congress know this. But we also know that to face 
reality, having pledged in campaigns that we are against taxes, no one 
would dare vote for a tax increase. So the big charade, the fraud, the 
government by stealth, employing any twist, any turn to obscure, to 
mislead, to avoid. Mark Twain said that the truth is such a precious 
thing it should be used very sparingly. First we institute caps on 
spending to make people believe we have caps on spending. Then we spend 
$11.8 billion by labelling it emergency above the caps. We say it it's 
not an increase in the deficit even though we've just borrowed it. 
Since the caps control the parliamentary rules on spending, we try to 
provide and limit at the same time.
  Locked into this craziness, we try to pay for immigration by raising 
taxes on communications. We hide 33 other tax increases deep in the 
budget and label them ``fees.'' We borrow billions from one government 
program and apply them to another government program to hide the size 
of the deficit. For example, we will use $70 billion of the Social 
Security Trust Fund this year and apply it to the deficit. By the year 
2000, we will owe Social Security over $1 trillion. We mandate our 
responsibilities to the State and local government but refuse to 
provide the funds. We blast forth with Goals 2000 in education, 
unfunded--more headlines than headway.

  A sign at the airport parking lot used to read ``Reserved for Courts, 
Diplomats and Members of Congress''; this week it was changed to read 
``Authorized Parking Only.'' To show our disapproval of all these 
shenanigans, we attack the Congress as corrupt, passing silly measures 
to eliminate so-called perks. The Senate's problem is not that it is 
corrupt or on the take. It isn't. Our problem is that we are 
incompetent. We are not doing the job that we are sent to Washington to 
do. We are supposed to care for the needs of the people within the 
Nation's means. Rather than wasting time on meaningless sense-of-the-
Senate resolutions and motions to instruct conferees, we should attack 
the long-range problems such as our fiscal mess. We haven't paid a bill 
since Lyndon Johnson's days.
  This nonsense not only impacts the economy severely; it debases our 
democracy. For democracy to be sustained, the people must be informed. 
The people don't know what is happening to them. They know something is 
wrong. We are constantly having elections with the candidates promising 
to clean up the mess. But nothing happens. Conditions worsen. So 
everyone cries for term limitations. Perhaps if by law we can throw the 
rascals out, at least we can have a new group of rascals.
  It's time we stopped using the Government merely for our political 
security and start performing for the people. It is time to stop 
government by stealth.
  For starters, let's eliminate the space station, the Milstar 
satellite program, the Osprey vertical take-off and landing plane, the 
$130 million tourist centers such as the one at Boulder Dam, the $65 
million embassies and any other program that we can get votes to 
eliminate. But we will still need taxes.
  Mr. President, with the bill I propose a 5-percent national value-
added tax without exemptions. The VAT is essentially like a national 
sales tax. Heretofore, there had been three principal objections to a 
VAT: First, it is regressive; second, it is too complicated; and third, 
it raises too much money and would cause waste. Let me address each of 
these objections in turn.
  First the issue of regressivity. I agree. The fact is that all taxes 
are inherently regressive. With a consumption tax, the more you 
consume, the more you pay; the less you consume, the less you pay. The 
VAT does fall disproportionately on lower income brackets. But the VAT 
is not nearly as regressive as interest costs on the national debt. It 
is not nearly as regressive as the debt's inflationary impact on the 
economy, which disproportionately harms the poor.
  Second, it is said that the VAT is too complicated. Well, it's 
certainly not too complicated for the Japanese, the Koreans, and every 
member of the European Economic Community. In fact, the average VAT in 
Europe is 17 percent, in Korea it's 25 percent. We can minimize the 
complication by drawing on the lessons of these other countries, as 
well as the experience of States with sales taxes.
  Third, some say that a VAT would raise too much money. This is a 
dream. We will need every dime raised by a 5-percent VAT, plus savings 
from additional steep spending cuts, in order to eliminate the deficit. 
Even then, it will take years to get the Government operating in the 
black.
  A VAT will help us not only to eliminate the deficit while paying 
cash on the barrel head for health care reform. It will also contribute 
to eliminating our other great deficit--the trade deficit. At present, 
our overseas competitors rebate to their manufacturers the VAT on all 
goods exported to the United States; those manufacturers' other in-
country taxes are relatively low. In stark contrast, producers in the 
United States pay property taxes, income taxes, excise taxes, Social 
Security taxes and much more; then, when their goods are shipped 
overseas, the importing country slaps a fat VAT tax on top of all those 
other taxes. This does tremendous harm to the competitiveness of U.S. 
products abroad. It makes it financially attractive to produce outside 
the United States, and represents at least a 15-percent disadvantage in 
international trade. A U.S. VAT would eliminate this disadvantage. With 
good reason, Lester Thurow of MIT says that ``the rules of 
international trade make you stupid if you don't have a VAT.''
  I am under no illusions as to the political trauma involved in 
enacting a major new tax in an election year--or any other year. That's 
the point: It's never a good time to raise a tax. Meanwhile, however, 
our financial crisis worsens every day.
  If our goal is to make this Congress honest, then free lunches are 
the least of our problems. It is time to expose the stealth government 
in our midst. It is time to reform that stealth government with honest 
accounting practices and honest taxes. I propose a single, ultra-simple 
reform--a reform that would transform the reputation of Congress in the 
eyes of the American people. That reform is to put the U.S. Government 
on a pay-as-you-go-basis.
                                 ______

