[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 6 (Wednesday, January 11, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S790-S806]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mrs. HUTCHISON (for herself, Mr. Lott, Mr. Gramm, Mr. 
        Grassley, and Mr. Nickles:
  S. 191. A bill to amend the Endangered Species Act of 1973 to ensure 
that constitutionally protected private property rights are not 
infringed until adequate protection is afforded by reauthorization of 
the act, to protect against economic losses from critical habitat 
designation, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Environment 
and Public Works.


         the farm, ranch, and homestead protection act of 1995

  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, for generations American farmers have 
worked to provide food, clothing, and shelter to their families. 
Farmers and ranchers in Texas and throughout the United States have 
tilled the soil and cleared the rangeland--and, if they had a good 
year, they might try to put any money left over back into the land to 
buy more property.
  This land is their wealth--their property, which our Government was 
formed to protect, just as it protects our homes from burglary and our 
money in banks from theft.
  Our founding fathers acknowledged that private property rights were 
important. They fought foreign rulers to protect it. The Bill of 
Rights, drafted after that struggle, says that private property shall 
not be taken for public use, without just compensation. But, through 
overly zealous environmental enforcement, this constitutional 
protection is being watered down.
  Last year, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, which enforces the 
Endangered Species Act, proposed that up to 800,000 acres from 33 Texas 
counties be designated as critical habitat for the golden-cheeked 
warbler. This action held up land transfers, construction, home and 
business lending. With about 300 species in Texas being considered for 
listing as endangered or threatened, including 8 flies and 12 beetles, 
landowners in my State may face a very grave problem again soon.
  Recent reports about the U.S. Fish and Wildlife's latest Balcones 
Canyonlands Conservation Plan in Austin, TX, are discouraging. 
Yesterday, the Interior Department proposed that owners of single-
family lots in Travis County that were subdivided before the golden-
cheek warbler was listed as an endangered species can apply for a 
permit to construct a single family home for a fee of $1,500. 
Developers are expected to pay even more--up to $5,500 an acre--to 
build on land that has not been subdivided yet.
  The permit fees, plus $10 million from Travis County, would be used 
to add to the 21,000 acres in existing wildlife refuges. Well, the 
Travis County residents have voted against spending more money on 
refuges, in 1993 and the Travis County officials were blindsided. They 
were not even consulted about this proposal to spend $10 million of 
Travis County's money, when the people have just voted not to put any 
more money into wildlife refuges.
  Rather than assuring fair compensation for private property when 
there is a Government taking, the Service's plan would require 
landowners to pay ransom to the Federal Government--ransom to the 
Federal Government--for the privilege of building on a lot which they 
have already bought to build a house--perhaps the house they have been 
dreaming of for years. Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt has stated in 
the past that he believes private property is an outmoded concept. The 
Fish and Wildlife Service would say, by regulation, that his views are 
right. This would essentially repeal the fifth amendment to our U.S. 
Constitution.
  Today, Senators Lott, Gramm, Grassley, Nickles, and I are introducing 
legislation to stop Government overreaching until we have had time to 
revise the Endangered Species Act. Congressman Lamar Smith is 
introducing a companion bill in the House.
  My bill puts a moratorium on the listing of new endangered and 
threatened species until reauthorization. Right now the Fish and 
Wildlife Service is proposing to list a species in the panhandle of 
Texas--the Arkansas River shiner--that is used for fish bait. Water is 
scarce in the panhandle; we cannot afford to give fish bait more 
protection than people. But once the shiner is designated, it will have 
more right to the water than the panhandle farmers and ranchers and the 
people of Amarillo, TX. The people have to have a voice.
  The bill also puts a moratorium on the designation of critical 
habitat so that property owners will not lose control of their land. 
Designating critical habitat puts unjust limits on the use, market 
value, and transferability of property. The stigma of critical habitat 
should not be imposed by a government that claims to protect property 
as a constitutional right.
  Finally, the bill puts a moratorium on the requirement that all 
government agencies consult with the Fish and Wildlife Service before 
taking actions, providing permits, or providing funding that may affect 
an endangered species. This will prevent the Fish and Wildlife Service 
from further expanding use of the Endangered Species Act to deny FHA or 
VA mortgages, crop insurance, crop support payments, farm erosion 
studies, or SBA loans. To be fair, they have not done this yet; so far, 
it has only been used on large Government projects. But until this year 
they had not proposed to designate an area larger than the State of 
Rhode Island as critical habitat. But they did it last year in Texas.
  Property owners should not have to fight the Government to build a 
new home on their land. They should not have to hire lawyers to tell 
what their rights are or convince bureaucrats that their farming is in 
compliance with regulations. Farmers in my State should not live in 
fear of being treated like the farmer in California who was arrested in 
a Government raid for allegedly harming a kangaroo rat while he was 
plowing his field. This rat is designated as an endangered species for 
one reason--its feet are a millimeter longer than other, similar 
species. There are other alternatives. Instead of seizing land and 
arresting farmers, we should encourage private landowners to protect 
species and habitat with tax incentives, and whenever possible relocate 
threatened species to park lands so it does not encroach on the private 
property rights nor the ability of a farmer or a rancher to feed his or 
her family.
  Opponents of compensation for takings of property argue the National 
Government cannot afford it. That argument acknowledges what is 
happending is in fact unconstitutional. If we want to protect the 
critical habitat of endangered species, we have to pay for it. James 
Madison, in the Federalist Papers, made it clear that the purpose of 
government is to protect private property. He said, ``government is 
instituted no less for protection of property than of the persons of 
individuals.''
  If opponents of compensation are truly opposed to this principle, 
they have a remedy. They can propose an amendment to the Constitution. 
But until they do and until it is passed, these acts are 
unconstitutional. We are sworn to uphold the Constitution. Mr. 
President, we must do it. The actions on this bill will provide the 
means to do it.
  We need to make the real effect of the Endangered Species Act clear 
to the rulemakers in Washington. Many of them have not even set foot on 
a farm since their third grade class field trip. It is no wonder that 
so many of our people spoke in November that ``we cannot take the 
Government harassment.'' It is no longer about protecting our treasured 
natural resources from harm. It is about Government taking control of 
people's land. We must put a 
 [[Page S791]] stop to it, until we have the opportunity to give the 
Fish and Wildlife Service a new direction.
  That is something I hope this Senate will do very quickly before 
untold damage is done, like what is happening right now in Austin, TX.
                                 ______

      By Mr. FEINGOLD (for himself and Mr. Kohl):
  S. 192. A bill to prohibit the use of certain assistance provided 
under the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974 to encourage 
plant closings and the resultant relocation of employment, and for 
other purposes; to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban 
Affairs.


        THE PROHIBITION OF INCENTIVES FOR RELOCATION ACT OF 1995

 Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I introduce with my colleague 
from Wisconsin, Senator Kohl, a bill designed to proscribe the use of 
community development block grant, and other HUD funds for assisting 
businesses in moving jobs from one State to another. This measure is 
similar to a bill I introduced in the 103d Congress, the Prohibition of 
Incentives for Relocation Act of 1994, and is based upon legislation 
authored during the 103d Congress by U.S. House Representatives, Gerry 
Kleczka and Tom Barrett of Wisconsin, which was approved in the House-
passed HUD reauthorization legislation, H.R. 3838.
  Mr. President, the importance of this issue remains a critical one to 
this day for Wisconsin's economic future, as well as the future of 
other States like ours that possess labor intensive industries.
  Our concern was generated by an announcement made in 1994 by a major 
employer in Wisconsin, Briggs and Stratton, that a Milwaukee plant 
would be closed, and 2,000 workers would be permanently displaced. The 
actual economic impact upon this community is even greater since it is 
estimated that 1.24 related jobs will be lost for every one of the 
2,000 Briggs jobs affected. The devastating news was compounded by the 
subsequent discovery that many of these jobs were being transferred to 
plants, which were being expanded in two other States, and that Federal 
community development block grant [CDBG] funds were being used to 
facilitate the transfer of these jobs from one State to another.
  This is a totally inappropriate use of Federal funds, which this 
legislation is designed to end. The CDBG Program is designed to foster 
community and economic development; not to help move jobs around the 
country. Obviously, during a period of permanent economic 
restructuring, which results in plant closing, downsizing of Federal 
programs and defense industry conversion, there is tremendous 
competition between communities for new plants and other business 
expansions to offset other job losses. State and local communities are 
doing everything they can to attract new business and retain existing 
businesses. But it is simply wrong to use Federal dollars to help one 
community raid jobs from another State. There is no way to justify to 
the taxpayers in my State that they are sending their money to 
Washington to be distributed to other States to be used to attract jobs 
out of our State, leaving behind communities whose economic stability 
has been destroyed. Thousands of people whose jobs are directly, or 
indirectly lost as a result of the transfer of these jobs out of our 
State are justifiably outraged by this misuse of funds.
  Mr. President, this legislation is very similar to a provision of the 
Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, which prohibited urban 
development action grants [UDAG] from being used for projects intended 
to move jobs from one community to another. Section 5318(h) of Title 42 
of the United States Code prohibits the use of UDAG if the funds are, 
``intended to facilitate the relocation of industrial or commercial 
plants or facilities from one area to another,'' unless it is 
determined that the relocation does not significantly and adversely 
affect the unemployment or economic base of the area from which the 
industrial or commercial plant or facility is to be relocated.'' 
Similarly, this legislation provides that no assistance through CDBG 
and other related HUD programs shall be used for any activity that is 
intended, or is likely to facilitate the closing of an industrial or 
commercial plant, or the substantial reduction of operations of a 
plant; and result in the relocation or expansion of a plant from one 
area to another area. Similar antipiracy provisions are included in SBA 
programs, Economic Development Administration programs and the Economic 
Dislocated Workers Adjustment Act.
  Mr. President, this is an issue of fundamental fairness, and sound 
public policy. Federal funding for economic development projects should 
be directed toward projects that expand employment opportunities and 
economic growth, not simply move jobs from one community to another. 
This legislation is designed to ensure that community development funds 
are appropriately used for that purpose. I ask unanimous consent that 
the 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. 192

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

     SECTION 1. PROHIBITION OF USE OF CERTAIN ASSISTANCE TO 
                   ENCOURAGE PLANT CLOSINGS AND RESULTANT 
                   RELOCATION OF EMPLOYMENT.

       (a) Authorizations.--Section 103 of the House and Community 
     Development Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 5303) is amended--
       (1) by inserting ``(a)'' before ``The Secretary''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following new subsection:
       (b) Prohibition of Use of Assistance To Encourage Plant 
     Closings and Resultant Relocation of Employment.--
       ``(1) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law, no amount from a grant made under section 106 shall be 
     used for any activity that is intended or is likely to--
       ``(A) facilitate the closing of an industrial or commercial 
     plant or the substantial reduction of operations of a plant; 
     and
       ``(B) result in the relocation or expansion of a plant from 
     one area to another area.
       ``(2) Notice.--The Secretary shall, by notice published in 
     the Federal Register, establish such requirements as may be 
     necessary to implement this subsection. Such notice shall be 
     published as a proposed regulation and take effect upon 
     publication. The Secretary shall issue final regulations, 
     taking into account public comments received by the 
     Secretary.''.
       (b) Special Purpose Grants.--Secton 107 of the Housing and 
     Community Development Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 5307) is amended 
     by adding at the end the following new subsection:
       ``(g) Prohibition of Use of Assistance To Encourage Plant 
     Closings and Resultant Relocation of Employment.--
       ``(1) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law, no amount from a grant made under this section shall be 
     used for any activity that is intended or is likely to--
       ``(A) facilitate the closing of an industrial or commercial 
     plant or the substantial reduction of operations of a plant; 
     and
       ``(B) result in the relocation or expansion of a plant from 
     one area to another area.
       ``(2) Notice.--The Secretary shall, by notice published in 
     the Federal Register, establish such requirements as may be 
     necessary to implement this subsection. Such notice shall be 
     published as a proposed regulation and take effect upon 
     publication. The Secretary shall issue final regulations, 
     taking into account public comments received by the 
     Secretary.''.
       (c) Economic Development Grants.--Section 108(q) of the 
     Housing and Community Development Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 
     5308(q)) is amended by adding at the end the following new 
     paragraph:
       ``(5) Prohibition of use of assistance to encourage plant 
     closings and resultant relocation of employment.--
       ``(A) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law, no amount from a grant made under this subsection shall 
     be used for any activity that is intended or is likely to--
       ``(i) facilitate the closing of an industrial or commercial 
     plant or the substantial reduction of operations of a plant; 
     and
       ``(ii) result in the relocation or expansion of a plant 
     from one area to another area.
       ``(B) Notice.--The Secretary shall, by notice published in 
     the Federal Register, establish such requirements as may be 
     necessary to implement this paragraph. Such notice shall be 
     published as a proposed regulation and take effect upon 
     publication. The Secretary shall issue final regulations, 
     taking into account public comments received by the 
     Secretary.''.
                                 ______

      By Mr. CAMPBELL:
  S. 193. A bill to establish a forage fee formula on lands under the 
jurisdiction of the Department of Agriculture and the Department of the 
Interior; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.


                   the federal forage fee act of 1995

  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I am sending legislation to the desk 
that 
 [[Page S792]] changes the way ranchers pay to graze their livestock on 
Federal rangelands. I introduced this bill last Congress, with 14 of my 
colleagues including my friend who is across the floor today, the 
Senator from Idaho [Mr. Craig]. This bill was not acted on but we think 
it is an important bill that should be reintroduced.
  The formula included in this proposal was developed by several 
economists who worked at land grant colleges in the West. The formula 
abandons the old Public Rangelands Improvement Act formula, which has 
been much maligned, in favor of a formula that sets a realistic value 
on the opportunity to graze livestock on public lands. It will result 
in a fee that is about 23 percent higher than the current fee.
  Having been very active on this issue for many years, I know 
congressional debate about grazing fees has been polarized. Opponents 
of the current fee argue that ranchers do not pay fair market value, 
while some ranchers would like to maintain the status quo. On the other 
hand, ranchers in many cases think the fee should not go up at all. But 
many of us who have worked on it believe ranchers are the family 
farmers of the West. The establishment of a fair and equitable grazing 
fee formula is still necessary to ensure their survival. I also think 
the rancher is key to the rural Western economy. Not only does this add 
billions to the Nation's economy, in much of the West, it is the single 
largest source of economic activity and tax revenue. Every Western 
ranching job creates as many as four jobs on Main Street. If those 
ranchers go under, so will the tractor, truck and automobile dealers, 
the gas, grocery and feed store owners, the veterinarians, doctors, and 
dentists, and many others who make up the commercial and social fabric 
of rural Western towns.
  A fee not based on sound science and careful study will destabilize 
the entire livestock industry and the rural Western economic 
infrastructure it supports. The new formula is based on a principle: on 
the private forage market. It reflects the higher operational costs and 
lower returns derived from Federal lands. This results in a formula 
that provides economic parity between producers who use Federal land 
and private livestock producers.
  Secretary of the Interior Babbitt has already said that he intends to 
drop his efforts to raise grazing fees. He also said that he intends to 
finalize his regulations within the next 6 months for how our public 
lands should be managed for grazing.
  It is clear to me that environmentalists care about management 
issues, that is, the Department's ability to effectively steward the 
resources it manages. To cattlemen, however, the single most important 
issue is the fee. If it is too high, ranchers go out of business. The 
ranchers I have talked to realize they will eventually have to pay more 
for the privilege of grazing on public lands, but as business people, 
they need stability--stability that can only be provided if a bill 
passes to lock a higher fee into place.
  Many Western Senators believe that the issue of grazing fees should 
be separated from
 management reforms. This has been done, but it does not mean that our 
Government has forgotten that a commitment was made 2 years ago by the 
ranching industry to pay their fair share.

