[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 7 (Thursday, January 12, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S907-S914]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


      By Mr. McCONNELL (for himself and Mr. Coverdell):
  S. 218. A bill to repeal the National Voter Registration Act of 1993, 
and for other purposes; to the Committee on Rules and Administration.

                   THE MOTOR-VOTER REPEAL ACT OF 1995

 Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, the States may finally receive 
some long-awaited relief from unfunded mandates, thanks to the winds of 
change which blew through the country last November. With passage of 
the unfunded mandates bill currently before the Senate, Congress will 
not be able to pile mandates on States as it has in the past. However, 
the unfunded mandates bill is prospective and will not undo the damage 
which past Congresses have done. The bill I am introducing today would 
undo some of the unfunded mandates damage by undoing a mandate. 
Specifically, it would repeal the so-called motor-voter law.
  The motor-voter law made for a nice signing ceremony at the White 
House in 1993, a veritable extravaganza, in fact. It was an easy 
political hit. Proponents could revel secure in the knowledge that 
motor-voter sounded good and by dumping the burden on the States no 
unpopular budget offsets were required on the part of Congress or the 
President to pay for it.
  But, as David Broder wrote in the Washington Post at that time, it 
was the kind of ``underfunded, overhyped legislation that gives 
Congress and Washington a bad name.''
  Proponents said then that cost was not a problem, that it was a cheap 
bill. In that case, then finding a way to pay for it should not have 
been a problem. But Congress did not pay for it. And the fact is, State 
and local governments are finding that motor-voter is far more 
expensive than it was slated to be. Take Jefferson County, KY, for 
instance.
  A Louisville Courier-Journal story reported just last month that 
Jefferson County clerk Rebecca Jackson estimates it will cost the 
county up to $1.4 million in just the first year. That tally includes 
over $700,000 for computer equipment and mailing costs of $165,000 
annually. Seven employees may have to be hired as well, to cope with 
the added workload. These costs are not inconsequential, particularly 
at a time when everyone is feeling squeezed, not least of all--the 
taxpayers.
  California Gov. Pete Wilson estimates it would cost his State alone 
nearly $36 million. That is why California and several other States are 
so put out by the motor-voter mandate that they have filed a lawsuit on 
the grounds that it violates the 10th amendment of the Constitution.
  Those who would oppose this repeal will hold up retroactivity as some 
bugaboo that should not even be seriously considered. But this is one 
mandate, no doubt there are others, on which the clock should be turned 
back. It is not enough to keep things from getting worse, we must 
strive to make them better. From the standpoint of States and 
taxpayers, repealing motor-voter would be a big step forward.
  What is the worst that could happen under a repeal? Why, some States 
might opt out. Others may not. The fact is, Congress was behind the 
curve in 1993: 27 States already had some form of motor-voter, and it 
stands to reason that they would continue to do so were the Federal 
mandate repealed. The critical point is that it would be their choice.
  There would be nothing stopping States from adopting these 
provisions, other than cost. States would be at liberty to provide 
motor-voter, mail registration, and agency-based registration, just as 
they were prior to this mandate.
  If they could afford it, fine. If they could not, fine. It should be 
their call. If motor-voter supporters in Congress would like to devise 
a model program--such as Federal grants to entice States into 
participating--go for it. Figure out a way to pay for it and let's vote 
on it. But the 1993 mandate was a bad deal for States, a bad deal for 
taxpayers, and it should be repealed.
                                 ______

      By Mr. NICKLES (for himself, Mr. Bond, Mrs. Hutchison, Mr. Dole, 
        Mr. Grassley, Mr. Ashcroft, Mr. Coverdell, Mr. Abraham, Mr. 
        Thompson, Mr. Burns, Mr. Shelby, Mr. McConnell, Mr. Faircloth, 
        Mr. Thomas, Mr. Smith, Mr. McCain, Mr. Craig, Mr. Coats, Mr. 
        Santorum, Mr. Mack, Mr. Gregg, Mr. Murkowski, Mr. 
      [[Page S908]] Lott, Mr. Kyl, Mr. Thurmond, Mr. Hatch, Mr. Helms, 
        Mr. Inhofe, Mr. Simpson, Mr. Gramm, Mr. Frist, Mr. Grams, Mr. 
        Bennett, and Mr. Kempthorne):
  S. 219. A bill to ensure economy and efficiency of Federal Government 
operations by establishing a moratorium on regulatory rulemaking 
actions, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Governmental 
Affairs.


