[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 149 (Thursday, December 1, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[Congressional Record: December 1, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
STATEMENTS OF INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
By Mr. GORTON (for himself, Mr. Bryan and Mr. McCain):
S. 2567. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend
the exemption for commercial aviation from the transportation fuels
tax; to the Committee on Finance.
the commercial aviation fuel tax exemption extension act
Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation
on behalf of myself, Senator Bryan, and Senator McCain to extend the
current tax exemption on commercial aviation fuel which is due to
expire on October 1, 1995.
Over the past 4 years, U.S. airlines have lost over $12 billion.
During that time they have either canceled or deferred orders and
options for more than 1,000 aircraft. As a result, 125,000 aircraft
manufacturing jobs have been eliminated. Each aircraft order that is
canceled translates into job losses of approximately 250 airline
employees and almost 5,000 manufacturing employees.
If the 4.3-cents-per-gallon tax goes into effect on October 1, 1995,
it will cost the airlines more than $527 million annually. It will only
escalate employee layoffs, aircraft order cancellations, and service
cutbacks. Recognizing this, the chairman of President Clinton's own
National Airline Commission has written to the President to urge that
the exemption be extended.
Mr. President, I recognize that this is the last day of the 103d
Congress, and that this legislation will not be enacted prior to
adjournment. Nonetheless, I am introducing this bill to underscore the
importance of this issue and to serve notice that I will reintroduce it
at the beginning of the 104th Congress.
Mr. President, a majority of Senators have already indicated their
support for an extension of the jet fuel tax waiver. I ask unanimous
consent that the following items be printed in full in the Record.
A copy of a letter to President Clinton signed by 56
Senators.
Letters to the President from Senators Hollings, Faircloth,
and Helms and Congressmen Kyl, Inhofe, Santorum, Watt, Quinn,
McCurdy, and Byrne.
A letter to the President signed by the leadership of the
House Public Works Committee.
Letters from Arkansas Governor Jim Guy Tucker, Texas
Governor Ann Richards and Hawaii Governor Jim Waihee.
A list of organizations supporting extension of the waiver.
A letter to the President from the Transportation Trades
Department of the AFL-CIO.
A letter to the President from former Virginia Governor
Gerald Baliles, chairman of the National Airline Commission.
A list of airports that support extension of the waiver.
Mr. President, extension of the fuel tax exemption for the airlines
is vitally important to the health of the entire aviation industry.
This industry has suffered through four devastating years and is just
now beginning to show signs of improvement. The airlines must be
allowed to recover and cannot afford one more enormous tax increase.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC, October 7, 1994.
President William J. Clinton,
The White House,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. President: In 1993, when Congress enacted the
Administration's $500 billion deficit reduction plan, an
overwhelming majority of Members of the United States Senate
believed that the 4.3 cent per gallon tax on transportation
fuels should not apply to the financially troubled airline
industry. While the Senate passed version of the bill
included a full five year exemption for the airline industry,
the compromise reached by the conference committee reduced
the exemption to two years. The exemption expires on October
1, 1995.
In the meantime, the airline industry continues to
struggle. Over the past four years, the industry's losses
have totaled a staggering $12.8 billion. Although there have
been some signs of recovery, the industry suffered $150
million in losses in the first half of 1994. The possibility
of the fuel tax applying to the industry could not come at a
worse time. The industry is faced with massive fleet
replacement restrictions mandated by the government. It is
conservatively estimated that it would cost $7-$8 billion a
year for the industry to meet noise requirements, as well as
replace aging aircraft.
In its final report last year, the National Airline
Commission stated that to return the industry to
profitability, Congress must act to ``relieve the airline
industry of its unfair tax and user fee burden.'' In
addition, the Commission recognized that the airline industry
is already under an enormous tax burden. Adding an additional
tax at this point will cause even greater losses and layoffs,
and is not in the best interests of our nation's travel and
tourism industry.
Given the current state of the airline industry, and the
potential adverse impact of new taxes on the industry, we are
requesting that the Administration include in its FY 1996
budget an extension of the tax exemption on domestic jet fuel
through September 30, 1998. Providing this exemption will
give this beleaguered industry a chance to resolve other
pressing financial issues and find firmer economic ground in
its attempt to compete in the global marketplace.
Sincerely,
Richard H. Bryan, Paul Simon, Claiborne Pell, Lauch
Faircloth, John Glenn, Richard Shelby, Jim Sasser, Don
Nickles, Byron Dorgan, Kay Bailey Hutchison, Charles
Robb, Ben Nighhorse Campbell, Harris Wofford, John
McCain.
Also, Harlan Mathews, Arlen Specter, Christopher Dodd,
Larry Pressler, Kent Conrad, Ted Stevens, Harry Reid,
Dan Coats, Orrin Hatch, Paul Sarbanes, John Danforth,
David L. Boren, Slade Gorton, Frank H. Murkowski, Sam
Nunn, Thad Cochran, John Warner, and Connie Mack.
Also, Howell Heflin, Alfonse D'Amato, Malcolm Wallop,
Strom Thurmond, Daniel K. Akaka, Joseph I. Lieberman,
Patty Murray, Nancy Landon Kassebaum, Bob Dole, Mark
Hatfield, Carol Moseley-Braun, Dennis DeConcini, Jeff
Bingaman, William S. Cohen, Herb Kohl, Robert F.
Bennett, Tom Harkin, Pete Domenici, Robert C. Smith,
Kit Bond, Paul D. Coverdell, Barbara A. Mikulski,
Daniel K. Inouye, Hank Brown.
____
Committee on Commerce, Science,
and Transportation,
Washington, DC, November 4, 1994.
The President,
The White House,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. President: On October 7, 1994, fifty-six of my
colleagues wrote to you expressing their desire to extend the
current gasoline tax exemption for the airline industry. I
want to let you know that I too support the need to extend
further the exemption. In 1993, in accordance with the
Administration's $500 billion deficit reduction plan, the
House and Senate both agreed that a two-year exemption of the
4.3 cents per gallon gasoline tax should apply to the
commercial airline industry due to its precarious economic
situation. The exemption expires on October 1, 1995, and I
believe it should be extended.
When you first took office, you visited Seattle and met
with the aircraft manufacturers and airline CEOs to stress
the importance of this industry to our economic recovery.
While the economic recovery of our nation continues, the
imposition of a fuel tax could have a harmful impact on the
airlines' chances for economic recovery. Over the last four
years the industry has lost more than $12.8 billion. The
airlines' ability to provide service, particularly to small
communities, is at risk and could be at greater risk should
the fuel tax apply to them. I urge you to support an
extension of the exemption until September 30, 1998, so that
the industry may continue to work on its economic problems.
With kindest regards, I am
Sincerely,
Ernest F. Hollings,
Chairman.
____
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC, October 10, 1994.