  Reintroducing this bill is an attempt to keep our end of the bargain.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and 
additional material be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                 S. 193

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,
       That this Act may be cited as the ``Federal Forage Fee Act 
     of 1993''.

     SECTION 1. FINDINGS.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds and declares that--
       (1) it is in the national interest that the public lands 
     are producing and continue to produce water and soil 
     conservation benefits, livestock forage, wildlife forage and 
     recreation and other multiple use opportunities;
       (2) rangelands will continue to be stabilized and improved 
     long term by providing for cooperative agreements, private, 
     public partnerships and flexibility in management programs 
     and agreements;
       (3) to assure sound management and stewardship of the 
     renewable resources it is imperative to charge a fee that is 
     reasonable and equitable and represents the fair value of the 
     forage provided;
       (4) the intermingled private-public land ownership patterns 
     prevailing in much of the west create a strong 
     interdependence between public and private lands for forage, 
     water, and habitat for both wildlife and livestock;
       (5) the social and economic infrastructure of many rural 
     communities and stability of job opportunities in many areas 
     of rural America are highly independent on the protection
      of the value of privately held production units on Federal 
     lands.

     SEC. 2. ENVIRONMENTAL AND LAND USE REQUIREMENTS.

       Unless contrary to this statute, all grazing operations 
     conducted on any Federal lands shall be subject to all 
     applicable Federal, State, and local laws, including but not 
     limited to:
       (1) Animal Damage Control Act (7 U.S.C. 426-426b).
       (2) Bankhead-Jones Farm Tenant Act (50 Stat. 522) as 
     amended.
       (3) Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7401-7642) as amended.
       (4) Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531-1544) as 
     amended.
       (5) Federal Advisory Committee Act (86 Stat. 770), as 
     amended.
       (6) Federal Grant and Cooperative Agreement Act of 1977 (92 
     Stat. 3).
       (7) Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (7 
     U.S.C. 136-136y), as amended.
       (8) Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 
     U.S.C. 1701 et seq.).
       (9) Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 
     1387), as amended.
       (10) Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act 
     of 1974 (16 U.S.C. 1600-1614).
       (11) Granger-Thye Act (64 Stat. 82).
       (12) Independent Offices Appropriations Act of 1952 (31 
     U.S.C. 9701), as amended, title V.
       (13) Multiple Use Sustained Yield Act of 1960 (16 U.S.C. 
     528-531).
       (14) National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 
     4370a), as amended.
       (15) National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 
     1600, 1611-1614).
       (16) Public Rangelands Improvement Act of 1978 (92 Stat. 
     1803).
       (17) Taylor Grazing Act (48 Stat. 1269), as amended.
       (18) Wilderness Act (78 Stat. 890), as amended.

     SEC. 3. FEE SCHEDULE.

       (a) For the purpose of this section the terms:
       (1) ``Sixteen Western States'' means WA, CA, ID, NV, NM, 
     WY, CO, KS, SD, ND, NE, OR, OK, AZ, UT and MT.
       (2) ``AUM'' means an animal unit month as that term is used 
     in the Public Rangeland Improvement Act (92 Stat. 1803);
       (3) ``Authorized Federal AUMs'' means all ``allotted AUMs'' 
     reported by BLM and ``permitted to graze AUMs'' reported by 
     USFS.
       (4) ``WAPLLR'' means the weighted average private land 
     lease rate determined by multiplying the private land lease 
     rate reported by the Economic Research Service for the 
     previous calendar year for each of the sixteen Western States 
     by the total number of authorized Federal AUMs, as defined in 
     section 3(a)(3), in each State for the previous, fiscal year, 
     then that result divided by the total number of authorized 
     Federal AUMs for the sixteen western States. These individual 
     State results are then added together and divided by 16 to 
     yield a weighted average private land lease rate for that 
     year.
       (5) ``Report'' means the report titled ``Grazing Fee Review 
     and Evaluation Update of the 1986 Final Report'' dated April 
     30, 1992 and prepared by the Departments of the Interior and 
     Agriculture.
       (6) ``Nonfee cost differential'' means a value calculated 
     annually by the Secretaries by multiplying the weighted 
     difference in nonfee costs per AUM between public land and 
     private land by the Input Cost Index (ICI) determined 
     annually by the Department of Agriculture. The weighted 
     difference in nonfee costs is a factor of 0.552 determined by 
     deducting the private AUM nonfee costs (as outlined on page 
     58 of the report) from the public AUM nonfee costs for cattle 
     times 4, added to the result of deducting private AUM nonfee 
     costs from public AUM nonfee costs for sheep times 1, then 
     that result divided by 5.''
       (7) ``Net production differential'' is the percentage 
     calculated annually by dividing the cash receipts per cow for 
     Federal permittee livestock producers by the cash receipts 
     per cow for western non-Federal livestock
      producers in the sixteen Western States as surveyed by the 
     Economic Research Service in annual cost of production 
     surveys (COPS).
       (8) ``PLFVR'' means the private lease forage value ratio 
     determined by dividing the average of the 1964-1968 base 
     years' private land lease rate into the forage value portion 
     of the private land lease rate of $1.78 as determined in the 
     1966 western livestock grazing survey.
       (b) The Secretaries of the Department of Agriculture and 
     the Department of the Interior shall calculate annually the 
     Federal forage fee by calculating the average of the WALLPR 
     for the preceding three years; multiplying it by the PLFVR; 
     then deducting from that result the nonfee cost 
     differential; 
     [[Page S793]] and multiplying that result by the net 
     production differential. For each year that this calculation 
     is made, all data used for calculating this fee shall come 
     from the calendar year previous to the year for which the fee 
     is being calculated unless specified otherwise in the above 
     calculations.
       (c) The Federal forage fee shall apply to all authorized 
     Federal AUMs under the jurisdiction of the United States 
     Department of Agriculture and the United States Department of 
     the Interior.
       (d) For the first year that the Secretaries calculate the 
     Federal forage fee, the fee shall not be greater than 125 
     percent, or less than 75 percent of the fee calculated for 
     the previous year pursuant to Executive Order 12548 dated 
     February 14, 1986. For each year after the first year that 
     the Secretaries calculate the Federal forage fee, the fee 
     shall not be greater than 125 percent, or less than 75 
     percent of the Federal forage fee calculated for the previous 
     year.
       (e) The survey of nonfee costs used to calculate the nonfee 
     cost differential shall be updated periodically by the 
     Secretaries so as to reflect as accurately as possible the 
     actual nonfee costs incurred by the cattle and sheep industry 
     that utilizes public lands in the sixteen Western States. The 
     results of the updated survey shall be incorporated into the 
     calculation of the Non Fee Cost Differential as they become 
     available.
                                                                    ____

           Federal Forage Fee Formula--Narrative Description

       The Federal Forage Fee Formula is based on the premise that 
     the western public lands grazing permittee should pay the 
     fair value of the forage received from federal lands.
       Two objectives were met in determining the formula for a 
     forage value-based grazing fee: (1) Identification of the 
     value of raw forage as a percentage of the private land lease 
     rate (Private Lease Forage Value Ratio); and (2) an 
     adjustment which reflects the lower animal production derived 
     from federal lands compared to private lands (Net Production 
     Differential), and the additional costs of doing business on 
     federal lands compared to private lands (Non Fee Cost 
     Differential) (e.g., additional infrastructure and 
     operational costs). Because the costs associated with cattle 
     production vary from those of sheep production, sheep costs 
     are figured into the Non Fee Cost Differential (80% cattle, 
     20% sheep). Simply put, the federal forage fee formula is 
     based on the private forage market while reflecting the 
     unique costs of production and relative inefficiencies of 
     harvesting federal forage compared to private land 
     operations. A reasonable grazing fee must reflect the higher 
     operational costs and lower animal production derived from 
     federal lands and, as such, would promote similar economic 
     opportunity between federal land and private land livestock 
     producers.
       The private land lease rate is weighted by the proportional 
     number of federal AUMs in each of the 16 western states. The 
     rolling three year weighted average of the private land lease 
     rate is used in order to minimize the high and low extremes 
     of the lease scale. This lease rate is calculated on a 
     weighted average of private lease rates for non-irrigated 
     native rangelands.
       The value of the forage component of private land leases, 
     as determined in a comprehensive 1966 grazing fee study and 
     carried through in the 1992 update of the Grazing Fee Review 
     and Evaluation report is 48.8% of the total private land 
     lease rate. The remaining 51.2% of the private lease rate 
     includes infrastructure and services associated with a 
     private land lease.
       The Non Fee Cost Differential of the federal forage fee 
     formula is based on the updated analysis of non-fee costs 
     adjusted annually for inflation. This number indicates that 
     for 1991 it cost $1.60 more per AUM to operate on federal 
     lands than private lands.
       The Net Production Differential of the formula is based on 
     Economic Research Service comparisons of cash livestock 
     receipts from both western federal land ranches and non-
     federal land ranches which show that, overall, the federal 
     lands generate 12.1% less revenue per animal unit than 
     private lands (thus, the
      87.9% figure). Every figure in the federal forage fee 
     formula is derived from economic data compiled and updated 
     by federal agencies.
       Research using historical data reveals that the Federal 
     Forage Fee yields more predictable fee than PRIA, which has 
     fluctuated from a high of $2.41 to a low of $1.35 (a 78% 
     variance) over its 15 year life. A 25% cap on any increase or 
     decrease in the fee from year to year, starting with the 
     current fee is maintained. Additionally, the federal forage 
     fee formula adheres to the guidelines Congress established 
     for determination of federal grazing fee policy as outlined 
     by the Federal Lands Policy Management Act of 1976, the 
     Independent Offices Appropriations Act of 1952 and the Taylor 
     Grazing Act of 1934.


                                FIGURES

        Weighted average private land lease rate [WAPLLR]: $8.77

       Derived from 16 state weighted average private land lease 
     rate as surveyed by the U.S. Department of Agriculture's 
     Economic Research Service (ERS) and adjusted for the number 
     of federal AUMs in each state. The calculation is a rolling 
     average of the three most recent years' data.

         Private land forage value ratio [PrLFVR]: 48.8 percent
       Grazing Fee Review and Evaluation, DOI & USDA 1992, pgs. 18 
     and 22. Determines the forage component of the WAPLLR.

                Non fee cost differential [NFCD]: $1.60

       Grazing Fee Review and Evaluation, DOI & USDA 1992, pg. 58, 
     Appendix A.1; Updated by Input Cost Index (ICI) for currency. 
     Deduction to reflect additional costs per AUM incumbent with 
     federal land grazing.

             Net production differential [NPD] 87.9 percent

       Grazing Fee Review and Evaluation, DOI & USDA 1992, pg. 53, 
     ``Equity Among Livestock Producers.'' Adjustment to reflect 
     lower animal production derived from federal grazing lands.
                          Formula/calculations

                   [((WAPLLR PrLFVR)--NFCD) NPD=FFF]

Weighted average private land lease rate [WAPLLR].................$8.77
Private lease forage value ratio [PrLFVR] (percent)............. x 48.8
                                                               ________

Private lease forage value.........................................4.28
Non fee cost differential [NFCD]..................................-1.60
                                                               ________

Net production differential [NPD] (percent)..................... x 87.9
                                                               ________

Federal forage fee (grazing fee) [FFF].............................2.36

       The effective Federal Forage Fee would be $2.33 in the 
     first year after applying the 25 percent cap to the current 
     grazing fee.
                                 ______

      By Mr. McCAIN (for himself, Mr. Hollings, Mr. Craig, Mr. Hatch, 
        Mr. Helms, Mr. Robb, Mr. McConnell, and Mr. Coats):
  S. 194. A bill to repeal the Medicare and Medicaid Coverage Data 
Bank, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.