                     THE REGULATORY TRANSITION ACT

  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Regulatory 
Transition Act of 1995--and Congressman Tom DeLay of Texas has offered 
nearly identical legislation in the House--that places a temporary 
moratorium on regulatory rulemaking effective from the day after the 
elections, November 9, 1994, through June 30, 1995.
  Excessive regulation and redtape imposes an enormous burden on our 
economy. This hidden tax pushes up prices for goods and services on 
American households, dampens business investment, and limits the 
ability of small businesses to create jobs.
  The Clinton administration's own National Performance Review, issued 
September 7, 1993, observed that the compliance costs imposed by 
Federal regulations on the private sector alone were ``at least $430 
billion per year--9 percent of our gross domestic product.'' Other 
economists have placed the direct combined Federal regulatory burden on 
State and local governments and the private sector at between $500 
billion a year and more than $850 billion a year.
  The Clinton administration's National Performance Review promised to 
``end the proliferation of unnecessary and unproductive rules.'' But 
the flood of excessive regulations has not subsided. It has, in fact, 
increased during the current administration. For each of the first 2 
years of the Clinton administration, the number of pages of actual 
regulations and notices published in the Federal Register has exceeded 
any year since the Carter administration.
  As a matter of fact, if we look at a chart--and I have a chart that I 
will later pull out for the floor--if you look at it, the Carter 
administration had the highest number of pages in the Federal Register 
in history. Actually, over 73,000 pages. That number declined 
substantially during the Reagan administration. It fell all the way 
down to 44,000 pages. It declined significantly during the Reagan 
administration. During President Bush's administration, it climbed all 
the way up to 57,000. Now during the Clinton administration, the first 
2 years, it is above 64,000, almost 65,000. The pages in the Federal 
Register declined during the Reagan era, climbed up somewhat during the 
Bush era, and it is exploding during the Clinton administration.
  That is why the majority leader, Bob Dole, has designated regulatory 
reform as one of the top priorities of the 104th Congress and created a 
task force to be led by Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison and Senator Kit 
Bond to look at ways of cutting through the redtape.
  I am happy to be part of this task force. We have been talking about 
the best way to begin dealing with this massive problem. On November 
14, less than 1 week after the American people sent a clear signal for 
less Government and less regulations and less spending, the 
administration published three volumes containing outlines for more 
than 4,300 administration regulations that it intends to pursue during 
fiscal year 1995 and beyond.
  We decided the first step to reform should be to put a hold on the 
new regulations so we could have a chance to sort through these pages 
and figure out whether or not there are things that are necessary and 
maybe some of which are not necessary.
  On December 12 of last year, Bob Dole and myself and other House and 
Senate Members wrote to President Clinton and asked if he would impose 
a 100-day moratorium on the new regulations. The administration 
responded on December 14, 1994, with a letter from Sally Katzen, 
Director of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs.
  In her letter she states that the Clinton administration rejects the 
request for a moratorium, calling a moratorium a ``blunderbuss that 
could work in unintended ways.'' The Clinton administration 
deliberately ignored the health and safety exceptions suggested by 
Republican leaders and raised the emotional examples of regulations 
dealing with tainted meat and Desert Storm syndrome.
  The President, in declining to impose a moratorium himself, cited one 
of the reasons being that a moratorium would stop rules from being 
issued regardless of the merit. He claims it would stop the Department 
of Agriculture, for example, from dealing with tainted meat in the food 
supply.
  I want to clarify that this concern is totally, completely unfounded. 
The moratorium we are proposing specifically exempts regulations 
designed to remedy imminent threats to health and safety or other 
emergencies as determined by the agency head and the President.
  This act also excludes any regulations that reduces or streamlines 
the Federal Government and any regulation that is necessary for the 
day-to-day operations of Federal agencies.
  For example, this moratorium would not in any way prevent the Federal 
Energy and Regulation Commission from denying or approving electric or 
gas transportation rate modifications. Currently, local utility 
operators file rate-increase requests with the FERC. Approval or denial 
is part of the Commission's daily operations and would be excluded from 
this moratorium under the exclusion provided for granting licenses or 
applications.
  Also, regulations to ensure that Federal agencies continue to 
undertake regulatory actions that are required by Federal law that, 
when completed, will streamline a rule, regulation, administration 
process or reduce an existing regulatory burden would also be excluded.
  For example, a pending regulation requiring the Secretary of 
Transportation to lift certain hours-of-service requirements from 
farmers operating agriculture equipment would be excluded from this 
moratorium because it essentially reduces Government interference in 
the operations of the farms in our Nation.
  So, I will just reiterate that our goal here is not to be a roadblock 
to important measures related to health and safety of the American 
people, or to tie the hands of agencies trying to carry out daily 
operations, or streamline or to delay steps taken to reduce or 
streamline Government.
  I have said many times I have no doubt that there are some 
regulations within these three volumes that are good and necessary, and 
we should move with all swiftness to enact them. But I also know that 
there are some regulations that are not necessary. There are not cost 
effective. They do not streamline bureaucracy; they expand it. Let us 
put a hold on these and take a look to make sure that we do what we can 
do to reduce Government, reduce spending, and ease the crushing 
economic burden that the Federal regulations have created for the 
private sector and local governments.
  Mr. President, in looking at this list of regulations that was 
announced or cataloged by the November 14 release, there are over 4,300 
regulatory actions proposed for the year 1995 and beyond; primarily 
1995 and 1996. Between October 1994 and
 April 1995 the Clinton administration is scheduled to issue 872 rules.

