Congressional Record, Volume 141 Issue 6 (Wednesday, January 11, 1995)

[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.

____________________