                medicare/medicaid data bank legislation

 Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to reintroduce this 
bill, which would eliminate a large and unjustified administrative 
burden imposed on employers by an ill-considered piece of legislation 
passed 2 years ago. Specifically, it would repeal the Medicare and 
Medicaid Coverage Data Bank, section 13581 of OBRA 1993, a law that is 
extremely expensive, burdensome, punitive, and in my view, entirely 
unnecessary.
  This data bank law requires every employer who offers health care 
coverage to provide substantial and often difficult-to-obtain 
information on current and past employees and their dependents, 
including names, Social Security numbers, health care plans, and period 
of coverage. Employers that do not satisfy this considerable reporting 
obligation are subject to substantial penalties, possibly up to 
$250,000 per year or even more if the failure to report is found to be 
deliberate.
  According to the law that created the requirement, its purported 
objective is to ensure reimbursement of costs to Medicare or Medicaid 
when a third party is the primary payor. This is a legitimate 
objective. However, if the objective of the data bank is to preserve 
Medicare and Medicaid funds, why is it necessary to mandate information 
on all employees, the vast majority of whom have no direct association 
with either the Medicare or Medicaid Program?
  Last year, I introduced S. 1933 to repeal the Medicare and Medicaid 
Coverage Data Bank. Unfortunately, this bill did not pass in the 103d 
Congress, in part because of a questionable Congressional Budget Office 
analysis that estimated that the data bank would save the Federal 
Government about $1 billion. As a result of this scoring, we would have 
had to raise the same amount in revenues to offset these purported 
``savings.'' However, the General Accounting Office found that ``as 
envisioned, the data bank would have certain inherent problems and 
likely achieve little or no savings to the Medicare and Medicaid 
programs.'' Still, due primarily to the fiction that the data bank 
would save money, S. 1933 was not enacted last year.
  When it was clear that I did not have the votes to repeal the data 
bank law, I worked with several other Senators to ensure that no 
funding was appropriated for the data bank in fiscal year 1995. Due to 
our efforts, the Labor and Human Resources Appropriations report 
contained language prohibiting the use of Federal funds for developing 
or maintaining the data bank. However, this provision by itself did not 
revoke the requirement that covered entities must still provide the 
required information on the health coverage of current and former 
employees and their families. This would have resulted in the bizarre 
situation in which covered employers would have had to report the 
information, but there 
[[Page S794]] would have been no data bank to process or retrieve it.
  Finally, in response to the public outcry about this Federal mandate 
and the sentiments of Congress, the Health Care Financing 
Administration [HCFA] indicated that it will not be enforcing the data 
bank's reporting requirements in fiscal year 1995. It stated that in 
light of the refusal of Congress to fund the data bank, ``we have 
agreed to stay an administrative action to implement the current 
requirements, including the promulgation of reporting forms and 
instructions. Therefore, we will not expect employers to compile the 
necessary information or file the required reports. Likewise, no 
sanctions will be imposed for failure to file such reports.''
  This is a major step in the right direction. However, the data bank 
and its reporting requirements are still in the law and are still 
scheduled to be implemented in the next fiscal year. Consequently, 
there is still a great need to repeal the data bank law.
  There are those who will argue that, in order to repeal the data 
bank, we still must propose $1 billion in budget offsets. However, as I 
indicated earlier, the GAO found that the data bank would not save 
money. Specifically, it testified before the Senate Governmental 
Affairs Committee that ``the data bank will likely achieve little or no 
savings while costing millions. Rather, we believe that changes and 
improvements to existing activities would be a much easier, less 
costly, and thus preferable alternative to the data bank process. This 
is largely because the data bank will result in an enormous amount of 
added paperwork for both HCFA and the Nation's employers.''
  In addition, the GAO report on the data bank law found that employers 
are not certain of their specific reporting obligations, because HCFA 
has not provided adequate guidance on these obligations. Much of the 
information which is required is not typically collected by employers, 
such as Social Security numbers of dependents and certain health 
insurance information. Some employers have even questioned whether it 
is legal for them under various privacy laws to seek to obtain the 
required information.
  The GAO report also found that employers are facing significant costs 
in complying with the reporting requirements, including the costs of 
redesigning their payroll and personnel systems. It cites one company 
with 44,000 employees that would have costs of approximately $52,000 
and another company with 4,000 employees that would have costs of 
$12,000. Overall, the American Payroll Association estimated last year 
that this requirement will cost between $50,000 and $100,000 per 
company.
  I would add that the reporting requirement applies only to employers 
that provide health insurance coverage to their employees. It is 
unconscionable that we are adding costs and penalties to those who have 
been most diligent in providing health coverage to their employees. The 
last thing that the Federal Government should do is impose 
disincentives to employee health care coverage, which is one of the 
unintended consequences of the data bank law.
  Perhaps the most disturbing aspect of the data bank law is that its 
enormous costs have little or no corresponding benefit. The GAO report 
concluded that ``The additional information gathering and record 
keeping required by the data bank appears to provide little benefit to 
Medicare and Medicaid in recovering mistaken payments.'' This is in 
part because HCFA is already obtaining this information in a much more 
efficient manner than that required under OBRA 1993.
  For example, OBRA 1989 provides for HCFA to periodically match 
Medicare beneficiary data with Internal Revenue Service employment 
information--The Data Match Program. Also, HCFA directly asks 
beneficiaries about primary payor coverage. To the extent that the data 
bank duplicates these efforts, any potential savings will not be 
realized. It is clearly preferable to require HCFA to use the 
information it already has than to require the private sector to 
provide duplicative information.
  The GAO report found that ``the data match not only can provide the 
same information [as the data bank] without raising the potential 
problems described above, but it can do so at less cost.'' It also 
recognized that both the data match and data bank processes rely too 
much on an after-the-fact recovery approach, and recommended enhancing 
up-front identification of other insurance and avoiding erroneous 
payments. In this regard, it documented that HCFA has already initiated 
this prospective approach.
  Mr. President, the Federal Government is again imposing substantial 
financial burdens on the private sector without fully accepting its 
share of the burden to implement a program. We should once again expect 
the worst case scenario to occur: employers will provide the required 
information at substantial administrative burden, there will be no data 
bank in which to make use of it, and even if a data bank were funded 
and established, the information stored could not be used efficiently 
to save Medicare or Medicaid funds.
  I do not want this bill to be construed, in any way, as opposition to 
HCFA obtaining the information it needs to administer the Medicare and 
Medicaid Programs efficiently, and obtaining reimbursement from third 
party payors when appropriate. To assure that HCFA has the information 
it needs, the bill also requires the Secretary of HHS to conduct a 
study and report to Congress on how to achieve the purported objectives 
of the data bank in the most cost-effective manner possible.
  The Secretary's study would have to take into consideration the 
administrative costs and burden on the private sector and the 
Government of processing and providing the necessary information versus 
the benefits and savings that such reporting requirements would 
produce. It must also consider current HCFA reporting requirements and 
the ability of entities to obtain the required information legally and 
efficiently.
  Too often, Congress considers only the cost savings to the Federal 
Government of legislation while ignoring costs to other parties. The 
Medicare and Medicaid Data Bank is a case in point. Congress required 
information on millions of employees to save the Federal Government 
money. Yet, it will cost employers more money to comply than the 
government saves. Congress must stop passing laws that impose large, 
unjustified administrative burdens on other entities. It must consider 
the impact of its actions on the whole economy and not just on the 
Government.
  In summary, the reporting requirement for the Medicare and Medicaid 
Data Bank is duplicative, burdensome, ineffective, and unnecessary. The 
GAO has characterized it as creating ``an avalanche of unnecessary 
paperwork for both HCFA and employers.'' It penalizes employers who 
provide health care benefits to their workers--exactly the opposite 
goal we should be pursuing. The data bank should be repealed and a more 
cost-effective approach should be found to ensure that Medicare and 
Medicaid are appropriately reimbursed by primary payors.
  Mr. President, last year when I introduced this bill, I included a 
statement by the Coalition on Employer Health Coverage Reporting and 
the Medicare/Medicaid Data Bank and several representative letters from 
employers and employer groups in the Record. These groups continue to 
demand repeal of this law, and I will not request that their statements 
and letters be published again at taxpayer expense. However, their 
message continues to be clear. The Federal Government must stop 
imposing unjustified burdens on businesses.
                                 ______

      By Mr. MURKOWSKI:
  S. 195. A bill to amend section 257(e) of the Balanced Budget and 
Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 to modify the treatment of losses 
from asset sales; to the Committee on the Budget and the Committee on 
Governmental Affairs, jointly, pursuant to the order of August 4, 1977, 
with instructions that if one committee reports, the other committee 
have 30 days to report or be discharged.


                THE ASSET SALE BUDGET RULES ACT OF 1995

  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I introduce legislation that 
would modify the budget rules governing the sale of Federal assets. It 
is my hope that Congress this year will review many of the perverse and 
unintended effects of 
[[Page S795]] our budget rules and consider including this legislation 
in a budget process reform package.
  Under current law, the sale of an asset does not alter the deficit or 
produce any net deficit reduction in the budget baseline. My 
legislation maintains this principle. Although an asset sale would not 
be counted in calculating the deficit, future revenue generated by the 
asset which the government would have received if the asset had not 
been sold could be offset by the revenue generated from the sale. I 
want to emphasize that this rule is narrowly crafted so that revenue 
gained from an asset sale could not be used to offset a separate 
revenue losing provision.
  Mr. President, the current budget rules governing asset sales make it 
nearly impossible for the Federal Government to sell assets. For 
example, during the last several years, both the Bush and Clinton 
administrations have sought to sell the Alaska Power Administration 
[APA]. The Department of Energy [DOE] has entered into sale agreements 
and negotiated a price of more than $80 million for these electric 
generating assets.
  Unfortunately, legislation needed to implement this sale has been 
delayed for several years, in part because of the budget rules 
governing asset sales. Since the APA takes in approximately $11 million 
per year from the sale of electricity, under our pay-as-you-go rules, 
the sale is scored by the Congressional Budget Office [CBO] as losing 
the Federal Government $11 million annually. In other words, even 
though the Federal Government will receive up-front more than $80 
million by selling the APA, our budget scoring rules require that the 
sale proceeds be ignored, but that the stream of lost future revenues 
be counted.
  The end result of these rules is that for the sale to proceed, the 
lost $11 million per year must be offset by other unrelated spending 
reductions. This is Alice-in-Wonderland accounting that has no 
relationship to the real world. Presumably, the Department of Energy 
negotiated what it believed was a fair price for the APA assets. 
Certainly DOE factored in the amount of revenue that will no longer be 
coming to the Federal Government as a result of the sale as well as the 
fact that the Federal Government will no longer have to staff and 
maintain these operations. Yet when it comes to congressional budget 
scoring rules, all that is counted is the lost stream of future 
revenues.
  The legislation I am introducing today would rationalize the asset 
sale rules by allowing the price the Federal Government receives from 
the asset sale to offset future revenue lost as a result of the 
transfer of the asset from the Government to private parties. Thus, in 
the APA example, if over the next 5 years, it is assumed that 
electricity sales from APA would generate $11 million per year--$55 
million over 5 years--for purposes of the Budget Act, the $83 million 
sale price could offset the $55 million loss of revenue to the 
Government. And I want to emphasize that under my legislation, the 
remaining $28 million associated with the sale could neither count 
toward deficit reduction, nor could it be used to increase spending in 
any other program.
  I look forward to working with the members of the Budget Committee to 
resolve the current asset sale anomaly. I ask unanimous consent that 
the text of the bill be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 195

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

     SECTION 1. OFFSETTING LOSSES FROM ASSET SALES.

       Section 257(e) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit 
     Control Act of 1985 is amended by striking the semicolon at 
     the end thereof and inserting the following: ``. Effective 
     beginning fiscal year 1996, the proceeds from the sale of an 
     asset may be applied to offset the loss of any revenue or 
     receipts resulting from such sale.''.
                                 ______

      By Mr. McCAIN:
  S. 196. A bill to establish certain environmental protection 
procedures within the area comprising the border region between the 
United States and Mexico, and for other purposes; to the Committee on 
Foreign Relations.


      the united states-mexico border environmental protection act

 Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, today, I introduce the United 
States-Mexico Border Environmental Protection Act.
  Our Nation shares a 2,000-mile border with Mexico. Numerous American 
and Mexican sister cities link hands across that border, binding our 
two nations in friendship. As friends and neighbors, the United States 
and Mexico have profound responsibilities to one another. Chief among 
those duties is to respect and safeguard the natural resources our 
citizen's must share along the international boundary. No activities or 
conditions occurring on one side of the border must be permitted to 
adversely impact the health of people or the environment on the other.
  Passage of the United States-Mexico Border Environmental Protection 
Act will help us meet our environmental responsibilities successfully. 
It will do so by providing the resources necessary to protect American 
lives and property from environmental hazards which may arise unabated 
south of the border--an important Federal responsibility.
  Specifically, the bill seeks to establish a $10 million border 
environmental emergency fund under the auspices of the Environmental 
Protection Agency. The fund would make moneys readily available to 
investigate occurrences of pollution, identify sources and take 
immediate steps to protect land, air and water resources through 
cleanup and other remedial actions.
  While the EPA can address many problems along the border, some issues 
involving the protection of surface waters are under the jurisdiction 
of the International Boundary and Water Commission. The Commission was 
created by a treaty with Mexico in 1944 to control floods, manage 
salinity and develop municipal sewage treatment facilities along 
international streams.
  In my home State, the IBWC has constructed international wastewater 
treatment facilities in Nogales and Naco, AZ. The Commission's 
authority, however, to respond to emergency situations involving the 
pollution of surface waters is a matter of some doubt. This measure 
provides the IBWC with explicit authority and resources to protect 
American lives and property from emergency conditions and establishes a 
$5 million fund to do the job. In addition, the Secretary of State is 
directed to pursue agreements with Mexico for joint response to such 
events.
  Mr. President, I'd like to offer an example of why this legislation 
is needed. A few years ago, the breakage of a sewer main combined with 
heavy rains and carried raw sewage into Nogales, AZ via an 
international stream. The contamination resulted in a high incidence of 
hepatitis, harmed wildlife, and degraded public and private property, 
prompting the declaration of a State emergency. No definitive and 
comprehensive action was taken to stem the flow of sewage for several 
weeks due to concerns about the availability of funds and trepidation 
about the legal authority necessary to take action.
  Had the emergency fund and response authority I'm proposing been in 
place, perhaps we could have prevented much of the sickness and 
suffering visited upon the residents of Nogales. Passage of this 
legislation will ensure prompt and effective response in the future.
  Some of my colleagues may remember this measure from last Congress, 
or if they have been here long enough, they may even remember it from 
the 102d Congress. During this 4-year period this measure has been 
reported by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, adopted by the 
Senate on voice vote to the Foreign Authorization Act and passed by the 
Senate as part of the Foreign Authorization Act. Nevertheless, it has 
never become law.
  I want my colleagues to realize that should an incident similar to 
the one in Nogales occur again, we have the opportunity to alleviate 
the suffering of many people and protect further damage to the 
environment. We have had that opportunity for several years but, we 
have chosen to close our eyes and ignore the plight of Americans living 
in the border region.
  I would like to note that certain provisions related to the IBWC in 
this bill are virtually identical to those in the Rio Grande Pollution 
Correction Act which was signed into law in 1987. Like the bill I'm 
introducing, the Rio Grande legislation authorized the 
[[Page S796]] IBWC to conclude agreements with Mexico to response to 
surface water contamination. The United States-Mexico Border 
Environmental Protection Act expands the Rio Grande bill to include the 
entire border, as a matter of fairness and necessity.
  In addition to funding field investigations and rapid emergency 
response, the legislation recognizes the importance of communication 
between Mexico and the United States and among Federal, State, and 
local authorities her at home. The bill seeks to establish an 
information sharing and early warning system so that Mexican and 
American officials at all levels will be apprised of environmental 
hazards and risks in a timely and coordinated fashion, so that response 
and remedy, likewise, will be timely and coordinated.
  Some of my colleagues may be under the impression that this measure 
may conflict with the environmental side agreement to the North 
American Free-Trade Agreement [NAFTA] or the provisions of the bill may 
already be addressed by the side agreement. Neither of these statements 
are true.
  Nevertheless, I wrote to Ambassador Kantor last year during the 
debate on the Foreign Operations appropriations bill requesting that he 
review the measure to ensure that it was not in conflict with the side 
agreement. The letter from the Ambassador's office reads ``We see 
nothing in your proposal that would be in conflict with the 
Agreement.'' He went further to say ``in fact, what you propose appears 
to be fully supportive of the Side Agreement.''
  Mr. President, there is no doubt of our obligation to be a 
responsible neighbor to Mexico, nor of Mexico's obligation to us. 
Considering the enactment of the NAFTA treaty which I strongly 
supported, now more than ever, it's important that we commit ourselves 
to a clean and healthy border environment for the safety and enjoyment 
of Americans and Mexicans who inhabit the region. Enactment of this 
legislation is an important step to that end.
  I urge the Senate to consider and swiftly pass this vital 
legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:
                                 S. 196

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; PURPOSE.

       (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``United 
     States-Mexico Border Environmental Protection Act''.
       (b) Purpose.--The purpose of this Act is to provide for the 
     protection of the environment within the area comprising the 
     border region between the United States and Mexico, as 
     defined by the Agreement on Cooperation for the Protection 
     and Improvement of the Environment in the Border Area, signed 
     at La Paz on August 14, 1983, and entered into force on 
     February 16, 1984 (TIAS 10827) (commonly known as the ``La 
     Paz Agreement'').

     SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act:
       (1) Administrator.--The term ``Administrator'' means the 
     Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency.
       (2) Border environment zone.--The term ``Border Environment 
     Zone'' means the area described in section 1(b).
       (3) Border sanitation emergency.--The term ``border 
     sanitation emergency'' means a situation in which untreated 
     or inadequately treated sewage is discharged into 
     international surface rivers or streams that form or cross 
     the boundary between the United States and Mexico.
       (4) Commission fund.--The term ``Commission Fund'' means 
     the United States International Boundary and Water Commission 
     Fund established by section 10(c).
       (5) Environmental fund.--The term ``Environmental Fund'' 
     means the United States-Mexico Border Environmental 
     Protection Fund established by section 3.
       (6) United states commissioner.--The term ``United States 
     Commissioner'' means the United States Commissioner, 
     International Boundary and Water Commission, United States 
     and Mexico.