  Mr. President, I will just say I am sure some of the rules are 
needed, but I am quite confident many are not. I am quite confident 
that many are not cost effective. Many have not been analyzed for 
scientific analysis, many of which the benefits to not exceed their 
cost. We should stop those regulations. This moratorium will allow us 
to have the time to review those regulations, plus allow those that are 
beneficial to go forward. Let us stop those that are not.
  Mr. President, I wish this was not necessary. I wish the 
administration would have taken our suggestion and made the moratorium, 
and made it on their own initiative. Then they would have total control 
over deciding what is effective and what is in order. They refused that 
offer. Maybe they will reconsider. Congressman DeLay, myself, Senator 
Bond, Senator Hutchison, also Congressman McIntosh met with 
representatives of the administration yesterday and requested such 
actions. They did say they would be willing to talk with us, and 
hopefully those talks 
[[Page S909]] will be fruitful and we can stop a lot of unnecessary 
regulations. In the event they are not, we plan on proceeding ahead 
with this legislation.
  I have several cosponsors of this legislation, which I will now read 
for the record as well: In addition to myself, we have Senators Bond, 
Hutchison, Dole, Grassley, Ashcroft, Coverdell, Abraham, Thompson, 
Burns, Shelby, McConnell, Faircloth, Thomas, Smith, McCain, Craig, 
Coats, Santorum, Mack, Gregg, Murkowski, Lott, Kyl, Thurmond, Hatch, 
Helms, Inhofe, Simpson, Grams of Minnesota, Frist, Gramm of Texas, 
Bennett, and Kempthorne. Mr. President, there are additional cosponsors 
out there.
  My point is that this act has overwhelming support in the Senate. I 
hope that the administration will take our suggestion and impose 
voluntarily this moratorium. If not, it is my intention to pursue this, 
not necessarily as an amendment on this legislation; I want this 
legislation to pass. I want it to pass and I want it to be signed. I 
want it to become law.
  I have noticed that some of our colleagues on the other side of the 
aisle seem to have an affinity to try to love a piece of legislation to 
death and want to put every amendment they can on a bill. This bill I 
have just introduced is an attractive amendment. It may well pass on 
this bill. I decided to introduce it separately.
  We are requesting the Governmental Affairs Committee to have hearings 
on it as quickly as possible. I might mention that the House of 
Representatives is having hearings on this this Thursday. They plan on 
moving forward on it as well. I think we have provided exceptions that 
are necessary for the orderly transition of Government, for regulations 
that are necessary to go forward. It also provides for at least delay 
through the month of June to allow us to review other regulations to 
make sure that they are beneficial and cost effective.
  Mr. President, I have this bill, and I will send it to the desk and 
introduce it accompanying my statement. I yield the floor.
                                 ______

      By Mr. FEINGOLD (for himself and Mr. Kohl):
  S. 222. A bill to amend the Dairy Production Stability Act of 1983 to 
ensure that all persons who benefit from the Dairy Promotion and 
Research Program contribute to the cost of the program, to provide for 
periodic producer referenda on continuation of the program, and to 
prohibit bloc voting by cooperative associations of milk producers in 
connection with the program, and for other purposes; to the Committee 
on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.