Hon. William J. Clinton,
Office of the President,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. President: In 1993 when Congress enacted the
Administration's $500 billion deficit reduction plan, an
overwhelming majority of Members of the United States Senate
believed that the 4.3 cent per gallon tax on transportation
fuels should not apply to the financially troubled airline
industry. As a result, a compromise was reached to defer the
implementation of the tax on the airline industry until
October 1, 1995.
As you recognized when you established the National Airline
Commission, the industry--which is critical to the economic
development of our country and to our balance of trade
payments--continues to struggle. Over the past four years,
the industry's losses have totaled a staggering $12.8
billion. Although there have been some signs of recovery, the
industry suffered $150 million in losses in the first half of
1994.
The prospect of this jet fuel tax applying to this industry
effective in October of next year is alarming. If the tax had
been in effect this year, it would have added a new tax
burden of $527 million per year to the industry--clearly
worsening the industry's financial situation. As recognized
by your Commission, this industry is already under an
enormous tax burden. In addition to federal income taxes and
state taxes, the passenger and cargo excise taxes which are
equivalent to a 45.82 per gallon fuel tax. In addition, the
airlines indirectly pay or collect a 10% ticket tax and
numerous other fees. Overall, about 25% of the price of a
ticket goes to taxes.
The possibility of the fuel tax applying to this industry
could not come at a worse time. The industry is faced with
massive fleet replacement restrictions--mandated by the
government. it is conservatively estimated that it would cost
$7-$8 billion a year for the industry to meet noise
requirements, as well as replace existing aircraft.
In order to restructure itself and remain competitive, the
industry has let thousands of employees go because of
financial losses. Since 1992, over 20,000 employees have been
furloughed or terminated at our major airlines. At the same
time, the industry has deferred billions of dollars of
capital investment because of this bleak economic situation.
This deferral itself has meant that the industry will employ
tens of thousands fewer people this year than expected.
In its final report last year, the National Airline
Commission stated that to return the industry to
profitability, Congress must act to ``relieve the airline
industry of its unfair tax and user fee burden.'' The airline
industry and its 540,000 employees, joined by the aircraft
manufacturing industry, ask you to give serious attention to
your Commission's recommendation and continue the industry's
exemption from the 4.3 cent per gallon transportation fuel
tax beyond its October, 1995 expiration date. Otherwise, the
industry will be faced with the need to layoff additional
employees and continue to shrink. This is not in the interest
of our nation's travel and tourism industry which is so
critical to this country.
Given the state of the industry, we are requesting that the
Administration extend the tax exemption on domestic jet fuel
that expires on September 30, 1995 to September 30, 1998.
This would give this beleaguered industry a chance to resolve
other pressing financial issues and find firmer economic
ground in its attempt to compete in the global marketplace.
Sincerely,
Jesse Helms,
Lauch Faircloth,
____
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC, October 14, 1994.
Hon. Bill Clinton,
President of the United States of America,
The White House,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. President: The Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act
of 1993 included provisions to exempt the financially
troubled airline industry from the 4.3 cents per gallon tax
on transportation fuels for a period of two years. The
exemption expires on October 1, 1995.
As you know, the airline industry continues to struggle,
with industry losses over the last four years totalling more
than $12 billion. Although there have been some signs of
recovery; losses totalled $150 million in the first half of
1994 alone. Those continuing losses come at a time when the
industry is facing costly federal mandates to modify its
fleet, e.g. to meet noise requirements, and replace aging
aircraft--at a cost of between $7 billion and $8 billion. The
imposition of the fuel tax at the start of the next fiscal
year could not come at a worse time.
Given the state of the airline industry and the adverse
impact new taxes are likely to have on its ability to recover
and thrive, I urge you to include in your FY96 budget an
extension of the tax exemption on domestic jet fuel through
September 30, 1998.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Jon Kyl,
Member of Congress.
____
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC, October 27, 1994.
The President,
The White House,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. President: I am writing to express my concern
about the impending expiration of the transportation fuel tax
exemption.
In 1993, when Congress enacted the Administration's $500
billion deficit reduction plan, it included a 4.3 cent-per-
gallon tax on transportation fuels. However, because of the
immense financial losses plaguing the airline industry, the
tax was deferred until 1993.
In the past four years, the industry's losses have exceeded
$12 billion, while more than 120,000 airline employees have
lost their jobs and 125,000 U.S. aircraft manufacturing jobs
have been eliminated.
Moreover, the industry is now facing government-mandated
fleet replacements to meet ``Stage 3'' aircraft noise
requirements at a cost of roughly $7-8 billion a year to the
industry for the foreseeable future.
In its final report last year, the National Airline
Commission recognized the industry must be relieved of its
``unfair tax and user fee burden,'' and recommended
``exempting airline fuel from any proposed transportation
fuel tax.'' We ask that you give serious attention to that
recommendation and continue the industry's exemption from the
jet fuels tax before it expires in 1995.
Providing the exemption will give the airline industry a
chance to regain its financial footing and remain competitive
in the international marketplace.
Sincerely,
James M. Inhofe,
Member of Congress.
____
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC, November 1, 1994.
Hon. William Jefferson Clinton,
The White House,
Washington, DC
Dear Mr. President: I am writing with regard to the October
1, 1995 expiration of the airline industry fuel tax
exemption.
The 1993 Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (OBRA) imposed a
new 4.3 cents per gallon tax on transportation fuels. The
conference agreement for the OMRA '93 bill provided a short-
term exemption for gasoline and jet fuel used in commercial
aviation. That exemption is set to expire next year, however,
and the tax will become effective for commercial aviation on
October 1st. A floor stocks tax assessment is also scheduled
to become effective on that same date.
In preparing your budget recommendations for fiscal year
1996, I hope you would review the current airline industry
tax exemption and consider an extension of that exemption in
hopes of bolstering the industry's economic recovery. Over
the past four years, the airline industry as a whole has
suffered losses of $12.8 billion. Since 1990 in particular,
U.S. airlines have had workforce reductions of 120,000 and
have witnessed corresponding reductions of 125,000 employees
in the aircraft manufacturing sector due to cancellation or
deferment of approximately 1,000 aircraft orders and options.
Federal tax policies have contributed directly to the
industry's financial problems. Tax collection from the
industry over the past four years has resulted in cumulative
losses of $12 billion. As jet fuel remains the industry's
second largest operating cost for airlines, the pending
imposition of the new fuels tax carries a projected annual
cost to airlines of $527 million. As the industry struggles
to regain its financial footing, this new tax will be a
further setback and could exacerbate additional employee
layoffs, aircraft order cancellations, and service cutbacks.
I appreciate your time and consideration of this matter.
Sincerely,
Rick Santorum,
Member of Congress.
____
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC, October 27, 1994.
Hon. William J. Clinton,
The White House,
Washington, DC
Dear Mr. President: I am writing to express my concern
about the scheduled imposition of the fuel tax on the airline
industry. This tax on commercial aviation jet fuel was
included as part of last year's budget deficit reduction
package and is scheduled to go into effect on October 1,
1995.