     SEC. 3. ENVIRONMENTAL FUND.

       (a) Establishment.--There is established in the Treasury of 
     the United States a trust fund to be used to investigate and 
     respond to conditions that the Administrator determines 
     present a substantial threat to the land, air, or water 
     resources of the Border Environment Zone. The fund shall be 
     known as the ``United States-Mexico Border Environmental 
     Protection Fund'' and shall consist of--
       (1) such amounts as are transferred to the Environmental 
     Fund under subsection (b); and
       (2) any interest earned on investments of amounts in the 
     Environmental Fund under subsection (d).
       (b) Transfer to Environmental Fund.--From amounts made 
     available to the Department of State, the Secretary of State 
     shall transfer to the Secretary of the Treasury for deposit 
     into the Environmental Fund $10,000,000. The Secretary of the 
     Treasury shall deposit amounts received under this subsection 
     into the Environmental Fund.
       (c) Expenditures from Environmental Fund.--
       (1) In general.--Subject to this subsection, upon request 
     by the Administrator, the Secretary of the Treasury shall 
     transfer from the Environmental Fund to the Administrator 
     such amounts as the Administrator determines are necessary to 
     carry out field investigations and remediation of an 
     environmental emergency declared by the Administrator under 
     section 4.
       (2) Cost-sharing programs.--Amounts in the Environmental 
     Fund shall be available for use by the Administrator for 
     cost-sharing programs that carry out the purpose described in 
     paragraph (1) with--
       (A) the Government of Mexico;
       (B) any of the States of Arizona, California, New Mexico, 
     or Texas;
       (C) a political subdivision of any of the States referred 
     to in subparagraph (B);
       (D) a local emergency planning committee;
       (E) a federally recognized Indian tribe; or
       (F) any other entity that the Administrator determines to 
     be appropriate.
       (3) Methods of distribution of funds.--In carrying out the 
     purpose described in paragraph (1), the Administrator may 
     expend amounts made available to the Administrator from the 
     Environmental Fund directly or make the amounts available 
     through grants or contracts.
       (4) Administrative expenses.--An amount not exceeding 10 
     percent of the amounts in the Environmental Fund shall be 
     available in each fiscal year to pay administrative expenses 
     necessary to carry out the purpose described in paragraph 
     (1).
       (5) Availability of funds.--Amounts in the Environmental 
     Fund shall be available without fiscal year limitation.
       (d) Investment of Funds.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary of the Treasury shall invest 
     such portion of the Environmental Fund as is not, in the 
     judgment of the Secretary, required to meet current 
     withdrawals. Investments may be made only in interest-bearing 
     obligations of the United States.
       (2) Acquisition of obligations.--For the purpose of 
     investments, obligations may be acquired--
       (A) on original issue at the issue price; or
       (B) by purchase of outstanding obligations at the market 
     price.
       (3) Sale of obligations.--Any obligation acquired by the 
     Environmental Fund may be sold by the Secretary of the 
     Treasury at the market price.
       (4) Credits to environmental fund.--The interest on, and 
     the proceeds from the sale or redemption of, any obligations 
     held in the Environmental Fund shall be credited to and form 
     a part of the Environmental Fund.
       (e) Transfers of Amounts.--
       (1) In general.--The amounts required to be transferred to 
     the Environmental Fund under subsection (d) shall be 
     transferred at least monthly from the general fund of the 
     Treasury to the Environmental Fund on the basis of estimates 
     made by the Secretary of the Treasury.
       (2) Adjustments.--Proper adjustment shall be made in 
     amounts subsequently transferred to the extent prior 
     estimates were in excess of or less than the amounts required 
     to be transferred.

     SEC. 4. DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EMERGENCIES.

       (a) In General.--
       (1) Determination by the administrator.--Subject to 
     paragraph (3), if the Administrator determines that 
     conditions exist that present a substantial threat to the 
     land, air, or water resources of the area comprising the 
     Border Environment Zone, the Administrator may declare that 
     an environmental emergency exists in the Zone.
       (2) Petition of governor.--Subject to paragraph (3), in 
     addition to the authority under paragraph (1), the 
     Administrator, upon the petition of the Governor of the State 
     of Arizona, California, New Mexico, or Texas, or the 
     governing body of a federally recognized Indian tribe, may 
     declare that an environmental emergency exists in the Zone.
       (3) Limitation.--The Administrator may not declare a 
     condition to be an environmental emergency under this section 
     if the condition is specifically within the sole jurisdiction 
     of the International Boundary and Water Commission.
       (b) Consultation With Affected Parties.--In responding to 
     emergencies, the Administrator shall consult and cooperate 
     with affected States, counties, municipalities, Indian 
     tribes, the Government of Mexico, and other affected parties.
       (c) Authority to Respond.--The Administrator may respond 
     directly to an emergency declared under this section or may 
     coordinate the response with appropriate State or local 
     authorities.

     SEC. 5. INFORMATION SHARING.

       (a) In General.--The Administrator, in cooperation with the 
     Secretary of State, the Governors of the States of Arizona, 
     California, New Mexico, and Texas, the governing bodies of 
     federally recognized Indian tribes 
     [[Page S797]] located within the Border Environment Zone, and 
     the appropriate officials of the Government of Mexico, may 
     establish a system for information sharing and for early 
     warning to the United States, each of the several States and 
     political subdivisions of the States, and Indian tribes, of 
     environmental problems affecting the Border Environment Zone.
       (b) Integration into Existing Systems and Procedures.--The 
     Administrator shall integrate systems and procedures 
     established under this section into any systems and 
     procedures that are in existence at the time of the 
     establishment under this section and that were established to 
     provide information sharing and early warning regarding 
     environmental problems affecting the Border Environment Zone.

     SEC. 6. REPORTS TO CONGRESS.

       (a) In General.--After consultation with the Secretary of 
     State, appropriate officials of the Government of Mexico, the 
     Governors of the States of Arizona, California, New Mexico, 
     and Texas, and the governing bodies of appropriate federally 
     recognized Indian tribes, the Administrator shall submit an 
     annual report to Congress describing the use of the 
     Environmental Fund during the calendar year preceding the 
     calendar year in which the report is filed, and the status of 
     the environmental quality of the area comprising the Border 
     Environment Zone.
       (b) Notice of Availability.--The Administrator shall 
     publish a notice of the availability of the report in the 
     Federal Register, together with a brief summary of the 
     report.

     SEC. 7. INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENTS.

       (a) Authority.--The Secretary of State, acting through the 
     United States Commissioner, may enter into agreements with 
     the appropriate representative of the Ministry of Foreign 
     Relations of Mexico for the purpose of correcting border 
     sanitation emergencies.
       (b) Recommendations.--Agreements entered into under 
     subsection (a) should consist of recommendations to the 
     Governments of the United States and Mexico of measures to 
     protect the health and welfare of persons along the 
     international surface rivers and streams that form or cross 
     the boundary between the United States and Mexico, including 
     recommendations concerning--
       (1) facilities that should be constructed, operated, and 
     maintained in each country;
       (2) estimates of the costs of plans, construction, 
     operation, and maintenance of the facilities;
       (3) formulas for the sharing of costs between the United 
     States and the Government of Mexico; and
       (4) a time schedule for the construction of facilities and 
     other measures recommended by the agreements entered into 
     under this section.

     SEC. 8. JOINT RESPONSES TO BORDER SANITATION EMERGENCIES.

       (a) Construction of Works.--The Secretary of State, acting 
     through the United States Commissioner, may enter into 
     agreements with the appropriate representative of the 
     Ministry of Foreign Relations of Mexico for the purpose of 
     joint response to correct border sanitation emergencies 
     through the construction of works, repair of existing 
     infrastructure, and other appropriate measures in Mexico and 
     the United States. The United States Commissioner shall 
     consult with the Governors of the States of Arizona, 
     California, New Mexico, and Texas in developing and 
     implementing agreements entered into under this section.
       (b) Health and Welfare.--Agreements entered into under 
     subsection (a) should consist of recommendations to the 
     Governments of the United States and Mexico that establish 
     general response plans to protect the health and welfare of 
     persons along the international surface rivers and streams 
     that form or cross the boundary between the United States and 
     Mexico, including recommendations concerning--
       (1) types of border sanitation emergencies requiring 
     response, including sewer line breaks, power interruptions to 
     wastewater handling facilities, breakdowns in components of 
     wastewater handling facilities, and accidental discharge of 
     sewage;
       (2) types of response to border sanitation emergencies, 
     including acquisition, use, and maintenance of joint response 
     equipment and facilities, small scale construction (including 
     modifications to existing infrastructure and temporary 
     works), and the installation of emergency and standby power 
     facilities;
       (3) formulas for the distribution of the costs of responses 
     to emergencies under this section on a case-by-case basis; 
     and
       (4) requirements for defining the beginning and end of an 
     emergency.

     SEC. 9. CONSTRUCTION, REPAIRS, AND OTHER MEASURES.

       (a) Border Sanitation Emergencies.--The Secretary of State, 
     acting through the United States Commissioner, may respond 
     through construction, repairs, and other measures in the 
     United States to correct border sanitation emergencies. The 
     Secretary of State may respond directly to a border 
     sanitation emergency or may coordinate the response with 
     appropriate State or local authorities.
       (b) Consultation With Affected Parties.--In responding to a 
     border sanitation emergency, the Secretary shall consult and 
     cooperate with the Administrator, affected States, counties, 
     municipalities, federally recognized Indian tribes, the 
     Government of Mexico, and other affected parties.

     SEC. 10. TRANSFER OF FUNDS.

       (a) Transfer Authority.--The Secretary of State, acting 
     through the United States Commissioner, may include as part 
     of the agreements entered into under sections 7, 8, and 9 
     such arrangements as are necessary to administer the transfer 
     to another country of funds assigned to 1 country and 
     obtained from Federal or non-Federal governmental or 
     nongovernmental sources.
       (b) Cost-Sharing Agreements.--
       (1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), no 
     funds of the United States shall be expended in Mexico for 
     emergency investigation or remediation pursuant to section 7, 
     8, or 9 without a cost-sharing agreement between the United 
     States and the Government of Mexico.
       (2) Exception.--
       (A) In general.--Funds may be expended as described in 
     paragraph (1) without a cost-sharing agreement if the 
     Secretary of State determines and can demonstrate that the 
     expenditure of the funds in Mexico would be cost-effective 
     and in the interest of the United States.
       (B) Report.--If funds are expended as described in 
     paragraph (1) without a cost-sharing agreement, the Secretary 
     of State shall submit a report to the appropriate committees 
     of Congress that explains why the costs were not shared 
     between the United States and the Government of Mexico and 
     why the expenditure of the funds without cost-sharing was in 
     the interest of the United States.
       (c) Commission Fund.--
       (1) Establishment.--There is established in the Treasury of 
     the United States a trust fund to be known as the ``United 
     States International Boundary and Water Commission Fund''. 
     The Commission Fund shall consist of--
       (A) such amounts as are transferred to the Commission Fund 
     under paragraph (2); and
       (B) any interest earned on investment of amounts in the 
     Commission Fund under paragraph (4).
       (2) Transfer to commission fund.--From amounts made 
     available to the Department of State, the Secretary of State 
     shall transfer to the Secretary of the Treasury for deposit 
     into the Commission Fund $5,000,000. The Secretary of the 
     Treasury shall deposit amounts received under this paragraph 
     into the Commission Fund.
       (3) Expenditures from commission fund.--
       (A) In general.--Subject to this paragraph, upon request by 
     the Secretary of State, the Secretary of the Treasury shall 
     transfer from the Commission Fund to the Secretary of State 
     such amounts as the Secretary of State determines are 
     necessary to carry out this section and sections 7, 8, and 9.
       (B) Methods of distribution of funds.--In carrying out the 
     purpose described in subparagraph (A), the Secretary of State 
     may expend amounts made available to the Secretary of State 
     from the Commission Fund directly or make the amounts 
     available through grants or contracts.
       (C) Administrative expenses.--An amount not exceeding 10 
     percent of the amounts in the Commission Fund shall be 
     available in each fiscal year to pay administrative expenses 
     necessary to carry out the purpose described in subparagraph 
     (A).
       (D) Availability of funds.--Amounts in the Commission Fund 
     shall be available without fiscal year limitation.
       (4) Investment of funds.--
       (A) In general.--The Secretary of the Treasury shall invest 
     such portion of the Commission Fund as is not, in the 
     judgment of the Secretary, required to meet current 
     withdrawals. Investments may be made only in interest-bearing 
     obligations of the United States.
       (B) Acquisition of obligations.--For the purpose of 
     investments, obligations may be acquired--
       (i) on original issue at the issue price; or
       (ii) by purchase of outstanding obligations at the market 
     price.
       (C) Sale of obligations.--Any obligation acquired by the 
     Commission Fund may be sold by the Secretary of the Treasury 
     at the market price.
       (D) Credits to commission fund.--The interest on, and the 
     proceeds from the sale or redemption of, any obligations held 
     in the Commission Fund shall be credited to and form a part 
     of the Commission Fund.
       (5) Transfers of amounts.--
       (A) In general.--The amounts required to be transferred to 
     the Commission Fund under paragraph (4) shall be transferred 
     at least monthly from the general fund of the Treasury to the 
     Commission Fund on the basis of estimates made by the 
     Secretary of the Treasury.
       (B) Adjustments.--Proper adjustment shall be made in 
     amounts subsequently transferred to the extent prior 
     estimates were in excess of or less than the amounts required 
     to be transferred.

     SEC. 11. ADMINISTRATION.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary of State and the 
     Administrator shall carry out this Act in a manner that is 
     consistent with the environmental provisions of the North 
     American Free Trade Agreement, so long as the United States 
     applies the North American Free Trade Agreement to Mexico.
       (b) Definition.--In this section, the term ``North American 
     Free Trade Agreement'' means the agreement between the United 
     States and Mexico (without regard to whether Canada is a 
     party to all or part of the agreement) entered into on 
     December 17, 1992, and approved by Congress pursuant to 
     [[Page S798]] section 101(a) of the North American Free Trade 
     Agreement Implementation Act (19 U.S.C. 3311(a)). The term 
     includes any letters exchanged between the Government of the 
     United States and the Government of Mexico with respect to 
     the agreement and any side agreements entered into in 
     connection with the agreement.

     SEC. 12. EFFECT ON OTHER LAW.

       Nothing in this Act shall amend, repeal, or otherwise 
     modify any provision of the Comprehensive Environmental 
     Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C. 
     9601 et seq.), the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization 
     Act of 1986 (Public Law 99-499) and the amendments made by 
     the Act, or any other law, treaty, or international agreement 
     of the United States.

     SEC. 13. TERMINATION OF AUTHORITY.