                DAIRY PROMOTION PROGRAM IMPROVEMENT ACT

 Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I am introducing the Dairy 
Promotion Program Improvement Act, legislation which improves the 
accountability of the National Dairy Promotion and Research Board. The 
bill also eliminates some of the inequities in the current program that 
can no longer be tolerated in light of the recent passage of the 
Uruguay round of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. I am 
pleased to be joined by Senator Kohl today on this very important 
legislation.
  This bill is not about whether the Dairy Promotion Program works or 
whether it should be continued. That is an issue to be left to the 
producers who fund the program. This legislation is designed to provide 
producers with a greater voice in the program which they fund and to 
make sure that all those who benefit from the program also pay into it. 
If passed, this bill will result in a dairy board that is stronger, 
more effective and more responsive to dairy farmers.
  The Dairy Promotion Program Improvement Act eliminates the 
inappropriate practice of cooperative bloc voting in producer 
referendum on the National Dairy Board, requires periodic referenda so 
that producers have an opportunity to review their program on a regular 
basis, and requires importers to contribute to the program since they 
benefit from it.
  The National Dairy Promotion and Research Program collects roughly 
$225 million every year from dairy farmers each paying a mandatory 15 
cents for every 100 pounds of milk they produce. The program is 
designed to promote dairy products to consumers and to conduct research 
relating to milk production, processing, and marketing.
  While 15 cents may appear to be a small amount of money, multiplied 
by all the milk marketed in this country, it adds up to thousands of 
dollars each year for the average producer. Also consider that the 
amount of money collected under this program annually--$225 million--is 
just slightly less than the cost of the entire Diary Price Support 
Program in recent years. Given the magnitude of this program, it is 
critical that Congress take seriously the concerns producers have about 
their promotion program.
  Since participation in the checkoff is mandatory and producers are 
not allowed refunds, Congress required that producers vote in a 
referendum to approve the program after it was authorized.
  The problem is that Congress didn't provide for a fair and equitable 
voting process in the original act and it's time to correct our 
mistake. My bill does that by eliminating a process known as bloc 
voting by milk marketing cooperatives.
  Under current law, dairy cooperatives are allowed to cast votes in 
producer referenda for all of their farmer-members, either in favor of 
or against continuation of the National Dairy Board. While individual 
dissenters from the co-op position are allowed to vote individually, 
many farmers and producer groups claim the process stacks the deck 
against those seeking reform of the program.
  Mr. President, the problem bloc voting creates is best illustrated by 
the results of the August 1993 producer referendum on continuation of 
the National Dairy Promotion and Research Board, called for by a 
petition of 16,000 dairy farmers. In that referendum, 59 dairy 
cooperatives voting en bloc, cast 49,000 votes in favor of the program. 
7,000 producers from those cooperatives went against co-op policy and 
voted individually against continuing the program.
  While virtually all of the votes in favor of the program were cast by 
cooperative bloc vote, nearly 100 percent of the votes in opposition 
were cast by individuals. Bloc voting allows cooperatives to cast votes 
for every indifferent or ambivalent producer in their membership, 
drowning out the voices of dissenting producers. It biases the 
referendum in favor of the Dairy Board's supporters, whose votes should 
not have greater weight than the dissenters.
  Bloc voting may be appropriate for referenda on Federal milk 
marketing order decisions, for which the practice is also allowed. The 
complex Federal order system and its associated rules and regulations 
directly affect the ability of the cooperative to act as the marketing 
agent for their members. The authority for co-ops to bloc vote in that 
circumstance is not affected by my bill. However, bloc voting for 
matters beyond marketing orders is far less appropriate.
  In the 103d Congress, I called for a hearing in the Senate 
Agriculture Committee to address this very issue. As a supporter of 
agricultural cooperatives, I was concerned about how eliminating bloc 
voting might affect them.
  Mr. President, there was no information provided in that hearing that 
has persuaded me that bloc voting in Dairy Board referenda is a 
critical authority for cooperatives. There was no evidence presented 
that eliminating that authority would handicap a cooperative's efforts 
to market dairy products. It seems clear that generic promotion 
programs focused on long-term research and market development, such as 
the National Dairy Promotion and Research, do not affect the day-to-day 
marketing abilities of a cooperative. In fact, the vague nature of the 
arguments in support of bloc voting has further convinced me that there 
is little justification for the practice.
  The inappropriate nature of bloc voting in Dairy Board referendum is 
even clearer given that none of our 16 commodity promotion programs, 
other than dairy, allow cooperatives to bloc vote despite the existence 
of marketing cooperatives for those commodities. Were bloc voting in 
producer referenda fundamental to cooperative theory, one would expect 
to see this authority provided in other programs.
  [[Page S910]] Mr. President, my bill also establishes periodic 
referenda on continuation of the Dairy Promotion Program in order to 
provide producers with an opportunity to review their program. The 
National Dairy Research and Promotion Board continues into perpetuity 
with no sunset date and no system for regular review by producers. By 
requiring regular referenda, my bill will increase the accountability 
of the Dairy Board to their producer. It is critical that a program of 
this magnitude be regularly reassessed and reaffirmed by those who foot 
the bill.
  Lastly, Mr. President, my bill provides equity to domestic producers 
who have been paying into the Promotion Program for over 10 years while 
importers have gotten a free ride. Since the National Dairy Promotion 
and Research Board conducts only generic promotion and general product 
research, domestic farmers and importers alike benefit from these 
actions. The Dairy Promotion Program Improvement Act requires that all 
dairy product importers contribute to the program. This provision is 
particularly important in light of the recent passage of the GATT which 
will result in greater imports. We have put our own producers at a 
competitive disadvantage for far too long. It's high time importers 
paid for their fair share of the program.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to include in the Record 
letters of support for my bill from the Farmers Union Milk Marketing 
Cooperative and the National Farmers Union.
  I am also pleased to be an original cosponsor of the National Dairy 
Promotion Board Reform Act introduced today by Senator Kohl. That bill 
further enhances producer representation on the National Dairy Board by 
providing for the direct election of National Dairy Board members, 
rather than appointment by the Secretary. That process will allow 
producers to elect members to the Board that represent their views on 
promotion and eliminates the divisive impact of the political 
appointment process on the Dairy Board. Direct producer election of 
board members should also increase the accountability to their fellow 
dairy farmers.
  I believe that these two bills together comprise a sound reform 
package for the National Dairy Promotion and Research Board by 
providing a stronger voice to dairy farmers. These reforms will create 
a stronger, more effective and more representative Dairy Board. I urge 
my colleagues to support this important legislation.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and several letters 
be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:
                                 S. 222