      By Mr. HARKIN (for himself, Mr. Jeffords, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Simon, 
        Mr. Dodd, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Metzenbaum, and Mr. Wellstone):
  S. 2144. A bill to amend the Individuals with Disabilities Education 
Act to provide family support for families of children with 
disabilities, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Labor and 
Human Resources.


    support for families with children with disabilities act of 1994

 Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President. For the past 18 months, families of 
children with disabilities from Iowa and throughout the country, 
together with the Consortium for Citizens with Disabilities, have 
worked to develop recommendations for Federal legislation on family 
support for families of children with disabilities.
  The results of these broad-based, grassroots efforts are reflected in 
a bill, the Support for Families with Children With Disabilities Act of 
1994, which I am introducing today, along with my colleagues Senators 
Jeffords, Kennedy, Simon, Dodd, Leahy, Metzenbaum, and Wellstone.
  Let me briefly explain why I believe this legislation is necessary. 
When Congress enacted the Americans with Disabilities Act in 1990, we 
did more than pass comprehensive civil rights legislation. We also 
enunciated the fundamental precept of our national disability policy--
that disability is a natural part of the human experience that in no 
way diminishes the fundamental right of individuals with disabilities 
to live independently, enjoy self-determination, make choices, 
contribute to society, and enjoy full inclusion and integration in all 
aspects of American society.
  On the day the Senate finally passed the ADA, I made a dedication:

       All across our Nation mothers are giving birth to infants 
     with disabilities. So I want to dedicate the Americans with 
     Disabilities Act to these, the next generation of children 
     and their families.
       With the passage of the ADA, we as a society make a pledge 
     that every child with a disability will have the opportunity 
     to maximize this or her potential to live proud, productive, 
     and prosperous lives in the mainstream of our society. We 
     love you all and welcome you into the world. We look forward 
     to becoming your friends, your neighbors, and your coworkers.
       We say, whatever you decide as your goal, go for it. The 
     doors are opening and the barriers are coming down.

  The unfortunate truth is that our current so-called system of 
services does not empower families to raise their children with 
disabilities at home and in their communities.
  I believe the Support for Families With Children with Disabilities 
Act of 1994 will help us transform those current state systems, which 
foster dependence, separation, and paternalism into systems that foster 
inclusion, independence, and empowerment. The bill assists States, 
through ``systems change'' grants, develop or expand and improve family 
centered and family directed, community-centered, comprehensive, 
statewide systems of family supports for families of children with 
disabilities that are true to the precepts of the ADA.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to insert in the Record 
following my remarks a brief description of the bill.
  There being no objection, the description was ordered to be printed 
in the Record, as follow:

Summary of the Support for Families With Children With Disabilities Act 
                                of 1994


                              Introduction

       The major focus of the bill is to provide competitive 
     grants to States to develop or enhance statewide systems of 
     family support. The bill recognizes that States have 
     different levels of development of statewide systems of 
     family support. For States that are just beginning to develop 
     family support systems, the bill allows them to apply for 
     State grants to ``develop and implement'' these systems. 
     States that have made significant progress in the development 
     of family-centered and family-directed approaches to family 
     support may apply for State grants to ``expand and enhance'' 
     statewide systems of family support.
       The bill is not intended to provided support for direct 
     services to families of children with disabilities or to 
     create new entitlements. It is designed as a ``systems 
     change'' bill to assist States and families to work in 
     partnership to develop statewide systems of family support 
     that are family-centered and family-directed and that use 
     existing resources more efficiently. It is intended to 
     address the priorities and concerns of those families who 
     want to raise their children with disabilities at home and in 
     their communities.


                                findings

       The findings of the bill recognize, among other things, 
     that: children benefit from enduring family relationships in 
     a nurturing home environment; many families experience 
     exceptionally high financial outlays and significant physical 
     and emotional challenges in meeting the special needs of 
     their children with disabilities; there are financial 
     disincentives for families to care for their children with 
     disabilities at home; supporting families to care for their 
     children with disabilities at home is efficient and cost-
     effective; and there is a need for statewide, comprehensive, 
     coordinated, interagency systems of family support that is 
     family-centered and family-directed, easily accessible, and 
     that avoids duplication, uses existing resources more 
     efficiently, and prevents gaps in services.