       The authority provided by this Act shall terminate on the 
     date that is 5 years after the date of enactment of this 
     Act.
                                 ______

      By Mr. BUMPERS:
  S. 197. A bill to establish the Carl Garner Federal Lands Cleanup 
Day, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Energy and Natural 
Resources.


               the carl garner federal lands cleanup act

 Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, several years ago I introduced 
legislation which resulted in the creation of the Federal Lands Cleanup 
Act. This law designates the first Saturday after Labor Day of each 
year as Federal Lands Cleanup Day and requires each Federal land 
managing agency to organize, coordinate, and participate with citizen 
volunteers and State and local agencies in cleaning and maintaining 
Federal public lands.
  I was inspired to introduce this legislation by a talented and 
dedicated public servant by the name of Carl Garner. Carl is the 
resident engineer with the Army Corps of Engineers at the Greers Ferry 
Lake site in Arkansas. In 1970, he organized a group of about 50 
volunteers to clean up trash that had accumulated along the shoreline 
of the lake. The Greers Ferry Cleanup Day was such an overwhelming 
success that eventually it was expanded to other Corps of Engineers-
operated lakes and other Federal and State lands in Arkansas and became 
known as the Great Arkansas Cleanup. The cleanup has become so popular 
that last year more than 24,000 Arkansans participated in it at more 
than 100 sites.
  Carl Garner recognized that we must instill in our citizens a greater 
sense of ownership, pride, and responsibility for the care and 
management of our State and public lands. His efforts and the 
phenomenal success of the Arkansas Cleanup Program inspired me to 
introduce the Federal Lands Cleanup Act of 1985.
  Today, I am introducing legislation that will rename the Federal 
Lands Cleanup Act and the day in honor of Carl Garner. This bill was 
approved by the Senate in the 103d Congress but was not considered by 
the House. I am introducing it again so that future generations who 
enjoy and treasure our Nation's forests, national parks, and waterways 
to know that it was the vision and leadership of Carl Garner that was 
responsible for creating this national cleanup effort.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of my bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 197

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

     SECTION 1. THE CARL GARNER FEDERAL LANDS CLEANUP ACT

       The Federal Lands Cleanup Act of 1985 (36 U.S.C. 169i-169i-
     1) is amended by striking ``Federal Lands Cleanup Day'' each 
     place it appears and inserting ``Carl Garner Federal Lands 
     Cleanup Day.''
                                 ______

      By Mr. CHAFEE (for himself, Mrs. Feinstein, Mrs. Hutchison, Mr. 
        Kohl, and Mr. Dorgan):
  S. 198. A bill to amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to 
permit Medicare select policies to be offered in all States, and for 
other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.


                extension of the medicare select program

 Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I am pleased today to join with 
Senators Feinstein, Hutchison, Kohl, and Dorgan in introducing 
legislation to extend the Medicare Select Program permanently and to 
make it available in all 50 States.
  Based on legislation that I introduced in 1990, Medicare Select is a 
demonstration project operating in 15 States with more than 400,000 
participants. Under this program, Medicare beneficiaries have the 
option to purchase Medicare supplemental insurance policies--often 
referred to as Medigap policies--through managed care networks.
  This program has been a huge success and admirably serves those 
beneficiaries lucky enough to participate. Recent data continues to 
show that Medicare beneficiaries who purchase Medicare Select products 
pay premiums 10 percent to 37 percent less expensive than traditional 
Medigap products. Moreover, consumer satisfaction with these products 
is extremely high. Of the top 15 Medigap products ranked by Consumer 
Reports magazine in its August 1994 issue, eight were Medicare Select 
products. Unfortunately, under current law, current Medicare Select 
carriers will have to halt enrollment in July 1995.
  Almost all the major health care reform plans introduced during the 
past session of Congress included provisions to expand the Medicare 
Select Program to all 50 States. While none of these health care reform 
efforts succeeded, my colleagues and I worked at the end of the last 
session to extend the demonstration program until July of this year, 
until we could introduce a bill to extend the program permanently and 
to expand it to all 50 States. As I indicated, the current 
demonstration program expires in July of this year--before we will be 
able to take any actions on health care reform.
  Therefore, we need to enact legislation that will allow the current 
successful program to become a permanent option for Medicare 
beneficiaries and to expand to all States. This bill will do just that, 
and I urge my colleagues to give it their support.
 Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I support Senator Chafee's 
proposal to extend the Medicare Select Program, which currently 
provides Medigap health benefits to roughly 400,000 older Americans by 
using a managed care model.
  Like many of the other original cosponsors of this legislation, I 
come from one of the 15 States where the Medicare Select demonstration 
program has proved its popularity during the last 3 years.
  Medicare Select, which currently provides 100,000 Californians with 
low-cost Medigap insurance using a managed care model, was enacted in 
1990 as a 3-year demonstration program and has proved to be extremely 
popular, enrolling 400,000 seniors in 15 States.
  This program used a network of providers to cut premium costs by 10-
30 percent over fee for service Medigap products--those services and 
costs not covered by Medicare--according to several reports.
  In California, roughly 100,000 seniors have signed up for the 
program, and Blue Cross of California alone is enrolling an additional 
2,200 per month. These Medicare enrollees are signing up because the 
Medicare Select Program can provide low-cost, high-quality health 
benefits, while still retaining a high degree of choice over their 
physician.
  The reason for the program's popularity are simple. In order to save 
money or receive added benefits, more and more older Americans are 
enrolling in managed care plans.
  In fact, Consumer Reports lists many Medicare Select products as its 
highest rated values, and extension of the Medicare Select Program is 
strongly endorsed by California Insurance Commissioner Garamendi, as 
well as the National Association of Insurance Commissioners.
  In addition, the Mainstream plan--and nearly every other health 
reform proposed this Congress--provided for a continuation and 
expansion of Medicare Select and other forms of managed Medicare.
  Certainly, managed Medicare programs like Medicare Select must be 
implemented carefully, in order to ensure that Medicare enrollees are 
appropriately informed of the benefits of this program, provided with 
high-quality services, and ensured access to highly trained physicians. 
In addition, managed care programs must be shown to provide lower costs 
to the Federal Government in addition to consumer discounts.
  However, without the extension of the Medicare Select Program, which 
[[Page S799]] has already proven its initial success, new enrollments 
will be cut off in July 1995--before additional health care reform will 
have been enacted.
  In the absence of national health care reform, I believe that this 
successful and popular managed Medicare program should be allowed to 
continue.
                                 ______

      By Mr. KYL (for himself and Mr. McCain):
  S. 199. A bill to repeal certain provisions of law relating to 
trading with Indians; to the Committee on Indian Affairs.


                     REPEAL OF INDIAN TRADING LAWS

  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I rise today with my colleague from Arizona, 
John McCain, to introduce legislation to repeal the outdated Trading 
with Indians Act.
  Originally enacted in 1834 with a legitimate purpose in mind, the 
Trading with Indians Act was intended to protect native Americans from 
being unduly influenced by Federal employees.
  But that act is no longer needed, and is in many cases unnecessarily 
punitive and counterproductive, in 1995. It is wreaking havoc on hard-
working employees and their families, and it is bad for reservation 
economies.
  The act establishes a virtually absolute prohibition against 
commercial trading with Indians by employees of the Indian Health 
Service and Bureau of Indian Affairs. The prohibition extends to 
transactions in which a Federal employee has an interest, either in his 
or her own name, or in the name of another person, including a spouse, 
where the employee benefits or appears to benefit from such interest.
  The penalties for violations are severe: a fine of not more than 
$5,000, or imprisonment of not more than 6 months, or both. The act 
further provides that any employee in violation be terminated from 
Federal employment.
  This can result in an employee being subject to criminal penalties 
and termination, not for any real or perceived wrongdoing on his or her 
own part, but merely because the person is married to another 
enterprising individual on an Indian reservation. The nexus is enough 
to invoke penalties. It means, for example, that an Indian Health 
Service employee, whose spouse operates a law firm on the Navajo 
Nation, could be fined, imprisoned, and/or fired. It means that a 
family member can't apply for a small business loan without 
jeopardizing the employee's job.
  The protection that the Trading with Indians Act provided in 1834 can 
now be provided under the Standards of Ethical Conduct for Government 
Employees. The intent here is to provide adequate safeguards against 
conflicts of interest, while not unreasonably denying individuals and 
their families the ability to live and work--and create jobs--in their 
communities.
  Both Health and Human Services Secretary Donna Shalala and Interior 
Department Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs Ada Deer have 
expressed support for the legislation to repeal the 1834 act. As 
Secretary Shalala pointed out in a letter dated November 17, 1993, the 
Department ``agree(s) with the position that the Standards of Ethical 
Conduct, along with the criminal statutes at 18 U.S.C. 201-211, provide 
adequate safeguards against conflicts of interest involving Federal 
Government employees.''
  Secretary Shalala went on to note that, ``in addition, the bill could 
improve the ability of IHS to recruit and retain medical professional 
employees in remote locations. It is more difficult for IHS to recruit 
and retain medical professionals to work in remote reservation 
facilities if their spouses are prohibited from engaging in business 
activities with the local Indian residents, particularly since 
employment opportunities for spouses are often very limited in these 
locations.
  Mr. President, I urge Members of the Senate to join me in this effort 
to promptly repeal an outdated and counterproductive law, and I ask 
that the text of my bill be reprinted in the Record at this point:
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 199

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

     SECTION 1. REPEAL.
       Section 437 of title 18, United States Code, is repealed.
                                 ______

      By Mr. BRADLEY (for himself, Mr. Kohl, and Mr. Simon):
  S. 200. A bill to amend title 18, United States Code, to regulate the 
manufacture, importation, and sale of any projectile that may be used 
in a handgun and is capable of penetrating police body armor; to the 
Committee on the Judiciary.


                     COP KILLER AMMUNITION BAN ACT

  Mr. BRADLEY. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a measure 
designed to ban any handgun bullet capable of piercing body armor, 
regardless of the bullet's physical composition.
  Mr. President, this legislation grows out of the recent controversy 
over the Black Rhino bullet, which allegedly penetrates tightly woven 
fibers of bulletproof vests and, upon impact with human tissue, 
purportedly disintegrates much more rapidly than a conventional bullet, 
causing massive damage.
  Mr. President, Federal law currently outlaws cop-killer bullets based 
on the physical description of the bullet. For example, under the 
Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, Federal law 
currently bans cop-killing ammunition that is: constructed from one or 
a combination of tungsten alloys, steel, iron, brass, bronze, beryllium 
copper or depleted uranium; or is larger than .22 caliber with a jacket 
that weighs no more than 25 percent of the total weight of the bullet. 
The Black Rhino bullet is allegedly made of ground powdered plastic and 
coated with a plastic polymer. Based on its alleged physical 
characteristics, this bullet would evade the Federal ban.
  Mr. President, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms [ATF] has 
not tested the Black Rhino bullet; thus, I am not sure that this 
ammunition can do what the manufacturer claims. Indeed, ATF has not 
even been given sample ammunition to test. Therefore, I am not certain 
that this ammunition even exists. However, even if these bullets do not 
perform as advertised, it is clear that with the downsizing of the 
military and the resulting application by the defense industry of 
military defense technology for use in the private sector, it is only a 
matter of time before ammunition that can pierce body armor will be 
developed utilizing construction material that does not fall within the 
current Federal ban.
  Mr. President, every year about 60 sworn police officers are shot to 
death in the line of duty. By industry estimates, body armor has saved 
over 500 officers from death or serious injury by firearm assaults. 
Most police officers serving large jurisdictions report they have armor 
and wear it at all times when on duty. Mr. President, because body 
armor saves lives, the
 development of armor-piercing bullets that sidestep the Federal ban--
whether it be the Black Rhino bullet or any other bullet employing 
high-technology material--will serve one purpose and one purpose only--
to put the lives of American citizens and those in blue sworn to defend 
American citizens in jeopardy.

  As a result, Mr. President, I introduce this bill which will 
establish a performance standard such that any ammunition that is 
designed to penetrate body armor will be banned irrespective of its 
physical characteristics. The bill specifically directs the Department 
of the Treasury and the Justice Department to promulgate a uniform 
performance standard for testing a bullet's capacity to pierce armor 
within 1 year of the enactment of the bill. The manufacture, 
importation, and sale of any ammunition that fails to pass the 
performance standard to be promulgated will be banned.
  Mr. President, cop-killing ammunition that has no purpose other than 
penetrating bulletproof vests has no place in our society. At a time 
when gun violence is becoming a national epidemic, the last thing we 
need is ammunition expressly designed to terrorize our police and 
instill fear in neighborhoods across New Jersey and this country. I 
therefore introduce this legislation to ensure that the 24,000 annual 
deaths attributable to handgun use do not senselessly increase.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:
                          [[Page S800]] S. 200

       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 ``Cop Killer Ammunition Ban 
     Act of 1995''.

     SEC. 2. REGULATION OF THE MANUFACTURE, IMPORTATION, AND SALE 
                   OF PROJECTILES THAT MAY BE USED IN A HANDGUN 
                   AND ARE CAPABLE OF PENETRATING POLICE BODY 
                   ARMOR.

       (a) Expansion of Definition of Armor Piercing Ammunition.--
     Section 921(a)(17)(B) of title 18, United States Code, is 
     amended--
       (1) by striking ``or'' at the end of clause (i);
       (2) by striking the period at the end of clause (ii) and 
     inserting ``; or''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(iii) a projectile that may be used in a handgun and that 
     the Secretary determines, pursuant to section 926(d), to be 
     capable of penetrating body armor.''.
       (b) Determination of the Capability of Projectiles To 
     Penetrate Body Armor.--Section 926 of such title is amended 
     by adding at the end the following:
       ``(d)(1) Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment 
     of this subsection, the Secretary shall promulgate standards 
     for the uniform testing of projectiles against the Body Armor 
     Exemplar, based on standards developed in cooperation with 
     the Attorney General of the United States. Such standards 
     shall take into account, among other factors, variations in 
     performance that are related to the length of the barrel of 
     the handgun from which the projectile is fired and the amount 
     and kind of powder used to propel the projectile.
       ``(2) As used in paragraph (1), the term `Body Armor 
     Exemplar' means body armor that the Secretary, in cooperation 
     with the Attorney General of the United States, determines 
     meets minimum standards for protection of law enforcement 
     officers.''.
                                 ______

      By Mr. WARNER (for himself and Mr. Robb):
  S. 201. A bill to close the Lorton Correctional Complex, to prohibit 
the incarceration of individuals convicted of felonies under the laws 
of the District of Columbia in facilities of the District of Columbia 
Department of Corrections, and for other purposes; to the Committee on 
the Judiciary.