       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 ``Dairy Promotion Program 
     Improvement Act of 1995''.

     SEC. 2. FUNDING OF DAIRY PROMOTION AND RESEARCH PROGRAM.

       (a) Declaration of Policy.--The first sentence of section 
     110(b) of the Dairy Production Stabilization Act of 1983 (7 
     U.S.C. 4501(b)) is amended--
       (1) by inserting after ``commercial use'' the following: 
     ``and on imported dairy products''; and
       (2) by striking ``products produced in'' and inserting 
     ``products produced in or imported into''.
       (b) Definitions.--Section 111 of the Act (7 U.S.C. 4502) is 
     amended--
       (1) in subsection (k), by striking ``and'' at the end;
       (2) in subsection (l), by striking the period at the end 
     and inserting a semicolon; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following new subsections:
       ``(m) the term `imported dairy product' means--
       ``(1) any dairy product, including milk and cream and fresh 
     and dried dairy products;
       ``(2) butter and butterfat mixtures;
       ``(3) cheese;
       ``(4) casein and mixtures; and
       ``(5) other dairy products;

     that are imported into the United States; and
       ``(n) the term `importer' means a person that imports an 
     imported dairy product into the United States.''.
       (c) Funding.--
       (1) Representation on board.--Section 113(b) of the Act (7 
     U.S.C. 4504(b)) is amended--
       (A) by designating the first through ninth sentences as 
     paragraphs (1) through (5) and paragraphs (7) through (10), 
     respectively;
       (B) in paragraph (1) (as so designated), by striking 
     ``thirty-six'' and inserting ``38'';
       (C) in paragraph (2) (as so designated), by striking 
     ``Members'' and inserting ``Of the members of the Board, 36 
     members''; and
       (D) by inserting after paragraph (5) (as so designated) the 
     following new paragraph:
       ``(6) Of the members of the Board, 2 members shall be 
     representatives of importers of imported dairy products. The 
     importer representatives shall be appointed by the Secretary 
     from nominations submitted by importers under such procedures 
     as the Secretary determines to be appropriate.''.
       (2) Assessment.--Section 113(g) of the Act is amended--
       (A) by designating the first through fifth sentences as 
     paragraphs (1) through (5), respectively; and
       (B) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(6)(A) The order shall provide that each importer of 
     imported dairy products shall pay an assessment to the Board 
     in the manner prescribed by the order.
       ``(B) The rate of assessment on imported dairy products 
     shall be determined in the same manner as the rate of 
     assessment per hundredweight or the equivalent of milk.
       ``(C) For the purpose of determining the assessment on 
     imports under subparagraph (B), the value to be placed on 
     imported dairy products shall be established by the Secretary 
     in a fair and equitable manner.''.
       (3) Records.--The first sentence of section 113(k) of the 
     Act is amended by striking ``person receiving'' and inserting 
     ``importer of imported dairy products, each person 
     receiving''.
       (4) Referendum.--Section 116 of the Act (7 U.S.C. 4507) is 
     amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:
       ``(d)(1) On the request of a representative group 
     comprising 10 percent or more of the number of producers 
     subject to the order, the Secretary shall--
       ``(A) conduct a referendum to determine whether the 
     producers favor suspension of the application of the 
     amendments made by section 2 of the Dairy Promotion Program 
     Improvement Act of 1995; and
       ``(B) suspend the application of the amendments until the 
     results of the referendum are known.
       ``(2) The Secretary shall continue the suspension of the 
     application of the amendments made by section 2 only if the 
     Secretary determines that suspension of the application of 
     the amendments is favored by a majority of the producers 
     voting in the referendum who, during a representative period 
     (as determined by the Secretary), have been engaged in the 
     production of milk for commercial use.''.