USAir, which is a major employer and has a hub at the
Charlotte Airport in my congressional district, has expressed
deep concern about the jet fuel tax. USAir is struggling
particularly hard to recover from the huge losses suffered by
the airline industry during the recession and from other
business adversities. The imposition of the fuel tax would
have a major, adverse effect on its ability to recover.
Because of the importance of USAir and the airline industry
to the economic health of my congressional district and the
Nation as a whole, I ask you to consider including a
deferment of the fuel tax for the industry in the
Administration's budget for FY 1996. Deferring the tax until
the industry is better able to sustain it will greatly assist
in the industry's recovery and will contribute to the
improving economic health and employment picture of the
Nation.
Thank you for you attention to this request. I look forward
to continuing to work with you on important issues in the
balance of this Congress and next year.
Sincerely,
Melvin L. Watt.
____
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC, October 18, 1994.
President William J. Clinton,
The White House,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. President: I am writing to you regarding a tax
imposed on transportation fuels, which was part of your
budget reconciliation plan enacted last year. This additional
tax on transportation fuels of 4.3 cents-per-gallon was
imposed with a two-year deferment, in the hopes that by 1995
the airline industry would be in better financial standing
and consequently able to handle the additional tax burden.
Unfortunately, as I am sure you are aware, the financial
situation of the airline industry has only gotten worse.
Financial losses, along with the loss of some 60,000 airline
jobs and an already-imposed ticket tax of 10% make the
airlines unable to handle any further tax burdens. Moreover,
the size of the airline industry makes its financial
viability essential to our country's economic recovery. For
these reasons, I urge you to consider a continued deferment
of this fuel tax. I ask that this deferment be imposed
indefinitely so that the airline industry can once again gain
firm financial standing.
I'm sure you would agree that the airline industry greatly
contributes to the economic stability of our country. If I
can assist you further regarding this matter, please do not
hesitate to contact me.
Thank you very much for your consideration of this issue.
Very truly yours,
Jack Quinn,
Member of Congress.
____
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC, October 20, 1994.
Hon. William Jefferson Clinton,
The President,
The White House,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. President: I am writing to express my concern
about the impending expiration of transportation fuel tax
exemption.
In 1993, when Congress enacted the Administration's $500
billion deficit reduction plan, it included a 4.3 cent-per-
gallon tax on transportation fuels. However, because of the
immense financial losses plaguing the airline industry, the
tax was deferred until 1995.
In the past four years, the industry's losses have exceeded
$12 billion, while more than 120,000 airline employees have
lost their jobs and 125,000 U.S. aircraft manufacturing jobs
have been eliminated.
Moreover, the industry is now facing government-mandated
fleet replacements to meet ``Stage 3'' aircraft noise
requirements, at a cost of roughly $7-8 billion a year to the
industry for the foreseeable future.
In its final report last year, the National Airline
Commission recognized the industry must be relieved of its
``unfair tax and user fee burden,'' and recommended
``exempting airline fuel from any proposed transportation
fuel tax.'' We ask that you give serious attention to that
recommendation and include in the Administration's budget
next year a continuation of the industry's exemption from the
jet fuels tax.
Providing the exemption will give the airline industry a
chance to regain its financial footing and remain competitive
in the international marketplace.
Sincerely,
Dave McCurdy.
____
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC, October 28, 1994.
Hon. William J. Clinton,
The White House,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. President: I am writing to raise my concerns about
the 4.3 cents-per-gallon gasoline tax that passed last year
but was deferred for the airline industry until October 1,
1995. With the airline industry continuing to experience
financial losses, I ask that you continue your strong
commitment to strengthening the airline industry by deferring
the imposition of this tax in your budget proposals until the
airline industry is in better financial shape.
This issue is of particular concern to my constituents
because of the economic stimulus that one particular carrier,
USAir, has in Virginia. USAir is Virginia's largest air
carrier employing over 4,947 people and pumping over $2
billion into the Virginia economy annually. Their economic
viability is intricately linked to the economic health and
well-being of many of my constituents, with their payroll
exceeding $12,545,924 in the 11th Congressional District.
As you know, when the 4.3 cents-per-gallon tax passed in
August, 1993, as part of the deficit reduction plan, it was
deferred for the airline industry until October 1, 1995, with
the hope that the industry would be out of the financial
woods at that time. A 10% ticket tax was imposed specifically
in lieu of a fuel tax, which means that the industry is
already contributing $5.129 billion toward deficit reduction.
Recent reports indicate that the industry continues to
experience financial woes. Imposing the gas tax on top of the
10% ticket tax at this sensitive time could jeopardize the
health and viability of the airline industry and threaten our
nation's economic recovery. Therefore, I ask that you
continue to defer this tax in your budget proposals until the
airline industry is in better financial shape.
Thank you for your leadership on this matter and your
commitment to strengthening the airline industry. I look
forward to continuing to work with you on issues affecting
the health of the airline industry.
Sincerely,
Leslie L. Byrne,
Member of Congress.
Committee on Public Works
and Transportation,
Washington, DC, November 16, 1994.
The President,
The White House,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. President: We are writing to urge that the
Administration include in its FY 1996 budget an extension
(through September 30, 1998) of the airline industry
exemption from the domestic jet fuel tax. A continued
exemption is justified as a matter of fairness to the airline
industry which is already paying more than its share of
special taxes. The extended exemption will also enable the
industry to continue its recovery from recent catastrophic
financial losses, which have undermined the industries'
ability to compete in the global marketplace.
The airline industry is already subject to an overwhelming
array of special taxes. Federal taxes imposed exclusively, or
primarily, on the airlines include a 10% excise tax on
airline tickets, a 6.25% excise tax on cargo shipments, a $6
per passenger international departure tax, special taxes to
support customs, immigration, and agricultural inspection
services, and a $3 passenger facilitation charge at many
major airports. These taxes impose costs of $6.7 billion a
year on an industry with total revenues of $64 billion a
year.
The heavy taxes have been an important factor in the
industry's cumulative losses, which exceeded $12 billion over
the past four years. If the industry is profitable in 1994,
profits are not expected to exceed $1 billion.
The industry's poor financial results have to led the
elimination of 125, 000 high paying jobs. The impacts have
extended beyond the airlines and into this country's most
successful export business--aircraft manufacturing. Since
1990, U.S. airlines have canceled or deferred orders and
options for more than 1,000 new aircraft.
In recognition of the airlines' financial difficulties and
high tax burden, the 1993 deficit reduction package exempted
airlines from the new 4.3 cents per gallon tax on jet fuel
for two years. Since the condition of the airline industry
has not changed significantly, the exemption should be
continued. The industry is in no position to pay the
additional $527 million a year which this tax would cost. The
elastic demand for air travel prevents airlines from raising
their fares to cover these added costs. The price sensitive
market means any increase in air fares is likely to be offset
by a decline in passengers. An additional $527 million tax
burden would wipe out much of the industry's estimated profit
for 1995, further exacerbating the industry's tenuous
financial position.