            lorton correctional complex closure legislation

 Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, today I join with my colleague 
Senator Robb in introducing legislation that will address the problems 
that exist at the Lorton Correctional Complex.
  Lorton Correctional Complex is an outdated, deteriorating, 
overpopulated, and undermanaged facility.
  For years, I and others have worked to provide funds to build a 
prison within the District of Columbia so it could house its own 
prisoners. Our efforts have been blocked in the District of Columbia 
and our efforts to enhance safety and curb illegal drugs and guns at 
Lorton have been to no avail.
  Every day, the local newspapers are filled with appalling reports of 
violence and drug use among the inmates and the place has been called a 
graduate school for drug merchants. Lorton's problems may not be unique 
among Federal prisons, but surely they are among the worst.
  There is no option but to close Lorton.
  The legislation we are introducing today would relocate 7,300 
prisoners presently incarcerated at Lorton to other Federal facilities 
over a 5-year period. Once the legislation is passed, all new District 
of Columbia felons will be immediately incarcerated in Bureau of 
Prisons facilities. The District of Columbia Department of Corrections 
will still have responsibility for juveniles, misdemeanants, and pre-
trial detainees.
  A second important provision of the legislation is the establishment 
of a commission to be known as the Commission on Closure of the Lorton 
Correctional Complex. The commission will be comprised of locally 
appointed representatives to help devise a plan for the closure of 
Lorton. The involvement of the local community is essential in 
establishing a transition that ensures that local residents will have 
all their concerns heard.
  I have been informed by a representative of the Federal Bureau of 
Prisons that at this time the Bureau is not taking a position on the 
legislation. The 7,300 prisoners at Lorton will be a stress on the 
Federal prison system. Sixty percent of the prisoners at Lorton will 
require being transferred to a maximum security prison. Also, several 
new prisons will need to be constructed to house the prisoners along 
with the additional personnel needed to operate and maintain the 
prisons.
  It is in the interest of Fairfax County, the Commonwealth of 
Virginia, the District of Columbia, and the Federal Government to 
cooperate in resolving the problems at Lorton Prison. As partners, 
contributing to the reform of this system, these goals can be 
accomplished.
 Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senator Warner 
in introducing the Lorton Correctional Complex Closure Act. This 
legislation provides a vital solution to the problem associated with 
the Lorton Correctional Complex, located in Virginia.
  Originally, Lorton was designed as a workcamp and dormitory for 
misdemeanants and drunkards. Today, Lorton's facilities are outmoded 
and overburdened. The same dormitories which were designed to hold 
nonviolent, minimum security prisoners now house D.C.'s most dangerous 
felons. In its strapped fiscal state, the District is ill-equipped to 
improve the facility at Lorton.
  Part one of our proposal will direct new D.C. felons into Federal 
correction facilities, providing an immediate remedy for increased 
overcrowding. Then, within 5 years, all remaining felons at Lorton will 
be turned over to the control of the Director of the Federal Bureau of 
Prisons, enabling final closure of the facility. The D.C. Department of 
Corrections will retain responsibility for juveniles, misdemeanants, 
and pre-trial detainees.
  Part two of the bill sets up a commission of locally appointed 
representatives from the District of Columbia, Fairfax County and 
Prince William County to help devise a plan for closure of the 
facility, disposal of the property, and future land use. This creates a 
process that maximizes community involvement, input and participation 
in inherently local decisions.
  Under this plan, northern Virginians will have safer communities and 
will be able to participate in the development of future land use 
proposals for the affected area.
  Since the land is owned by the Federal Government and the facility is 
operated by the District, local officials and residents in northern 
Virginia have had limited means of impacting the decisions relative to 
Lorton. That's why I included a provision giving local residents and 
officials a voice in expansion proposals during last year's crime bill. 
But limiting expansion just isn't enough--I've come to the conclusion 
that the Federal Government must accept its responsibility and devise a 
longterm solution.
  We have before us an honest and open attempt to provide a vital 
remedy for the longstanding problems at Lorton. Closing this facility 
will not be easy--but I look forward to working with the Virginia 
delegation and the District to develop a reasonable and sound solution 
to the problems posed by the Lorton facility in its present condition. 
I urge quick consideration and passage of this measure.
                                 ______

      By Mr. KENNEDY (for himself and Mr. Wellstone):
  S. 203. A bill to amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to 
increase the Federal minimum wage, to establish a Commission to conduct 
a study on the indexation of the Federal minimum wage, and for other 
purposes; to the Committee on Labor and Human Resources.


                  american family fair minimum wage act

  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, much has been said and written about the 
decline in real wages suffered by the majority of working Americans, 
the troubling rise in income equality, and the emergence of what 
Secretary of Labor Reich has so aptly described as ``the anxious 
class.''
  Today, I am introducing legislation which is an important part of the 
initiatives we must undertake if we are serious about addressing these 
problems--legislation to increase the Federal minimum wage.
  The minimum wage should be a living wage. That principle served this 
Nation well for more than 40 years. From the enactment of the first 
Federal minimum wage law in 1938 through the end of the 1970's, 
Congress addressed the issue six times. And six times bipartisan 
majorities--with the 
[[Page S801]] support of both Republican and Democratic Presidents--
reaffirmed the nation's commitment to a fair level of the minimum wage 
for America's workers.
  But in the 1980's, that commitment was abandoned. From 1981 through 
1989, the minimum wage was allowed to fall, in real terms, to the 
lowest value in its 50-year history. The modest increases enacted in 
1989--which brought the minimum wage up from $3.35 to $3.80 in 1990 and 
to $4.25 in 1991, provided some measure of relief to low-wage workers. 
But those increases restored only about half of the purchasing power 
lost during the 1980's
  It is unacceptable in this country today that a person who works 
full-time, year round at the minimum wage--even with the expanded 
earned income tax credit--does not earn enough to bring a family of 
three above the poverty line. Despite the increases that went into 
effect in 1990 and 1991, the current minimum wage is still a poverty 
wage. At $4.25 an hour, a person working 40 hours a week at the minimum 
wage earns just $170 a week--before taxes and Social Security are 
deducted.
  The legislation I am introducing today will raise the minimum wage by 
50 cents a year over the next 3 years--to $4.75 this year, $5.25 in 
1996, and $5.75 in 1997.
  The first 50-cent increase will merely restore the minimum wage, in 
real terms, to the value it had in 1991 when the last increase went 
into effect. In the past 4 years the purchasing power of the minimum 
wage has already declined to the point that a 50-cent increase is 
needed just to recover the ground lost since 1991.
  The second 50-cent increase, in 1996, will bring the minimum wage, in 
real terms, up to the level where Congress sought to put it in the 
legislation passed by both Houses of Congress which President Bush 
vetoed in 1989.
  The third 50-cent increase will put the wage, in real terms, within 
reach of what ought to be our ultimate goal--to restore the minimum 
wage to a level roughly equal to half the average hourly wage, the 
level that prevailed for decades until the 1980's when it was allowed 
to drastically decline.
  Finally, the legislation I am introducing creates a Commission to 
study and make recommendations on two important issues: First, the best 
means by which we can achieve the goal of restoring the minimum wage to 
its historic level, and second, the best means by which we can provide 
regular, periodic adjustments to the wage, in order to avoid long 
periods of stagnation such as occurred during the 1980's.
  As we begin this effort to increase the minimum wage, it is likely 
that we will be confronted by opponents with the same sky-is-falling 
predictions of job loss and damage to the economy that have been made 
every time the minimum wage has been increased since 1938. The textbook 
economic theory that increases in the minimum wage necessarily result 
in job losses has never had solid empirical support. Recent studies by 
leading economists who examined the results of the most recent 
increases in both State and Federal minimum wages have shown the theory 
to be at odds with reality.
  Economists Lawrence Katz of Harvard University and Alan Krueger and 
David Card of Princeton University studied the impact of those 
increases on employment. According to their findings, those increases 
did not have the negative employment effects predicted by opponents. In 
fact, their findings included evidence indicating a positive impact on 
employment.
  A survey designed to measure the effects of the recent increase in 
the New Jersey minimum wage to $5.05 found that employment in New 
Jersey if anything actually expanded with the rise in the minimum wage, 
and similar results were found in a studies conducted in Texas and 
California.
  Krueger and Card's analysis of the impact of the 1990 and 1991 
increases in the Federal minimum wage also found that those increases 
did not adversely affect teenage employment, and that increases in the 
minimum wage were not offset by reductions in fringe benefits.
  The increases proposed in this bill will bring long overdue help to 
millions of workers in America. I urge my colleagues to sponsor this 
legislation, and I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:
                                 S. 203

       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 ``American Family Fair Minimum 
     Wage Act of 1995''.

     SEC. 2. MINIMUM WAGE INCREASE.

       Paragraph (1) of section 6(a) of the Fair Labor Standards 
     Act of 1938 (29 U.S.C. 206(a)(1)) is amended to read as 
     follows:
       ``(1) except as otherwise provided in this section not less 
     than--
       ``(A) $4.25 an hour during the period ending on August 31, 
     1995;
       ``(B) $4.75 an hour during the year beginning on September 
     1, 1995;
       ``(C) $5.25 an hour during the year beginning September 1, 
     1996; and
       ``(D) $5.75 an hour during the year beginning September 1, 
     1997;''.

     SEC. 3. ESTABLISHMENT OF COMMISSION ON THE MINIMUM WAGE.

       (a) Establishment.--There is established a commission to be 
     known as the Commission on the Minimum Wage (hereafter in 
     this Act referred to as the ``Commission'').
       (b) Membership.--The Commission shall be composed of 9 
     members to be appointed not later than 180 days after the 
     date of enactment of this Act as follows:
       (1) Three members shall be appointed by the Secretary of 
     Labor.
       (2) Three members shall be appointed by the Secretary of 
     Commerce.
       (3) Three members shall be appointed by the Secretary of 
     Health and Human Services.
       (c) Duties of the Commission.--
       (1) Study.--The Commission shall conduct a study of, and 
     make recommendations to Congress on--
       (A) means to restore the minimum wage to the level relative 
     to the average hourly wage that existed when the Congress 
     adjusted the minimum wage during the period 1950 through 
     1980; and
       (B) means to maintain such level with minimum disruption to 
     the general economy through regular and periodic adjustments 
     to the minimum wage rate.
       (2) Report.--Not later than September 1, 1993, the 
     Commission shall prepare and submit a report to the 
     appropriate committees of Congress that shall include the 
     findings of the Commission and the recommendations described 
     in paragraph (1).
       (d) Compensation of Members.--
       (1) Pay.--The members of the Commission shall serve without 
     compensation.
       (2) Travel expenses.--The members of the Commission shall 
     be allowed travel expenses, including per diem in lieu of 
     subsistence, at rate authorized for employees of agencies 
     under subchapter I of chapter 57 of title 5, United States 
     Code, while away from their homes or regular places of 
     business in the performance of services for the Commission.
       (e) Termination of the Commission.--The Commission shall 
     terminate 30 days after the date on which the Commission 
     submits the report under subsection (c)(2).
       (f) Applicability of the Federal Advisory Committee Act.--
     Except as provided in subsections (d) and (e), the provisions 
     of the Federal Advisory Committee Act shall apply to the 
     Commission.

 Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I just wanted to acknowledge the 
work of Senator Kennedy in crafting this important legislation which we 
are introducing today to increase the Federal minimum wage.
  I had introduced a similar bill in the last Congress, which would 
have increased the minimum wage even further than is provided for in 
this bill, and have been a long-time supporter of making sure that low-
income people are paid a decent and just minimum wage. I may be 
reintroducing that bill later this year, because in addition to a 
higher target wage, it also provided for indexing of the Federal 
minimum wage--a key element of any minimum wage increase legislation, 
in my view.
  This measure provides for modest, incremental increases over 3 years 
in the Federal minimum wage, and then for a study to be ready at the 
end of the third year to address other key issues like indexation. I am 
delighted to join as an original cosponsor of this measure.
                                 ______

      By Mr. MOYNIHAN:
  S. 204. A bill to provide for a reform of the public buildings 
program, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Environment and 
Public Works.


                      FEDERAL BUILDINGS REFORM ACT

  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I rise to introduce a bill to reform the 
way the Federal Government builds. Ever since my election to Congress, 
I have attempted to improve our unwieldy and often wasteful public 
building program. I do so again this Congress. Building appropriately 
and well is as fundamental a sign of the competence 
[[Page S802]] of government as will be found. Recently, however, we 
have chosen increasingly to rent, avoiding the up-front costs of 
buildings and the hard decisions requisite in their construction.
  The result is that now we house over 40 percent of the Government in 
leased space. Not temporary space. Eternal space. And the cost? Now, 
$2.2 billion a year and rising. There will be nothing to show for this 
money when the lease is up, only the prospect of another lease.
  The point is that we can no longer afford to sidestep the problem by 
renting; we must face up to the task of building. And to do this, we 
must reform our public building program. We must plan out rationally 
just what buildings we need, we must build them in the right place, we 
must build them at the right time, we must build them to the degree of 
permanence appropriate to their mission, and finally, we must build 
them for a fair price. We are not really that distant from the time it 
fell to me as a young member of the Kennedy administration to draw up 
the ``Guiding Principles for Federal Architecture,'' which President 
Kennedy put forth on June 1, 1962. But in our time the fear of taxpayer 
resentment of the cost of public buildings has been compounded with an 
almost ideological alarm at the implications of building itself.
  Building, however, is still cheaper than renting. We are deceiving 
the taxpayer to say otherwise. Recently, the GSA came to the 
Environment and Public Works Committee asking for 11th-hour approval of 
an office space lease at a yearly cost of $21 million. To build would 
have cost $70-$100 million. This, however, was a lease in name only, 
cast as such to avoid up-front scoring for the budget. The building had 
yet to be designed, the GSA had not fully planned the space, and yet 
they were asking approval for an expenditure over the term of the lease 
of $420 million. Several times the cost of building and nothing to show 
for it after 20 years but a file full of rental receipts.
  Nevertheless, the decision to stop hiding behind leases is beyond the 
scope of the legislation I introduce today, which aims simply to ensure 
that what is built is built responsibly and worthy of the Nation. 
Building or leasing is the larger question, and it remains to be seen 
whether this Congress will accept the responsibility or, as is so often 
the case, put off resolution to the end of a 20-year lease term, when 
few, if any of us, will be here still.
                                 ______

      By Mrs. BOXER:
  S. 205. A bill to amend title 37, United States Code, to revise and 
expand the prohibition on accrual of pay and allowances by members of 
the Armed Forces who are confined pending dishonorable discharge; to 
the Committee on Armed Services.