     SEC. 3. PERIODIC REFERENDA.

       Section 115(a) of the Dairy Production Stabilization Act of 
     1983 (7 U.S.C. 4506(a)) is amended--
       (1) in the first sentence, by striking ``Within the sixty-
     day period immediately preceding September 30, 1985'' and 
     inserting ``Every 5 years''; and
       (2) in the second sentence, by striking ``six months'' and 
     inserting ``3 months''.

     SEC. 4. PROHIBITION ON BLOC VOTING.

       Section 117 of the Dairy Production Stabilization Act of 
     1983 (7 U.S.C. 4508) is amended--
       (1) in the first sentence, by striking ``Secretary shall'' 
     and inserting ``Secretary shall not''; and
       (2) by striking the second through fifth sentences.
                                                                    ____

                                                    Farmers Union,


                                   Milk Marketing Cooperative,

                                   Madison, WI, December 22, 1994.
     Hon. Russ Feingold,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Russ: The FUMMC Board of Directors yesterday 
     unanimously approved a motion expressing strong support for 
     your new legislation, the Dairy Promotion Program Improvement 
     Act of 1995. We enthusiastically support these reforms needed 
     to make the National Dairy Board more accountable and 
     responsive to the dairy producers who pay the bills and are 
     too often taken for granted.
       FUMMC's long-standing policy is that dairy imports should 
     be subject to the mandatory promotion checkoff. Nine of 17 
     existing commodity checkoff programs, including beef, pork, 
     cotton, honey, pecans and potatoes, currently assess imports 
     and dairy should be no exception. Dairy imports are an 
     important part of the supply problem and will substantially 
     increase as we lose Section 22 when the new GATT agreement 
     goes into effect next year. This makes it all the more urgent 
     to make imports pay their fair share. Regarding GATT, we 
     sincerely appreciate your courageous vote against the Uruguay 
     Round in the Senate earlier this month.
       The automatic review referendum will make the National 
     Dairy Board more accountable to the producers who pay the 
     mandatory checkoff. The prohibition on bloc voting is 
     consistent with dairy farmers' right to make their own 
     decisions of fundamental questions about the future of the 
     National Dairy Board. Bloc voting interferes with that right.
       We also greatly appreciate your standing up so strongly for 
     dairy producers in the proposed consolidation of the 
     Cattlemen's Beef Board, the National Cattlemen's Association 
     and two other beef entities. I know that our members greatly 
     appreciate your speaking at our recent District 9 meeting in 
     Madison on key issues including the beef merger and 
     [[Page S911]] your plans for a possible legislative response 
     if the merger is approved.
           Sincerely,
                                                 Stewart G. Huber,
     President.
                                                                    ____

                                           National Farmers Union,


                                      Office of the President,

                                 Washington, DC, January 11, 1995.
     Re Dairy Promotion Program Improvement Act of 1995.

     Hon. Russ Feingold,
     U.S. Senator, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Feingold: I am writing on behalf of the over 
     253,000 members of the National Farmers Union to express our 
     strong support for the Dairy Promotion Program Improvement 
     Act of 1995.
       The policy statement of the National Farmers Union, adopted 
     by delegates to our 92nd annual convention last spring, 
     specifically recommends that dairy imports be subject to the 
     same research and promotion assessments collected from 
     domestic dairy producers. Failure to collect the assessment 
     on imports puts U.S. producers at a competitive disadvantage, 
     while yet allowing importers to benefit from the activities 
     of the Dairy Promotion and Research Board.
       National Farmers Union also supports other provisions of 
     the bill which:
       (1) require the Secretary to conduct a referendum on 
     request of a group comprising 10 percent of more of the 
     producers;
       (2) require a referendum every 5 years; and
       (3) prohibit bloc voting.
       We believe these provisions are essential to ensure that 
     the board remains accountable to the producers it was created 
     to represent.
       Members of the National Farmers Union have not yet taken a 
     position on the issue of expanding the board to include 
     importer representation. While our organization is generally 
     supportive of allowing all those who are assessed to be 
     represented, we are not aware of any other countries who 
     require U.S. representation on their domestic research and 
     promotion boards. This issue will receive further attention 
     at our upcoming annual meeting in Milwaukee, Wisconsin.
       Thank you for your work to improve the fairness and 
     accountability of the research and promotion board 
     operations. Your strong representation and continued effort 
     on behalf of America's family farmers are greatly 
     appreciated.
           Sincerely,
                                                   Leland Swenson,
                                                President.
                                 ______