Mr. President, as your Administration prepares its fiscal
year 1996 budget, we respectfully ask that this budget
include an extension of the exemption of airlines from the
commercial aviation fuel tax, through September 30, 1998.
This action would forcefully demonstrate your
Administration's strong commitment to the vital travel and
tourism sector of our nation's economy.
Sincerely yours,
Bud Shuster,
Ranking Republican, Committee on Public Works
Transportation.
William F. Clinger, Jr,
Ranking Republican, Subcommittee on Aviation.
Norman Y. Mineta,
Chair, and Committee on Public Works and Transportation.
James L. Oberstar,
Chairman, Subcommittee on Aviation.
____
State of Arkansas,
Office of the Governor,
Little Rock, AR, November 1, 1994.
Hon. William J. Clinton,
President of the United States,
The White House,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. President: On October 1, 1995, the airline
industry's exemption from the 4.3 cents per gallon
transportation fuels tax will expire. Unfortunately with that
date fast approaching, the U.S. airlines are far from being
able to absorb an additional $527 million annually. Still
recovering from four years of staggering losses totaling over
$12 billion and with $150 million loss during the fist half
of this year, any new tax could not come at a more fragile
time for the industry.
As your National Airline Commission indicated in its report
last year, the airlines are already under heavy tax burden.
In addition to the federal and state taxes paid by all
businesses, the airlines pay over $5.4 billion annually in
passenger and cargo excise taxes--the equivalent of a 45.8
cents per gallon fuel tax. Now at a time when the industry
also faces fleet replacement costs conservatively estimated
at $7 to $8 billion a year to comply with mandated quiet-
technology requirements, the prospect of a new tax is
especially devastating.
As a former governor, you understand that a healthy U.S.
airline industry is critical to the vitality of a state's
economy, especially in the way it serves as a catalyst for
our booming travel and tourism sector.
On behalf of the state of Arkansas, I respectfully request
that your administration's FY 1996 budget include an
extension of the tax exemption on commercial aviation fuel
through September 30, 1998.
Sincerely,
Jim Guy Tucker.
____
State of Texas,
Office of the Governor,
Austin, TX, October 25, 1994.
Hon. William J. Clinton,
The President,
The White House,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. President: On October 1, 1995, the airline
industry's exemption from the 4.3 cents per gallon
transportation fuels tax will expire. Unfortunately, with
that date fast approaching, the U.S. airlines are far from
being able to absorb an additional $527 million annually.
Still recovering from four years of staggering losses
totaling over $12 billion and with $150 million loss during
the fist half of this year, any new tax could not come at a
more fragile time for the industry.
As your National Airline Commission indicated in its report
last year, the airlines are already under a heavy tax burden.
In addition to the federal and state taxes paid by all
businesses, the airlines pay over $5.4 billion annually in
passenger and cargo excise taxes--the equivalent of a 45.8
cents per gallon fuel tax. Now, at a time when the industry
also faces fleet replacement costs conservatively estimated
at $7 to $8 billion a year to comply with mandated quiet-
technology requirements, the prospect of a new tax is
especially devastating.
As a former governor, you understand that a healthy U.S.
airline industry is critical to the vitality of a state's
economy, especially in the way it serves as a catalyst for
our booming travel and tourism sector. Because the airlines
have such a large direct impact on the Texas economy--
boarding over 48 million passengers annually and employing
over 61,000 in this state--it is crucial that government does
all it can to assist the industry in its recovery.
On behalf of the state of Texas, I respectfully request
that your administration's FY 1996 budget include an
extension of the tax exemption on commercial aviation fuel
through September 30, 1998.
Sincerely,
Ann W. Richards,
Governor.
____
Executive Chambers,
Honolulu, HI, November 2, 1994.
The President,
The White House,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. President: I urge you to include in your Fiscal
Year 1996 budget a two-year extension of the tax exemption
presently authorized on commercial aviation fuel. In my view,
the airlines are still struggling to become consistently
profitable and need assistance in reducing their tax burden.
The State of Hawaii has provided financial support for
airlines serving the State through a subsidy to reduce
airport fees and charges. The special fund of the State
airport program will provide the subsidy through the 1997
fiscal year. Funds came from cash reserves generated by
airport concessions and were intended for airport improvement
projects.
With Hawaii's dependence on reliable, regular air service
to support our tourism industry and for intra- and inter-
state transportation for our citizens, we feel it is urgent
that our nation's airline industry be assisted until it
becomes financially stable. Extending the fuel tax exemption
will provide some of the relief they need.
Your favorable consideration of our request is appreciated.
With kindest regards,
Sincerely,
John Waihee.
____
December 1994.
The President,
The White House,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. President: For two reasons, next year will be an
extremely important one for the travel and tourism industry:
Your Administration will highlight the significance of our
industry to our nation's economy by hosting the White House
Conference on Travel and Tourism. Unfortunately, next year
will also be the year in which the backbone of our industry,
the U.S. airline industry, will lose its exemption from the
4.3 cents per gallon tax on transportation fuels. As your
Administration works to develop its budget for the coming
fiscal year, we respectfully ask that you extend the current
exemption on commercial aviation fuel.
As you are probably aware, the U.S. airline industry has
lost a staggering $12.8 billion since 1990. More devastating,
however, has been the decimation of airline, aircraft
manufacturing and travel and tourism jobs. During this same
period, nearly 120,000 U.S. airline employees and 125,000
U.S. aircraft manufacturing employees have lost their jobs.
While the industry has recently shown small signs of
recovery, U.S. airlines collectively suffered $150 million in
losses during the first half of 1994. Sadly, on October 1,
1995, the airline industry's exemption from the
transportation fuels tax will expire. At current consumption
levels, this new 4.3 cents per gallon tax will amount to an
additional $527 million annual burden on this industry.
Almost certainly, this new tax will wipe out any profit the
industry had hoped to make in 1995, and further exacerbate
the industry's already tenuous financial position. Because
the airlines have such a large impact on our economy--
transporting nearly 500 million passengers each year--they
are a major catalyst for the entire U.S. travel and tourism
industry, as well as the economy as a whole. Whether the fuel
tax results in higher fares or more service cutbacks, the
repercussions will be felt throughout our industry by hotel,
restaurant, rental car, and all other travel industry
employees.
In its final report to Congress and your Administration
last year, the National Airline Commission stated that, to
return the industry to profitability, Congress must act to
``relieve the airline industry of its unfair tax and user fee
burden.'' The Commission clearly recognized that the U.S.
airline industry is already under an enormous tax burden. In
addition to the federal and state taxes paid by all
businesses, the airline industry is currently paying over
$5.4 billion annually in passenger and cargo excise taxes--
the equivalent of a 45.8 cents per gallon fuel tax. Airlines
indirectly pay or collect a 10 percent ticket tax, a $6.00
International Departure Tax, a $6.50 Customs User Fee, a
$6.00 Immigration User Fee and a $1.45 Agriculture Inspection
Fee.