 LEGISLATION RELATING TO THE PAY OF DISHONORABLY DISCHARGED MEMBERS OF 
                            THE ARMED FORCES

 Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, if I were to tell you that the 
Pentagon pays full salary to convicted child molesters, rapists, and 
murderers, you would probably think I was making it up. But I'm not.
  Each month, the Pentagon pays the salaries of military personnel 
convicted of the most heinous crimes, while their cases are appealed 
through the military court system--a process than often takes years. 
During that time, these violent criminals can sit back in prison, read 
the Wall Street Journal, invest wisely, and watch their taxpayer-funded 
nest eggs grow. While in prison, many military criminals even get cost 
of living raises.
  I cannot think of a more reprehensible way to spend taxpayer dollars. 
No explanation could ever make me understand how the military could 
reward rapists, murders, and child molesters--the lowest of the low--
with the hard-earned tax dollars of law-abiding citizens. This policy 
thumbs its nose at taxpayers, slaps the faces of crime victims, and is 
one of the worst examples of Government waste I have seen in my 20 
years of public service.
  Congress must act now to end this practice. According to data 
provided by the Defense Finance Accounting Service and first published 
in the Dayton Daily News, the Department of Defense spent more than $1 
million on the salaries of 680 convicts in the month of June, 1994, 
alone. In that month, the Pentagon paid the salaries of 58 rapists, 164 
child molesters, and 7 murders, among others.
  The individual stories of military criminals continuing to receive 
full pay are shocking. In California, A marine lance corporal who beat 
his 13-month-old daughter to death almost 2 years ago still receives 
$1,105 each month--about $25,000 since his conviction. He spends his 
days in the brig at Camp Pendleton, doesn't pay a dime of child 
support.
  I spoke with the murdered child's grandmother who now has custody of 
a surviving 4-year-old grandson. She is a resident of northern 
California. She was outraged to learn that the murderer of her 
grandchild still receives full pay. ``No wonder the Government is out 
of money,'' she told me.
  Another Air Force sergeant who tried to kill his wife with a kitchen 
knife continues to receive full pay while serving time at Fort 
Leavenworth. He told the Dayton Daily News, ``I follow the stock 
market; I buy Double E bonds.''
  And believe it or not, Francisco Duran, who was arrested last October 
after firing 27 shots at the White House was paid by the military while 
in prison after being convicted of aggravated assault. According to DOD 
records, Duran was paid $17,537 after his conviction for deliberately 
driving his car into a crowd of people outside a Hawaii bowling alley 
in 1990. Some of that money may well have paid for the weapon he used 
to shoot at the White House.
  This policy is crazy, and it has got to stop.
  At a time when the Republican Contract With America calls for more 
dollars for the Pentagon, let's not go back to the days of throwing 
money at the military as long as this kind of wasteful spending 
continues.
  This legislation will immediately halt pay to all military personnel 
who have been sentenced to confinement and dishonorable discharge.
  This legislation will save the taxpayers money--millions of dollars 
each year. It will put an end to this egregious waste of taxpayer 
dollars, and it will treat military criminals as they deserve to be 
treated--as criminals--to be punished, not rewarded.
  It is my hope that this legislation can be acted upon quickly. I have 
discussed this matter with Edwin Dorn, Undersecretary of Defense for 
Personnel and Readiness, and he agreed that we must correct the 
Department's obviously flawed policy.
  I received a copy of a memorandum from Secretary Dorn today advising 
me that he has convened an internal working group on this issue, and I 
trust that we can work cooperatively to end this outrageous practice 
immediately. We must not drag out the process while criminals continue 
to reap unjust rewards.
  There is no need to take a long time to study this issue. We know the 
problem, and this legislation offers a workable solution.
  I will soon discuss the issue with Senator Thurmond and Senator Nunn 
and I trust that they will agree that this legislation deserves to move 
forward.
  In the course of my investigation into this issue, I have learned of 
several other aspects of the military justice system that merit further 
investigation. For example, the military has no system in place for 
providing restitution or other needed compensation to victims or to 
families of military criminals. These are important problems and I will 
continue to work with my colleagues and the Department to find the best 
solution.
  I ask unanimous consent that two news articles discussing this issue 
be inserted in the Record.
  I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the bill be printed in 
the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:
                                 S. 205

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

     SECTION 1. PAY AND ALLOWANCES.

       (a) Revision of Prohibition.--(1) Section 804 of title 37, 
     United States Code, is amended to read as follows:
     [[Page S803]] ``Sec. 804. Prohibition of accrual of pay and 
       allowances during confinement pending dishonorable 
       discharge

       ``(a) Pay and Allowances Not To Accrue.--A member of the 
     armed forces sentenced by a court-martial to a dishonorable 
     discharge is not entitled to pay and allowances for any 
     period during which the member is in confinement after the 
     adjournment of the court-martial that adjudged such sentence.
       ``(b) Restoration of Entitlement.--If a sentence of a 
     member of the armed forces to dishonorable discharge is 
     disapproved, mitigated, or changed by an official authorized 
     to do so or is otherwise set aside by competent authority, 
     the prohibition in subsection (a) shall cease to apply to the 
     member on the basis of that sentence and the member shall be 
     entitled to receive the pay and allowances that, under 
     subsection (a), did not accrue to the member by reason of 
     that sentence.''.
       (2) Clerical Amendment.--The item relating to section 804 
     in the table of sections at the beginning of chapter 15 of 
     such title is amended to read as follows:
``804. Prohibition of accrual of pay and allowances during confinement 
              pending dishonorable discharge.''.
       (b) Prospective Applicability.--The amendment made by 
     subsection (a)(1) does not apply to pay periods beginning 
     before the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                                                    ____

                      [From the Dayton Daily News]

  White House Shooter's Past--Ex-Soldier Duran Kept His Pay While in 
                             Prison in 1991

                          (By Russell Carollo)

       Two years before he opened fire on the White House, Spc. 
     Francisco M. Duran was on the U.S. Army's payroll
       Not as a soldier, but as a prison inmate.
       On Aug. 9, 1990, Duran deliberately drove his red Nissan 
     sedan into a crowd of people who had chased the drunken 
     soldier from the bowling alley at Schofield Barracks on Oahu 
     in Hawaii.
       Cecilia Ululani Ufano, 49, was tossed in the air and 
     fractured her skull when she landed.
       Duran was convicted of aggravated assault on Feb. 15, 1991, 
     and sentenced to five years in prison, but the military kept 
     paying him until June 1992. In all, he earned, $17,537 after 
     his conviction.
       A military court had ordered his pay to stop, but Duran 
     wrote to a commander hearing his appeal, pleading for a 
     paycheck to help his family.
       ``Rent is outrageous in Hawaii * * *,'' he wrote. ``We 
     still owe on our car.''
       The commander allowed Duran to keep some of his pay.
       His five-year sentence would have kept him in prison until 
     1995, but a commander suspended all but 42 months of his 
     sentence.
       By Sept. 3, 1993, he had been discharged from the service 
     and released from prison early for good behavior.
       Last month, Duran, 26, was charged with trying to 
     assassinate President Clinton. He faces life in prison if 
     convicted.
       He was arrested Oct. 29 after he, allegedly fired 27 rounds 
     from a semiautomatic rifle at the White House. Authorities 
     reportedly recovered from his truck a map with the words 
     ``Kill the (prez)'' written on it.
       While the Army paid Duran, it gave Ufano nothing. Insurance 
     didn't pay all of her medical bills.
       ``I'm angry about it,'' she said during a telephone 
     interview. ``I'm still under medication. * * * I can't smell, 
     and it's been four years.''
                                                                    ____

              [From the Dayton Daily News, Dec. 18, 1994]

  Cashing In Behind Bars--U.S. Military Believes in Paying Soldiers, 
                       Sailors It Sends to Prison

                (By Russell Carollo and Cheryl L. Reed)

       Andre D. Carter choked and raped a cocktail waitress in his 
     Colorado Springs apartment. He went to prison but still was 
     paid $20,788.
       James R. Lee sodomized three teen-age boys in Illinois, and 
     he was paid even more: $85,997.
       Rodney G. Templeton molested a 4-year-old girl in the 
     basement of a Dayton church, where the two had gone to hang 
     choir robes. He was paid $148,616.
       Carter, Lee and Templeton were paid by U.S. taxpayers.
       They didn't work for the money.
       They didn't need to. They committed their crimes while 
     members of the U.S. armed forces.
       They are among hundreds of murderers, rapists, child 
     molesters and other criminals paid by the armed services long 
     after being locked away.
       A Dayton Daily News examination of payments to military 
     convicts found that in just one month, June, the military 
     spent more than $1 million in pay and benefits to more than 
     665 prisoners in military jails and prisons. Some even got 
     pay raises behind bars.
       Most of Congress was unaware the military paid prisoners. 
     Even the military had no idea exactly how much it paid, but 
     the newspaper calculated payments by using military computer 
     records.
       ``Any type of pay to convicted criminals is wrong,'' said 
     District Attorney John Wampler of Altus, Okla., after 
     learning a service member from his area was paid despite a 
     1992 involuntary manslaughter conviction. ``It offends me 
     that the federal government would compensate the person after 
     they've been sent to prison.''
       Had Carter, Lee or Templeton worked for nearly any other 
     public or private employer, they would have been fired and 
     lost their salaries. But the U.S. military, supporting a 
     tradition dating to the old West, believes if it sends 
     soldiers or sailors to prison it should, in many cases, pay 
     them.
       Their victims aren't so lucky. Several were left without a 
     dime to pay medical expenses, while their attackers got 
     paychecks to pay bills, start a business or even buy stocks.
       While the military kept paying Carter, the waitress's boss 
     cut off her pay because she could not muster the courage to 
     return to her job, where she met Carter.
       ``No, they shouldn't get paid, but what can you do about 
     it?'' she said, adding that she has yet to see a counselor.
       Ret. Gen David Brahms, former chief military attorney for 
     the Marine Corps and technical adviser for the movie, A Few 
     Good Men, said victims should get something.
       ``Unfortunately, that isn't the way it is now,'' Brahms 
     said. ``Maybe the Congress should address that question.''


                            behind the walls

       At the military maximum-security prison at Fort 
     Leavenworth, Kan., 405 prisoners, or 30 percent of the prison 
     population, were allowed by military courts to keep their pay 
     up to several years.
       Besides the pay, the military gave to the dependents of 
     those inmates, and to the dependents of others throughout the 
     country, free medical coverage and 20-30 percent discounts at 
     base stores.
       Those who got checks included 164 child molesters and child 
     rapists, 58 other rapists, 11 convicted of attempted murder 
     and seven convicted murderers.
       They include people such as Air Force Sgt. Rossel Jones.
       Jones chased his wife around their apartment at Holloman 
     Air Force Base, N.M., with a knife, stabbing her several 
     times as she warded off the swinging blade with her hands.
       ``That's how my fingers and hands were cut,'' Deborah Jones 
     told an Air Force investigator the day after the Oct. 7, 
     1991, attack. ``When Rossel stabbed me in the neck, I managed 
     to bend the knife and take it away.
       ``. .  I fell down and passed out. When I awoke, Rossel was 
     hitting me in the head and body with a table leg.''
       Jones was convicted nearly three years ago, but the Air 
     Force still pays him $1,152.90 a month.
       From inside the prison, Jones watches his government pay 
     grow.
       ``I follow the stock market,'' said Jones, who reads stock 
     and mutual fund listings in the Wall Street Journal and USA 
     Today. ``I buy Double E Bonds.''


                       a system from the old west

       Paying convicted criminals is just one of the many 
     anomalies in the military justice system.
       At a court-martial, the military's version of a trial, a 
     defendant is not judged by peers; he's judged by superiors, 
     mostly officers.
       Panel members don't elect a foreman; it's the highest-
     ranking officer.
       And just about every step in the justice process is subject 
     to approval of the defendant's commanding officer, who often 
     is not a lawyer.
       No one knows exactly how long the military has paid 
     criminals.
       Col. Charles Trant, a military law historian and the Army's 
     chief criminal attorney, said the first formal summary of the 
     policy was written in 1880. Soldiers served in remote 
     outposts and when they were sent to jail, their families 
     needed money to return home and resettle.
       ``The rationale is the same one we use today,'' said Trant, 
     who conceded the practice is outdated. ``It was quite a 
     different Army then.''
       Generally, civilians, even ones working for the government, 
     lose their jobs when they cannot report to work. Some lose 
     their pay even without an arrest.
       ``That's one of the starkest differences between the 
     military and civilian systems: We tend to treat them more 
     generously,'' Trant said.
       On Aug. 16, Dayton police officer Danial Bell was suspended 
     without pay--even though not arrested or charged--when a 
     urine test detected cocaine in his system after he struck and 
     killed a pedestrian.
       Most state and federal benefits, so-called entitlements, 
     are cut to people in prison. The federal government cuts the 
     bulk of a defendant's Social Security benefits at conviction. 
     It even cuts off workers compensation to federal employees 
     convicted of felony crimes.
       The military cuts off pay, too, when an employee is jailed 
     by civilian authorities.
       When Colorado Springs police arrested Carter for rape and 
     held him pending action by military authorities, the Army 
     stopped his pay.
       But after Carter was transferred to an Army jail, his pay 
     started again, as if he were back on duty.
       Not all governments pay their military prisoners. With rare 
     exception, the Canadian military stops checks the moment a 
     soldier is arrested by anyone. If a soldier's family requests 
     help, the military will only give them as much as they could 
     receive from government welfare.
       ``This rule would apply even if they haven't been tried,'' 
     said Maj. Ric Jones, 
     [[Page S804]] spokesman at Canadian Defence Headquarters in 
     Ottawa.


                         a check for every cell

       On Nov. 9, 1991, a mother told military police at Wright-
     Patterson Air Force Base that Sgt. 1st Class Claudio Smith-
     Esminez molested her 7-year-old daughter several times while 
     baby-sitting.
       The military's investigation took 20 months, during which 
     time Smith-Esminez earned his full pay of about $2,000 a 
     month, plus housing and food allowances.
       ``We had all these pre-trial meetings. She had to keep 
     talking about it,'' said the girl's mother, who lives in 
     Dayton.
       On July 12, 1993, Smith-Esminez was convicted of molesting 
     the girl four times, and his rank was reduced to the lowest 
     in the military, E-1, with a salary of about half of what he 
     was earning.
       Still, Smith-Esminez got all his pay because military 
     convicts receive full pay until their first appeals are 
     decided by commanders. Smith-Esminez first appeal wasn't 
     decided until March 1994, eight months after his conviction 
     and 28 months after authorities began their investigation.
       Of the 367 inmates arriving at Leavenworth during the past 
     12 months, 270, or 73.6 percent, were awaiting decisions by 
     commanders on their first appeals.
       Even the military is questioning the practice. A Pentagon 
     spokesman, Lt. Col. Doug Hart, confirmed that the military is 
     studying whether to stop pay at conviction, but he offered no 
     details.
       ``At this point, we really don't have anybody who is 
     willing to be interviewed on the subject.'' Hart said.
                      convicts get paid for years

       Smith-Esminez's pay didn't stop after his first appeal.
       In fact, Leavenworth records show he could get paid until 
     Dec. 14, 1995, when his enlistment expires.
       In the military, whether people are paid after first 
     appeals is determined by their sentences. The court can order 
     that some, all or none of the prisoners' pay be cut.
       The court cut Smith-Esminez's rank, but it didn't take away 
     any of his pay, so he continues to receive more than $800 a 
     month, the amount entitled to him under his new, lower rank.
       Inmates can have their paychecks sent to the bank or 
     address of their choice.
       Enlisted service members can be paid a few days to several 
     years after conviction, either until their enlistment dates 
     expire or their final appeals and discharges are decided, 
     whichever occurs first.
       Officers get paid even longer, until the secretary of their 
     service discharges them after their final appeals.