      By Mr. BRADLEY (for himself and Mr. Lautenberg):
  S. 223. A bill to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to provide 
funds to the Palisades Interstate Park Commission for acquisition of 
land in the Sterling Forest area of the New York/New Jersey Highlands 
Region, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Energy and Natural 
Resources.


                     STERLING FOREST PROTECTION ACT

 Mr. BRADLEY. Mr. President, I am pleased to announce that 
today I am introducing legislation to allow the preservation of the 
Sterling Forest. My colleague, Senator Lautenberg, is joining me as a 
cosponsor on this important bill. Although located entirely in New 
York, the area affected by this bill represents some of the most 
critical New Jersey watershed still left undeveloped and in private 
hands.
  Sterling Forest represents the largest unbroken, undeveloped tract of 
forest land still remaining along the New York-New Jersey border. This 
20 square mile parcel represents a complete range of wildlife habitat, 
hills, and wetlands. It is home to a large number of threatened and 
endangered species. The Forest is crossed in the north by the 
Appalachian Trail and is easily accessible by the 1 of every 12 
Americans that lives within a 2 hour drive of its boundaries.
  Most important for New Jersey, though, are the billions of gallons of 
fresh, clean drinking water that flow from its boundaries. The 
Monksville/Wanaque reservoirs, which draw from the Sterling Forest 
Watershed, serve one in four New Jerseyans. Let me be perfectly clear: 
I am talking about the water supply for roughly 1.5 million Americans. 
To threaten this watershed is to threaten the livelihood and well-being 
of an extraordinary number of my constituents.
  Of great concern to me and my constituents are development plans for 
this region. One proposal offered by the Sterling Forest owners calls 
for over 14,000 homes and 8 million square feet of commercial space to 
be built by 2020. Even if this development were concentrated in the 
least environmentally critical and most accessible tracts, this 
construction will irrevocable alter this land. You can't move 100,000 
people into a pristine 20-square-mile parcel and predict a minor impact 
on the environment.
  This bill is a necessary step if we are to protect this habitat and 
watershed. It allows an appropriation of up to $17.5 million for land 
acquisition. Furthermore, it designates the Palisades Interstate Park 
Commission [PIPC] a Federal commission created in 1937, to manage this 
land.
  One of the issues that has to be addressed in any expansion to park 
land is management. We all know how taxed is the National Park Service. 
The presence of the PIPC eliminates any concerns over competence and 
capability. Right now, the PIPC manages 23 parks which spread over 
82,000 acres and host in excess of 8 million visitors annually. The 
PIPC has the interest and track record necessary to give us all a level 
of comfort that these Sterling Forest tracts, once acquired, will be 
well managed and protected.
  Mr. President, last Congress we had a hearing on this bill before the 
Senate Energy Committee. At that hearing, I believe a convincing case 
was made that the Sterling Forest represents the highest priority 
target for land acquisition:
  It has critical habitat and interstate watershed values; it protects 
a National Park unit of international significance, the Appalachian 
Trail; it is parkland accessible to tens of millions of Americans an 
area dominated by pavement; and it is directly threatened by near-term 
development and loss.
  At that hearing, I believe a convincing case was made that this was a 
unique instance, with a clear need for Federal involvement and a 
Federal interest. The critical shortage of habitat has been documented 
by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the U.S. Forest Service. The 
Federal Government has been acquiring habitat of similar 
characteristics to the Sterling Forest in a newly established national 
wildlife refuge, the Wallkill Refuge, about 20 miles away. I have 
already mentioned the Appalachian Trail and the federally authorized 
PIPC. And I return one last time to the issue of water supply.
  Mr. President, I have been in past Congresses the chairman of the 
Senate Subcommittee on Water and Power. Over the past few years, I have 
learned quite a bit about the relationship between water and the 
Federal interest. This Sterling Forest tract is crucial watershed to 
more people than live in any 1 of 13 States. Does anyone here believe 
that if the water supply of the State of Montana or Wyoming or South 
Dakota were seriously threatened that the Federal Government wouldn't 
contribute $17.5 million towards a remedy? The fact is that 10 times or 
100 times this amount would be forthcoming.
  I believe that both New York and New Jersey are ready to endorse--
with their wallets--this project. We are ready to go. What is needed, 
what has to happen, is Federal leadership and Federal support.
  Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to consider this legislation and 
act positively, with all possible speed.
  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. 223