Mr. President, as your Administration prepares its Fiscal
Year 1996 budget, we respectfully ask that this budget
include an extension of the tax exemption on commercial
aviation fuel. With the White House Conference on Travel and
Tourism already underway, this one action would forcefully
demonstrate your Administration's strong commitment to this
vital sector of our nation's economy.
Sincerely,
Aerospace Industries Association, Air Freight Association
of America, Air Midwest, Inc., Air Wisconsin Airlines
Corporation, African-American Travel and Tourism Association,
Alamo Rent-A-Car, Allegheny Commuter Airlines, Inc.
Allied Tours, AlliedSignal, Inc., American Express Company,
American Hotel and Motel Association, American Recreation
Coalition, American Society of Travel Agents, Arizona
Airways, Inc.
Association of Retail Travel Agents, Atlantic Southeast
Airlines, Inc., Bemidji Aviation Services, Inc., The
BFGoodrich Company, The Boeing Company, Greater Boston
Convention and Visitors Bureau, Business Express, Inc.,
California Chamber of Commerce, California Travel Industry
Association, Cascadia Airlines.
Chautauqua Airlines, Inc., Chicago Convention and Tourism
Bureau, Citicorp Diners Club, Cleveland Growth Association,
Colorado Association of Commerce and Industry, Colorado Hotel
and Lodging Association, Colorado Ski Country USA, Comair,
Inc., CommutAir, Conquest Airlines Corporation.
Continental Express, Inc., CUC Travel Services, Inc.,
Dallas Convention and Visitors Bureau, Denver Metro
Convention and Visitors Bureau, Embry-Riddle Aeronautical
University, Empire Airlines, Executive Airlines, Inc.,
Fairmont Hotels.
Flagship Airlines, Inc., FloridaGulf Airlines, General
Electric Company, Georgia Hospitality and Travel Association,
GP-Express Airlines, Inc., Gray Line Air.
Great Lakes Aviation, Ltd., Gulfstream International
Airlines, Inc., Greater Hartford Tourism District, The Hertz
Corporation, Hilton Hotels & Resorts, Hilton International,
Holiday Inn, Honeywell, Inc., Horizon Air Industries, Inc.,
Hospitality Sales and Marketing Association International.
Greater Houston Partnership, Hyatt Hotels Corporation,
Hyatt Regency Denver, Inter-continental Hotels, International
Airline Passengers Association, International Association of
Convention and Visitor Bureaus, Jetstream International
Airlines, Inc., Las Vegas Convention and Visitors Authority,
Liberty Express Airlines, Lone Star Airlines.
Louisiana Travel Promotion Association, McDonnell Douglas
Corporation, Meeting Professionals International, Mesa
Airlines, Inc., Mesaba Aviation, Inc., Greater Miami
Convention and Visitors Bureau, Michigan Hotel, Motel and
Resort Association, Greater Minneapolis Convention and
Visitors Bureau, Nantucket Airlines/Cape Air.
National Air Carrier Association, National Association of
RV Parks and Campgrounds, National Council of Area and
Regional Tourism Organizations, National Park Hospitality
Association, National Restaurant Association, New York State
Hospitality and Tourism Association, Pacific Air.
Paradise Island Airlines, Inc., Passenger Vessel
Association, Piedmont Airlines, Inc., Greater Pittsburgh
Convention and Visitors Bureau, Greater Raleigh Convention
and Visitors Bureau, Recreational Vehicle Industry
Association, Red Lion Hotels & Inns, Regional Airline
Association.
Rockwell Collins Commercial Avionics, Sandals Resorts, San
Francisco Convention & Visitors Bureau, SkyWay Airlines,
SkyWest Airlines, Inc., Society of Travel Agents in
Government, Trans States Airlines, Inc., Trans World Express,
Inc.
Travel Council of North Carolina, Travel Industry
Association of America, Travel and Tourism Government Affairs
Council, United States Tour Operators Association, United
Technologies Corporation, Washington Airports Task Force,
Wings Airways, Wings West Airlines, Inc., Wyndham Hotels and
Resorts.
____
Transportation Trades
Department,
Washington, DC, Nov. 3, 1994.
The President,
The White House,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. President: Since 1990, the U.S. airlines have lost
a combined total of more than $12.8 billion. While the
financial suffering has been substantial, what is clearly
most distressing is the toll these loses have had on the
industry's employees. In the preceding four years, nearly
120,000 U.S. airline employees and 125,000 U.S. aircraft
manufacturing employees have lost their jobs.
During this same period, employees of nearly every U.S.
airline have sacrificed pay and/or benefits annually
totalling in the billions of dollars. Unfortunately, while
employees have contributed their fair share to help bring
this industry back to sustained profitability, next year the
government will impose a new commercial aviation fuel tax
which will almost certainly result in additional airline
employee layoffs. As representatives of the vast majority of
these employees whose jobs have already been lost, we ask
that, as your Administration works to develop its budget for
the coming fiscal year, you not jeopardize the concessions
made by labor and extend the current exemption on commercial
aviation fuel through September, 1998.
In its final report to Congress and your Administration
last year, the National Airline Commission stated that, to
return the industry to profitability, Congress must act to
``relieve the airline industry of its unfair tax and user fee
burden.'' The Commission clearly recognized that U.S.
airlines are already under an enormous tax burden, and
currently pay taxes and fees totalling the equivalent of a
45.8 cents per gallon fuel tax. Although the industry has
recently begun to show modest signs of financial improvement,
U.S. airlines collectively suffered losses of $150 million
during the first half of 1994. When the industry's exemption
from the transportation fuels tax expires on October 1, 1995,
this new 4.3 cents per gallon tax will amount to an
additional $527 million annual burden on this industry--a
burden our employees simply cannot bear.
Mr. President, airline industry employees are some of the
most highly-trained, productive and efficient employees of
any U.S. industry. We ask that you not jeopardize the fragile
economic environment under which our employees work, and
extend the current tax exemption on commercial aviation fuel
through September, 1998.
Sincerely,
J. Randolph Babbitt,
President, Air Line Pilots Association.
Dee Maki,
Association of Flight Attendants.
William Scheri,
General Vice President, International Association of
Machinists and Aerospace Workers.
Ron Carey,
President, International Brotherhood of Teamsters.
Barry Krasner,
National President, National Air Traffic Controllers,
Association/MEBA.
Sonny Hall,
International President, Transport Workers Union of
America.
____
Hunton & Williams,
Richmond, VA Oct. 18, 1994.
The President,
The White House
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. President: Among the bright spots on today's
economic landscape is the improved performance of the U.S.
airline industry. While problems such as high debt levels
ensure continued uncertainty, the fact remains that the
trends have been moving in the right direction over the past
year.
As the administration begins to focus on the legislative
agenda for the new Congress, you will hear a great deal of
discussion about the issue of fuel taxes on the commercial
airline industry. As you might remember, the National Airline
Commission addressed this issue in its report.