                                purpose

       The purpose of the bill is to (1) provide financial 
     assistance to States to support systems change and advocacy 
     activities to assist each State to develop and implement, or 
     expand and enhance, a statewide system of family support for 
     families of children with disabilities and to ensure the full 
     participation, choice and control by families of children 
     with disabilities; (2) identify federal policies that 
     facilitate or impede the provision of family support; and (3) 
     enhance the ability of the Federal Government to provide 
     technical assistance and information to States, conduct a 
     national evaluation of the program of grants to States, and 
     provide funding for model demonstration and innovation 
     projects.


                                 policy

       The bill states that it is the policy of the United States 
     that all activities carried out under this Act shall be 
     family-centered and family-directed, and shall be consistent 
     with the following principles: family support must focus on 
     the needs of the entire family; families should be supported 
     in determining their own needs and in making decisions 
     concerning necessary, desirable, and appropriate services; 
     families should play decision-making roles in policies and 
     programs that affect their lives; family needs change over 
     time, and family support must be flexible, and respond to the 
     unique needs, strengths and cultural values of the family; 
     family support is proactive and not solely in response to a 
     crisis; families should be supported in promoting the 
     integration and inclusion of their children with disabilities 
     into the community; family support should promote the use of 
     existing social networks, strengthen natural sources of 
     support, and help build connections to existing community 
     resources; youth with disabilities should be involved in 
     decision-making about their own lives; and services and 
     supports must be provided in a manner that demonstrates 
     respect for individual dignity, personal responsibility, 
     self-determination, personal preferences and cultural 
     differences.


                            grants to states

       The bill authorizes grants to States to be awarded on a 
     competitive basis for a period of three years. Grants may 
     range from $200,000 to $500,000 based on the amounts 
     available and the child population of the State. The bill 
     directs the Secretary to award grants to States in a manner 
     that is geographically equitable and distributes the grants 
     among States that have differing levels of development of 
     statewide systems of family support.
       In order to receive a grant, States must submit an 
     application with specified information and assurances, 
     including:
       The designation of a lead entity in the State, which may be 
     an office or commission of the Governor, a public agency, an 
     established council, or another appropriate office, agency, 
     or entity.
       The establishment of a State Family Support Policy Council, 
     comprised of a majority of family members of children with 
     disabilities or individuals with disabilities, and State 
     agency representatives, and others. The Council shall meet 
     quarterly and advise and assist the lead entity in the 
     development and implementation of a statewide system of 
     family support. Established Councils that are comparable to 
     the Council required may be designated as the State Family 
     Support Policy Council.
       A preliminary plan, and a description of the steps that the 
     State will take to develop a strategic plan. A State 
     receiving a grant must, within the first year, prepare and 
     submit a strategic plan designed to achieve the purposes and 
     policy of this Act. The plan must be developed by the lead 
     entity in conjunction with the State Family Support Policy 
     Council, and must be updated annually.
       An assurance that families are actively involved in all 
     aspects of the State program.
       An assurance that the State will submit an annual progress 
     report that documents progress in developing and 
     implementing, or expanding and enhancing, a statewide system 
     of family support.
       An assurance that the State will expend at least 65% of the 
     funds made available on grants and contracts to conduct 
     authorized activities. The bill describes a number of 
     authorized activities that a State may carry out to 
     accomplish the purpose of the Act. These activities include 
     training and technical assistance, interagency coordination, 
     support of local and regional councils, outreach, advocacy, 
     policy studies, hearings and forums, and public awareness and 
     education.
       The bill specifies that grant applications shall be 
     reviewed by panels of experts that are composed of a majority 
     of family members.


                          technical assistance

       The bill authorizes the Secretary to provide, through 
     grants, contracts or cooperative agreements, technical 
     assistance and information with respect to the development 
     and implementation, or expansion and enhancement, of a 
     statewide system of family support. The technical assistance 
     and information shall be provided to the lead entity, the 
     State Family Support Policy Council, families, advocates, 
     service providers, and policymakers.


                               evaluation

       The bill authorizes the Secretary to conduct, through 
     grants, contracts or cooperative agreements, a national 
     evaluation of the program of grants to States.


                   projects of national significance

       The bill authorizes the Secretary to conduct a study to 
     review Federal programs to determine the extent to which 
     these programs facilitate or impede family support. The 
     Secretary may also fund demonstration and innovation projects 
     to support the development of national and State policies and 
     practices related to family support.


                    authorization of appropriations

       The bill authorizes to be appropriated $10,000,000 for FY 
     1995 and such sums for FY 1996 and 1997.

                          ____________________