                         severity not a factor

       The severity of the crime--with the exception of murder--
     seemed to matter little in determining who got paid.
       Army Lt. Timothy L. Jenkins lost all his pay and was fined 
     $15,000 at a court-martial at Leighton Barracks, Germany, 
     last year. His crime: writing thousands of dollars worth of 
     bad checks.
       Senior Airman Samuel J. Carter sold drugs and was picked up 
     for attempted theft. At a court-martial at Bergstrom Air 
     Force Base, Texas, he lost all his pay, too.
       Col. Lee, however, kept his pay, despite a conviction last 
     fall for seven counts of sodomy and 21 counts of indecent 
     acts with teen-age boys from Illinois. More than a year after 
     his conviction, Lee still receives $6,618.30 a month, more 
     than what 98 percent of all Ohio families earned in 1990.
       Sgt. Edward Higgins kept his pay, too.
       He was convicted in 1992 of five counts of molesting young 
     women who came to his Air Force recruiting office in 
     Youngstown, Ohio.
       ``He asked me if I had been checked for scoliosis,'' an 18-
     year-old woman told a military court in 1992. ``. . . He told 
     me to drop my pants three-to-four inches below from where 
     they were from my waist and bend over and pull up my shirt.''
       Higgins told another 18-year-old to take off her jump suit, 
     and then he ran ``his hand up and down her back from her neck 
     to her buttocks,'' the woman told military authorities.
       ``He said he had to get a measurement of my body fat,'' the 
     woman said during an interview. ``We all felt so stupid 
     because we fell for this guy.
       ``Why should he get paid? . . . That's ridiculous. I can't 
     believe it.''
       Since he was convicted and sentenced to four years in 
     prison, Higgins has earned $25,499 pay from the Air Force.
                             Family matters

       In his appeal for pay and a light sentence, Higgins' 
     attorney asked the court to consider ``his family, his wife, 
     his three young children . . . all the Saturdays that his 
     boys wouldn't be able to go to McDonald's for this special 
     time with their father.''
       The prosecutor made a different plea. ``While he's in jail, 
     he shouldn't be paid. He's no longer a productive member of 
     the Air Force . . . It's not the Air Force's responsibility 
     to take care of his family.
       ``It was Sgt. Higgins' responsibility. And when he decided 
     to do what he did over that period of time, he reneged on 
     that responsibility.''
       The court sided with Higgins.
       The Dayton Daily News examined dozens of court-martial 
     files and found that in every case defendants who received 
     pay had families.
       Although jurors award pay based on family needs, they're 
     not supposed to.
       ``There's nothing in the Code of Military Justice that 
     allows that,'' said Nelson, who is now administrator of North 
     Dakota's court systems.
       Paying any convicted criminal regardless of the reason, is 
     a questionable practice, said Nelson, a military attorney for 
     33 years. ``In crime, one is accountable for their own 
     acts.''
       Civilian families often get nothing when loved ones go to 
     prison.
       Mark Putnam went to prison in 1990 for strangling an 
     informant in Kentucky while working for the FBI. His family 
     was forced to ask for welfare.
       ``You can't expect the FBI to pay benefits to me and my 
     children because my husband committed a crime,'' said 
     Putnam's wife, Kathleen, who now lives in Connecticut. ``I 
     can't see how anyone should pay him when my husband committed 
     a crime.''


                            Little oversight

       Although the military often pays its inmates to help their 
     families, it often can't ensure the families get the money or 
     need it.
       At Sgt. Terry H. Cox's trial at Ellsworth Air Force Base, 
     S.D., last year, the 7-year-old girl he raped stood in front 
     of a jury of adults wearing uniforms and pointed to the part 
     of her body Cox touched.
       ``Right here,'' the girl said.
       The testimony was enough to help convict Cox of nine 
     separate acts of rape, sodomy and other indecent acts on the 
     girl, but it wasn't enough to stop his pay.
       The military decided to keep paying Cox after he asked the 
     court: ``Please help me put a stop to my family's suffering 
     and mine.''
       Three months after his March 1993 conviction, Cox still had 
     not given his wife written permission to pick up his check. 
     Although he received more than $1,700 a month, he didn't send 
     regular support payments to her.
       The military also often doesn't verify a family needs the 
     money before granting pay.
       Unlike in civilian courts, sentencing begins immediately 
     after conviction in courts-martial, leaving little time for 
     the prosecutors to verify a defendant's claim of needing 
     money to support his family.
       ``The government virtually never goes back and tries to 
     rebut that,'' said Col. Trant, who spent 6\1/2\ years as an 
     Army judge before becoming the service's chief criminal 
     attorney.
       Even though his wife earned $17,000 a year and even though 
     his family had four cars, two boats, a motorcycle and lived 
     in a $110,000 home, the military paid Lt. Col. Templeton.
       Templeton, who helped oversee a $28-billion weapons program 
     at Wright-Patterson, pleaded guilty in March 1992 to 10 acts 
     of child molestation involving girls, including the Dayton 
     child.
       In his plea for clemency, Templeton asked the court to 
     consider his family's financial needs. Since he confessed 
     three years ago, Templeton has earned $148,616 and he still 
     gets $4,739.40 a month, which includes a pay raise of $102 a 
     month he received in January. His family is supposed to get 
     about $1,800 of it for support.
       The Canadian military stops pay to people like Templeton.
       In Canada, an ``assisting officer'' ensures the family 
     needs money. The family's need and other sources of income 
     also are investigated by provincial welfare officials, who 
     recommended an amount the military should pay.
       ``So if you're not entitled to anything under the welfare 
     system. . . .you're not entitled to anything under our system 
     either,'' said Maj. Jones, the Canadian military spokesman.
                          paying for mistakes

       Even when a military court is so outraged by a crime that 
     it cuts all pay, even when the convict has no living relative 
     to support, a service member still can earn his full military 
     paycheck for years.
       The military didn't want Army Sgt. Ronald Webster to get 
     paid, but he got his money anyway. In 1982, Webster was 
     convicted of rape, burglary, assault, resisting arrest and 10 
     other charges involving an attack on a fellow soldier in her 
     barracks at Fort Story, Va.
       He was sentenced to lose his pay, $965.70 a month, but four 
     years after his conviction, Webster said, the military found 
     an error in his case.
       The error did not earn Webster a new trail, or prove his 
     innocence, but it did earn him the right to resubmit his case 
     for clemency. So the military, he said, paid him four years 
     of back pay.
       ``I think it was about $38,000 to $40,000 after taxes,'' 
     said Webster, who was released from Leavenworth Nov. 18 and 
     now lives in Cincinnati.
       Military members who win certain types of appeals, even 
     years after trails, can receive full back pay for the time it 
     took to appeal the case.
       If a defense attorney can't find a reason to appeal a case, 
     lawyers working for the highest court for military appeals 
     will try to find one for them. Unlike other civilian appeals 
     courts in the country, the military's highest appeals court 
     pays lawyers to search cases for legal errors, even when 
     appeals are not filed.
       And in case both a defense attorney and the appeals court 
     can't find errors, convicts at Leavenworth can search for 
     themselves, using the prison's 6,000-volume law library.
       [[Page S805]] ``Lawyers have told us we have a better 
     library than they have in their offices,'' Army spokesman 
     Staff Sgt. Alvah Cappel said as he showed off the prison's 
     facilities during a tour this fall.
       Webster said he invested some of the money he won in his 
     case.
       ``I think I had $5,000 in stocks. You can invest in 
     anything you want (in prison). You just can't form a business 
     in there.
       ``All you do is get a broker. You stay in contact with your 
     broker and do it over the phone. They accept collect calls.''
       He also used the money to start a demolition company in 
     Cincinnati.
       ``I think I deserve the money,'' Webster said. ``That's the 
     way the system works. They've been doing it for years. It's a 
     whole different kind of system.''
       Below is a breakdown of military prisoners receiving 
     government paychecks in June. Many were convicted of serious 
     offenses, including murder, rape and child molestation.

  PAY AND BENEFITS GIVEN TO MEMBERS OF THE ARMED SERVICES IN JAILS AND  
                                 PRISONS                                
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   Number of  Amount for
                Branch of service                  prisoners   June 1994
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Marines.........................................         268    $323,461
Army............................................         225     233,016
Air Force.......................................         137     146,706
Navy............................................          34      64,678
Coast Guard.....................................           1       1,458
                                                 -----------------------
      Total.....................................      \1\665     769,319
      Total including benefits to prisoners and                         
       dependents...............................  ..........   1,015,662
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\One or more services may have included types of convicts not counted 
  by other services.                                                    
Source: Dayton Daily News computer analysis of records from U.S. Defense
  Finance and Accounting Service and the military prison at Leavenworth,
  Kan. The U.S. Coast Guard and civilian health insurance consultants,  
  Dept. of Defense records on military benefits.                

                                 ______

      By Mr. DASCHLE (for himself and Mr. Exon):
  S. 208. A bill to require that any proposed amendment to the 
Constitution of the United States to require a balanced budget 
establish procedures to ensure enforcement before the amendment is 
submitted to the States; to the Committee on the Budget and the 
Committee on Governmental Affairs, jointly.


                           right to know act

  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I have the honor of introducing today on 
behalf of Senator Exon, the distinguished ranking member of the Budget 
Committee, and other Democratic Senators, the Right to Know Act.
  The proposal is straightforward. It demands that American taxpayers 
know what the impact of a constitutional balanced budget amendment will 
be before State legislatures vote on ratification of the constitutional 
amendment. It also ensures that we take immediate steps to balance the 
budget by the year 2002--the express goal of the constitutional 
amendment.
  Our proposal says that, upon passage of a balanced budget amendment 
by Congress but before States must ratify, we would give States and the 
American people the information they need to make this important 
decision. Second, under our approach, the actual deficit reduction 
required to balance the budget would begin immediately.
  No State would be required to vote on the amendment until Congress 
passes a concurrent budget resolution committing to actual deficit 
reduction and outlining, through reconciliation instructions to 
committees, how the budget would be balanced by the year 2002.
  It is critically important that Americans understand that passing a 
constitutional amendment to balance the budget does not reduce the 
national debt by one penny. Nor does passage of a balanced budget 
amendment provide the slightest detail of how the budget could or 
should be balanced. Only if Congress acts on legislation that 
accomplishes a balanced budget will the precise ramifications be known.
  We simply cannot afford to wait until 2001 to start complying with 
the balanced budget amendment. By doing so, we will be adding a far 
greater burden to our national debt, which already has reached nearly 
$4.7 trillion. Even if we pledge our commitment to continued deficit 
reduction today, we will still need about $1.2 trillion of cuts over 
the next 7 years to balance the budget by the year 2002. Failure to 
make these cuts will simply add to the $4.7 trillion debt.
  If we delay even 1 year, the national debt will increase by over $150 
billion as a result of that delay, and the interest on the debt will be 
approximately $50 billion greater. Each year we delay adds another 
enormous sum of our already-astronomical national debt, and increases 
the percentage of our budget that must be dedicated to servicing that 
debt.
  In the last congress, we passed a deficit reduction package that will 
reduce the budget deficit by nearly $500 billion. Given the magnitude 
of our existing debt, it would be irresponsible and profoundly 
illogical not to continue striving toward a balanced budget this year, 
not next year or the year after.
  Mr. President, senators on both sides of the aisle are divided on the 
issue of a constitutional balanced budget amendment. We all want to 
bring budget deficits under control, but reasonable people disagree on 
the way to accomplish that goal, both in terms of budget priorities and 
in terms of the proposal to amend the Constitution.
  The Right to Know Act offers an approach that senators on both sides 
of the constitutional amendment issue and on both sides of the aisle 
could--indeed should--support.
  Senators who support a constitutional amendment to require a balanced 
budget--and I am one--should know that this proposal is wholly 
consistent with that position. In fact, if we are serious about 
balancing the budget, we must be prepared to work with our colleagues 
to ensure that the deficit reduction resumes immediately. We also must 
be prepared to explain to the American people and the States exactly 
how we are going to achieve our goal.
  Senators who may oppose a constitutional amendment, but who believe 
we need to take serious steps toward deficit reduction and an actual 
balanced budget, should also find this proposal wholly consistent with 
that position. The Right to Know Act simply ensures that the balanced 
budget amendment, if it passes, will not become a gimmick or a hollow 
promise.
  I strongly urge all of my colleagues, regardless of their position on 
the underlying balanced budget amendment issue, to study this proposal 
carefully.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the bill 
be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:
                                 S. 208

       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 ``Right to Know Act''.

     SEC. 2. PROPOSAL OF AMENDMENT.

       No article proposing a balanced budget amendment to the 
     Constitution shall be submitted to the States for 
     ratification in the 104th Congress until the adoption of a 
     concurrent resolution containing the matter described in 
     section 2 of this Act.

     SEC. 3. CONTENT OF REQUIRED CONCURRENT RESOLUTION.

       (a) Contents.--The concurrent resolution referred to in 
     section 1 shall set forth a budget plan to achieve a balanced 
     budget (that complies with the article of amendment proposed 
     by that section) not later than the first fiscal year 
     required by the article of amendment as follows:
       (1) a budget for each fiscal year beginning with fiscal 
     year 1996 and ending with that first fiscal year (required by 
     the article of amendment) containing--
       (A) aggregate levels of new budget authority, outlays, 
     revenues, and the deficit or surplus;
       (B) totals of new budget authority and outlays for each 
     major functional category;
       (C) new budget authority and outlays, on an account-by-
     account basis, for each account with actual outlays or 
     offsetting receipts of at least $100,000,000 in fiscal year 
     1994; and
       (D) an allocation of Federal revenues among the major 
     sources of such revenues;
       (2) a detailed list and description of changes in Federal 
     law (including laws authorizing appropriations or direct 
     spending and tax laws) required to carry out the plan and the 
     effective date of each such change; and
       (3) reconciliation directives to the appropriate committees 
     of the House of Representatives and Senate instructing them 
     to submit legislative changes to the Committee on the Budget 
     of the House or Senate, as the case may be, to implement the 
     plan set forth in the concurrent resolution.
       (b) Reconciliation.--The directives required by subsection 
     (a)(3) shall be deemed to be directives within the meaning of 
     section 310(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974. Upon 
     receiving all legislative submissions from committees under 
     subsection (a)(3), each Committee on the Budget shall combine 
     all such submissions (without substantive revision) into an 
     omnibus reconciliation bill and report that bill to its 
     House. The procedures set forth in section 310 shall govern 
     the consideration of that reconciliation bill in the House of 
     Representatives and the Senate.
       (c) CBO Scoring.--The budget plan described in subsection 
     (a) shall be based upon Congressional Budget Office economic 
     and 
     [[Page S806]] technical assumptions and estimates of the 
     spending and revenue effects of the legislative changes 
     described in subsection (a)(2).
                                 ______

      By Mr. SIMON:
  S.J. Res. 15. A joint resolution proposing an amendment to the 
Constitution of the United States to allow the President to reduce or 
disapprove items of appropriations; to the Committee on the Judiciary.


                      presidential line-item veto

 Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, every day our budget deficit grows 
larger and larger. In this time of crisis, we need to use every 
available weapon in our arsenal to fight the growing national deficit. 
It takes a constitutional amendment that requires Congress to pass a 
balanced budget; and it also takes a constitutional line-item veto 
amendment, which I introduce today.
  This line-item veto amendment takes as its model the amendment that 
appears in the Constitution of my home State of Illinois. According to 
some studies, the Illinois State government is able to reduce its 
annual budget by about 3 percent because of the line-item veto. Similar 
success on a Federal level will bring us that much closer to reducing 
the national debt.
  My amendment is a simple one. It is a constitutional amendment to 
permit the President to reduce or disapprove any item of 
appropriations, other than an item relating to the legislative branch. 
If the President does not reduce or disapprove an item of 
appropriations, it becomes law. If he does reduce it, then Congress is 
empowered to override the President's veto by a simple majority vote of 
each House.
  There are those concerned that the line-item veto takes away power 
from the legislative branch and puts it into the hands of the 
executive. That might be true if this veto were like all others and 
required a two-thirds override. But my amendment is faithful to the 
principle of majority rule in passage of legislation. It threatens only 
those appropriations which do not have majority support and it is those 
appropriations items which often are the least credible in the eyes of 
the American people and most difficult to justify.
  Forty-three States now have the line-item veto. As ranking member of 
the Constitution Subcommittee of the Judiciary Committee, I--in 
conjunction with my friend from Colorado, who now serves as 
subcommittee chairman--hope to devote serious efforts toward securing 
passage of this important piece of legislation. The line-item veto is 
by no means a panacea. It is, however, a big step in the right 
direction for any serious attempt to put our fiscal affairs in 
order.


                          ____________________