The Commission recommended that no new tax on commercial
airline fuel be imposed.
In the commentary since the Commisison's report, our tax
recommendations have been characterized as special ``tax
relief.'' Nothing could be further from the truth. I would
like to share with you the Commission's thinking on the fuel
tax, and then conclude with a general comment on our overall
approach to tax issues.
The commercial airline industry has never been subjected to
a federal fuel tax. Unlike road improvements which are funded
through a fuel tax, aviation infrastructure improvements are
funded through the airline and cargo ticket tax. Thus, the
source of revenue for those purposes already exists.
The Commission could see no good public policy reason for
changing the tax treatment of airline fuel, one of the
industry's two highest cost items. In fact, one could hardly
call our recommendation ``tax relief'' since we were not
recommending the reduction of a tax, but that a new tax not
be imposed.
As Chairman of the Commission, I hope you will support
efforts to extend permanently the two-year exemption from the
4.3 cent fuel tax contained in the 1993 budget legislation.
Allow me to conclude with a few general comments about the
Commission's tax recommendations.
The National Airline Commission examined the entire range
of tax laws affecting the airline industry, as required by
our enabling legislation. The industry, and others, had many
ideas for our consideration. In some cases we took action, in
others we did not. In those areas in which we did make
recommendations, we believed there were important public
policy reasons to do so, such as the recommendation that
there be no new fuel tax.
Our recommendations had nothing to do with ``tax relief''
for the industry. We rejected several ideas that would have
injected more cash into the industry, and advanced only those
we believed made sense in a critical, high tech, industry
struggling to compete in the 1990's. If tax relief for its
own sake was our goal, we would have focused in other areas.
Our only goal was to help make sense of the tax treatment of
this industry.
I have been disappointed that some have sought to portray
the Commission's recommendation as some sort of special
interest pleading. I wanted you to have a clear sense of our
thinking. I would be happy to discuss this issue with you at
any time.
With kindest regards, I am
Sincerely,
Gerald L. Baliles.
____
Airports That Support Extension of the Waiver
The following is a list of airports that have agreed to
either sign on the ATA airports letter or send its own letter
to the President:
AUS--Austin.
BUR--Burbank.
CLE--Cleveland.
CMH--Ohio.
DCA--Wash. National.
TPA--Tampa.
DFW--Dallas Fort Worth.
DIA--Denver.
EWR--Newark.
GRR--Michigan.
IAD--Dulles.
JFK--New York.
LAS--Las Vegas.
LGA--New York.
MDW--Chicago.
OAK--Oakland.
ORD--Chicago.
STL--St. Louis.
____
Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena,
Airport Authority,
November 2, 1994.
Ron Ricks
Vice President, Governmental Affairs, Southwest Airlines Co.,
Dallas, TX.
Dear Ron: Yes, I agree with you! In fact, the aviation
industry is in no position to bear the burden of financing
irrelevant federal programs. It is equally important that
airports and airlines together press for increased funding
levels in the AIP programs. The money is already there and
needs to be appropriated for desperately needed airport
infrastructure.
As I see it, these are issues on which we both can and
should stand side by side as a unified voice urging the
Administration and Congress to not kill the goose that lays
the golden egg-Air Transportation.
Let me know when and how you want to proceed with sending
the letter to the President.
Very truly yours,
Thomas E. Greer,
Executive Director.
______
By Mr. WALLOP:
S. 2568. A bill to enhance the management of public lands, reduce
Federal expenditures associated with such lands, and empower States
with respect to the ownership and control over lands that are or have
been part of the public domain, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
the public land emancipation and management act
Mr. WALLOP. Mr. President, I am today introducing the Public
Land Emancipation and Management Improvement Act [PLEA] which, when
enacted, will greatly limit the ponderous Federal influence on the
West.
In the West today, we are faced with an administration that is
reaching unprecedented levels of government intervention into every
aspect of each of our lives using the terms ``environmentalism'' and
``fair market value'' as spears which they chuck at every perceived
public resource management problem.
Increasingly, the role of Federal Government has become one of
``ruling'' the people rather than one of ``serving'' he people. They
are the masters; we have become their servants.
I do not often agree with the Clinton administration, nor its
spokespersons, but no one has expressed the problem in a more
articulate manner than the former Western Governor, and now, Secretary
of the Interior Bruce Babbitt.
Mr. President, listen to excerpts from a speech he gave while
Governor at an National Governors Association meeting in Denver.
He said,
I share the concerns of my fellow governors. My sense of
alarm is perhaps a little more extreme. A lot of observers in
this country feel that, taken on a historic scale, the states
are obsolete, they are headed the way of the passenger pigeon
and the Edsel. Even the optimist, I think, would say the
states at best are in dire danger of becoming simply
administrative agents of Washington * * * it didn't begin
that way.
He goes on to say,
the proper role between states and the Federal Government * *
* was the centerpiece * * * of the most brilliant debate in
the history of western institutions.
* * * That debate * * * has gone neglected. The result is a
federal system * * * in total disarray.
* * * The United States Congress has lost all sense of
restraint. It no longer asks the question that Hamilton,
Madison and Jefferson considered to be the central question *
* * Is this an appropriate function for the Federal system?
* * * Hamilton and Jefferson would certainly ask * * * how
have we allowed their creation--a carefully layered
construction of federal, state and local responsibilities, to
become scrambled into one great undifferentiated, amorphous
omelet by a cook in Washington?
Mr. President, those words were spoken by a Federal chef who has
become so supreme at his craft as to make Julia Childs look like a fry-
cook.
Fourteen years have passed since Bruce Babbitt spoke those words in
the last year of the Carter administration--another Democratic
administration that had an ill-conceived agenda for the West. Today,
the current administration's concept of the ``New West'' has rapidly
degenerated to a ``war on the West.'' Government officials have been
transformed from environmental problem solvers to environmental storm
troopers with the power to punish, to prohibit, and to take. Virtually
all Federal agencies are making decisions on the use of land and
resources in unquestioning response to an ill-conceived environmental
agenda which ignores the human side of the equation and disregards the
concept of private property rights. Worse still, it ignores Governor
Babbitt's concern that the Federal Government has lost all sense of
restraint and the concepts of Jefferson and Madison.
In a 1994 speech to the Sierra Club's Annual Dinner, Secretary
Babbitt said:
We need a new western land ethic for non-wilderness. The
old concept of multiple use no longer fits the reality of the
new West. It must be a concept of public use. From this day
on, we must recognize the new reality that the highest and
best, most productive use, of western land will usually be
for public purposes--watershed, wildlife and recreation.
Typically, he made no distinction in this speech between public and
private land. Unlike his views in 1980 as a Western Governor, he now
feels that the Federal Government should be omnipotent.
The Clinton administration's agenda is clear, and only the users of
the public lands will become endangered in their war on the West.
Citizens have been threatened with rules and regulations denying access
to guns, rock collecting, and recreation.
In order to pay for increased control by big government, we see
repeated proposals to increase fees. Hunters, outfitters, radio
broadcast users, commercial air tour operators, ski area operators,
concessioners, and any other use that requires a Federal permit are
being asked to shoulder a bigger burden. Not all of these permit
holders will be able to afford to stay in business after paying the new
fees on top of existing expenses. In addition, many who have
traditionally enjoyed a cooperative partnership with the Federal
Government--including counties and municipalities--are now being asked
to help pay the costs for more Federal control. Further, they are asked
to cede back water rights, mineral rights and respass rights for
renewals of their permits. How ironic. How very contrary to the Clinton
campaign rhetoric.
The current furor over grazing fees is not a Federal deficit issue,
as portrayed by the administration and the media. It is, in fact, a
personal economic issue for thousands of rural, western families. If
implemented, this range reform will result in seriously reduced
revenues ironically to the Federal Government, but more importantly to
States and counties which will suffer from rules and regulations that
no one they know ever voted on.
Recently, the Secretary was forced by the courts to issue patents on
a Nevada gold mine. He had the nerve to characterize this as a steal
and give-away of land and minerals. It made for good press to the
uninformed. But the Secretary failed to state that the Barrick
Goldstrike Mines in Nevada have developed over 1,700 jobs that did not
exist before. It means millions of dollars in tax revenue to counties,
States, and yes, the Federal Government. The Secretary failed to
mention the billion dollars the company spent on developing
technologies to extract the mineral. That is $1 billion that did not
exist in the American economy before this mine was planned. He also
forgot to mention that the land was worth nothing, to the Federal
Government, until after the private sector had developed the technology
to recover the minerals.
Washington does not know how to mine anything. It never will know how
to mine minerals and Congress won't ever pay for a billion dollars'
worth of experimental technology. You know it and I know it. The wealth
and the jobs that have been created from these lands for America has
been realized by the private sector's willingness to commit capital and
technology to a plan it had no way of knowing was going to be
successful.
The battle in the war on the West, if won by this administration will
only serve to send the private mining sector to foreign countries. The
governments in those lands will not prohibit investors from achieving
success, boosting their economy, and employing their people. Nor will
they protect the environment.
Mr. President, as an example of the arrogance of which I speak, let
me also remind you that during the grazing debates, we were told by the
then director of the BLM ``that if Congress refuses to act, we will do
it administratively.'' That, Mr. President, is arrogance, and this
administration may never understand that laws in this country are not
made by residentially appointed bureaucrats, but by the Congress. When
the administration says to hell with them they are saying to hell with
us. The hell with America's citizens of the West.
Mr. President, more recently, Interior Secretary Babbitt seriously
missed the point in claiming that a Federal judge's recent decision to
take the gnatcatcher off the Endangered Species list was just the
result of a procedural error.
Any observer can see that Judge Stanley Sporkin's detailed analysis
of this case of administrative arrogance on the part of the
administration is almost a road map to some of the most serious
shortcomings of the Endangered Species Act. It highlights the abuses
that Babbitt has tolerated in his eagerness to show that he can make
the Endangered Species Act work. How different from the Babbitt of
1980. How sad that this man does not view his job as Secretary of
Interior, but still the advocate of the League of Conservative Voters.
Even more troubling is Babbitt's apparent willingness to defy the
courts. The Secretary says if Judge Sporkin doesn't immediately
reinstate protections for the gnatcatcher while the Government appeals
his ruling, he'll do it himself by declaring an emergency and invoke
the emergency listing procedures in the law so the Secretary of the
Interior can just ignore the courts.
Mr. President, allow me to mention the subject of ecosystem
management. What the Clinton team apparently likes about this ecosystem
approach is its sheer vagueness. If we don't understand what
``ecosystem health'' is we won't be aware when that policy fails. Since
most of us wouldn't recognize an ecosystem boundary if we fell on it,
there's no limit to the amount of real estate the agencies can claim
they need to ``protect the ecosystem.'' All in the name of the new
West.
This administration is trying to close down roads and rights-of-way
which are vital to the transportation, safety, law enforcement, and
general access of Western States.
Mr. President, it is time to take the war on the West seriously.
The Federal Government currently owns more than half of all the land
in the 12 Western States. Unfortunately, recent actions taken by the
Clinton administration have made it clear that the Federal Government
is managing these lands for the benefit of specific political interest
groups with little regard for the legitimate interests of Western
citizens and businesses. As a result, citizens of Western States have
little or no control over vast areas of land that were contemplated as
a source of their livelihood at the time of their statehood.
The radical ``new West'' reforms proposed by Secretary Babbitt and
others are designed primarily to limit or prevent commercial and even
some recreational uses of many federally managed lands. Where such uses
are allowed, land users face a daunting maze of Federal regulations,
redtape and increased fees and arrogance.
There is little hope on the horizon as storm clouds grow.
Proposed revisions to timber, mining, and grazing policies coupled
with aggressive application of environmental laws such as the
Endangered Species and Clean Water acts have only served to promote
economic uncertainty, with no resolution in sight. New initiatives to
revise western water law, hydropower projects, fish and wildlife
programs, and hunting regulations are just beginning to surface. The
assault on the West is real. There is a strong feeling in many Western
States that these policies should not be decided inside the beltway by
people who have no constituent interest or control. The Federal
Government has become too powerful, too prescriptive, too pervasive,
and too arrogant.
After personally witnessing Washington's increasing indifference--and
even hostility--toward the interests in the West, I believe there is a
simple, fair, and straightforward solution to these problems that can
be accomplished by transferring the ownership of much of this land from
the Federal Government to the States.
This legislation, when enacted, will approach but not provide equity
among the States. The playing field will never be completely level, but
this will help ensure that Western States have a chance to continue to
be a vital and productive part of this Nation, just as their eastern
counterparts have always been able to do. Other than Louisiana, no
State east of the 100th meridian has more than 14 percent of the lands
within its boundary tied up by the Federal Government.
Under this bill, at a State's behest, the Federal Government would be
prevented from owning more than 20 percent of the land area of any
State, excluding Indian lands. In those States where the Federal
ownership currently is higher than 20 percent, the President would be
required to select up to 20 percent of the land in the State that would
remain under Federal ownership. The remainder would be transferred to
the State unless the Governor determines that some portion of it should
remain under Federal ownership and control.
Recognizing the special nature of our national parks, these lands
would automatically be included within the 20 percent and would
therefore perpetually remain under Federal ownership. However, other
Western lands owned by the Federal Government would be turned over to
the States, where locally elected officials would be immediately
accountable to the citizens who have proven to be wise stwards for over
a century.
There will be those opposed to this proposal, some hunting and
fishing groups will at first panic citing their access as a major
problem. Yet when they think about the behavior and objectives of this
administration, I believe they will come to embrace its purpose. The
rules and regulations that were recently pulled back by the Forest
Service regarding firearms and law enforcement coupled with Forest
Service Chief Thomas's idea to impose a $100 Federal hunting license to
kill one elk because the elk once lived on a National Forest give some
insight to the fact there is an active movement to eliminate hunting,
guns, and other recreation on public lands.
Without fanfare, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has
decided that stocking trout and bass fish is a politically
incorrect ecological evil. It plans to prohibit this activity
on State and private, as well as Federal, lands.
I am quoting from an Austin Chase article in the Washington Times,
Mr. President, and I ask unanimous consent that the article be included
in the Record.
Additionally, today there is legislation, advanced by the
administration, working its way through Congress which would eliminate
any multiple use activity on a wildlife refuge, if a bureaucrat
declares it incompatible. And do not forget this is the administration
that pushed through the Brady bill and assault weapons ban ostensibly
to fight the war on crime but in reality the first ominous steps toward
gun control.
Others may fear that the States will only dispose of the previously
Federal lands for profit. Mr. President, let me tell you what just
happened in my own State with regard to that issue. There was a recent
effort by the State land board to dispose of certain State trust lands.
However, the citizens of Wyoming rose up and literally stopped the
venture in its tracks. It is my view that I trust citizens of a State
to be responsible, to care, and to better be able to effect policy at
the level of State and local government than are the unaffected Members
of Congress and the anonymous bureaucracy in Washington.
I firmly believe that the States will manage these lands better and
in a more cost-effective manner than the bloated bureaucracy. For
example, the Federal Government spends $60 million to collect $400
million in mineral royalties in Wyoming while the State achieves the
same result at a much lower cost. The identical cost saving rational
can easily be applied to other land management programs currently
conducted by the Federal Government.
Our fight is for the West. We need first to reestablish multiple-use
and the rights of Westerners and second we need to establish fairness
and equity among the States by returning their land to them.
The West constitutes some of the best of America--the best in
America, let us see that it is not the last of the best.
I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. I now ask unanimous
consent that the full text of this bill be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 2568
Be it enacted by the Senate and the House of
Representatives of the United States of America in Congress
assembled, That this Act may be referred to as the ``Public
Land Emancipation and Management Improvement Act''.
Sec. 2. Effective on January 1, 1998, all right, title, and
interest in and to any real property owned by the United
States that is or has been at any time part of the public
domain, including, but not limited to, lands that have been
withdrawn or disposed of and reacquired, is vested by
operation of law in the State in which such property is
located subject only to the limitations set forth in section
3 of this Act and any valid existing rights.
Sec. 3. For the purposes of this Act, the definition of
real property shall exclude:
(a) any lands or interests therein owned by the United
States as of January 1, 1998 within the exterior boundaries
of any unit of the National Park System;
(b) any lands or interests therein which the United States
holds title to in trust for the benefit of a federally
recognized Indian Tribe, a member thereof, or an individual
allottee;
(c) such lands as the President shall have identified for
continued federal retention, except that the total of all
lands and interests therein identified pursuant to this
subsection, when combined with any other lands or interests
therein owned by the United States, excluding only lands
included under subsections (b) or (d) of this section, may
not exceed twenty percent of the total acreage within any
given State; and
(d) any lands or interests therein which the Governor of
the State in which such lands are located does not wish to
have transferred pursuant to this Act and which the Governor
has identified in writing to the President prior to January
1, 1998 as not subject to transfer.
Sec. 4. Not later than January 1, 1997, the President shall
prepare a comprehensive inventory of all real property owned
by the Federal Government within each of the several States
and transmit such list to the Governor of each State and
shall accompany such list with an identification of all real
property which meets requirements of subsections 3 (a) or (b)
or which have been identified for continued Federal retention
under subsection 3(c).
Sec. 5. In the event that the identification of real
property under section 3(c) exceeds 20 percent of the total
acreage within a State, the Governor of the State may bring
an action to modify the list of lands in any Federal district
court within such State. Review shall be limited solely to
whether the acreage exceeds 20 percent of the total acreage
within the State. If the court concludes that the acreage
contained in the listing prepared pursuant to subsection 3(c)
does exceed 20 percent, then the court shall exclude such
acreage as is necessary to reduce the total to no more than
20 percent. The acreage to be excluded shall be based solely
on a priority list furnished by the Governor. The list shall
be final and shall not be subject to any review or
modification.
Sec. 6. For the purpose of this Act, the term ``State''
shall include the several States of the Union, the
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Guam, the Commonwealth of the
Northern Mariana Islands, American Samoa, and the Virgin
Islands.
Sec. 7. The Federal Government shall remain strictly liable
for the cost of any clean-up associated with hazardous
materials or contamination associated with any lands
transferred pursuant to this Act.
______
By Mr. STEVENS (for himself and Mr. Murkowski):
S. 2569. A bill to prohibit the United States from entering into any
international agreement which would prevent full implementation of the
United Nations moratorium on large-scale driftnet fishing on the high
seas; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
THE HIGH SEAS DRIFTNET FISHING MORATORIUM PROTECTION ACT
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, once again I come before this body
to introduce legislation to help protect our fishery resources. This
bill would prohibit the United States from entering into any agreement
that would prevent the full implementation of the United Nations
moratorium on high seas driftnet fishing.
In 1989, at the urging of Members of this body, the United States
introduced the resolution at the United Nations which established a
global moratorium on large-scale driftnet fishing. In 1991 the
President signed into law strong legislation to enforce that
moratorium.
While still not fully complied with in all the world's oceans, the
moratorium has been effective in the North Pacific. The Coast Guard has
worked closely with other Federal agencies to detect and pursue fishing
vessels that try to violate the moratorium in the North Pacific and the
Bering Sea. We need to bring that same cooperation to the aid of
fisheries that need protection in other areas of the world. This bill
would help do that.
As a result of the efforts by the United States and other concerned
nations to prevent the use of large-scale driftnet fishing on the high
seas and to limit fishing on other shared stocks in areas like the
central Bering Sea and the South Pacific, the nations of the world have
recently adopted ``an agreement to promote compliance with
international conservation and management measures by fishing vessels
on the high seas'', and are discussing a draft agreement on the
conservation and management of straddling fish stocks and highly
migratory fish stocks. Both of these agreements should help further
advance efforts to protect and rebuild the world's fish stocks and
other living marine resources.
There is concern that some nations might try to use the straddling
stocks negotiations as a means to undo the United Nations moratorium on
large-scale driftnet fishing. This bill simply makes it clear that the
United States will not support or endorse any effort to prevent the
full implementation of the United Nations moratorium on large-scale
driftnet fishing. Nor will we be part of any effort to undermine its
effectiveness. Under this bill the United States cannot sign any
agreement that would have that effect.
As this is the last day of the 103d Congress we will not have a
chance to pass this bill this year. But I want to put the world on
notice that our commitment to halting large-scale driftnet fishing has
not weakened, and I look forward to reintroducing this bill early in
the 104th Congress.
____________________