       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 ``Sterling Forest Protection 
     Act of 1995''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       The Congress finds that--
       (1) the Palisades Interstate Park Commission was 
     established pursuant to a joint resolution of the 75th 
     Congress approved in 1937 (Public Resolution No. 65; ch. 706; 
     50 Stat. 719), and chapter 170 of the Laws of 1937 of the 
     State of New York and chapter 148 of the Laws of 1937 of the 
     State of New Jersey;
       (2) the Palisades Interstate Park Commission is responsible 
     for the management of 23 parks and historic sites in New York 
     and New Jersey, comprising over 82,000 acres;
       (3) over 8,000,000 visitors annually seek outdoor 
     recreational opportunities within the Palisades Park System;
       (4) Sterling Forest is a biologically diverse open space on 
     the New Jersey border comprising approximately 17,500 acres, 
     and is a highly significant watershed area for the State of 
     New Jersey, providing the source for clean drinking water for 
     25 percent of the State;
       (5) Sterling Forest is an important outdoor recreational 
     asset in the northeastern United States, within the most 
     densely populated metropolitan region in the Nation;
       (6) Sterling Forest supports a mixture of hardwood forests, 
     wetlands, lakes, glaciated valleys, is strategically located 
     on a wildlife 
     [[Page S912]] migratory route, and provides important habitat 
     for 27 rare or endangered species;
       (7) the protection of Sterling Forest would greatly enhance 
     the Appalachian National Scenic Trail, a portion of which 
     passes through Sterling Forest, and would provide for 
     enhanced recreational opportunities through the protection of 
     lands which are an integral element of the trail and which 
     would protect important trail viewsheds;
       (8) stewardship and management costs for units of the 
     Palisades Park System are paid for by the States of New York 
     and New Jersey; thus, the protection of Sterling Forest 
     through the Palisades Interstate Park Commission will involve 
     a minimum of Federal funds;
       (9) given the nationally significant watershed, outdoor 
     recreational, and wildlife qualities of Sterling Forest, the 
     demand for open space in the northeastern United States, and 
     the lack of open space in the densely populated tri-state 
     region, there is a clear Federal interest in acquiring the 
     Sterling Forest for permanent protection of the watershed, 
     outdoor recreational resources, flora and fauna, and open 
     space; and
       (10) such an acquisition would represent a cost effective 
     investment, as compared with the costs that would be incurred 
     to protect drinking water for the region should the Sterling 
     Forest be developed.

     SEC. 3. PURPOSES.

       The purposes of this Act are--
       (1) to establish the Sterling Forest Reserve in the State 
     of New York to protect the significant watershed, wildlife, 
     and recreational resources within the New York-New Jersey 
     highlands region;
       (2) to authorize Federal funding, through the Department of 
     the Interior, for a portion of the acquisition costs for the 
     Sterling Forest Reserve;
       (3) to direct the Palisades Interstate Park Commission to 
     convey to the Secretary of the Interior certain interests in 
     lands acquired within the Reserve; and
       (4) to provide for the management of the Sterling Forest 
     Reserve by the Palisades Interstate Park Commission.

     SEC. 4. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act:
       (1) Commission.--The term ``Commission'' means the 
     Palisades Interstate Park Commission established pursuant to 
     Public Resolution No. 65 approved August 19, 1937 (ch. 707; 
     50 Stat. 719).
       (2) Reserve.--The term ``Reserve'' means the Sterling 
     Forest Reserve.
       (3) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
     of the Interior.

     SEC. 5. ESTABLISHMENT OF THE STERLING FOREST RESERVE.

       (a) Establishment.--Upon the certification by the 
     Commission to the Secretary that the Commission has acquired 
     sufficient lands or interests therein to constitute a 
     manageable unit, there is established the Sterling Forest 
     Reserve in the State of New York.
       (b) Map.--
       (1) Composition.--The Reserve shall consist of lands and 
     interests therein acquired by the Commission within the 
     approximately 17,500 acres of lands as generally depicted on 
     the map entitled ``Boundary Map, Sterling Forest Reserve, 
     numbered SFR-60,001 and dated July 1, 1994.
       (2) Availability for public inspection.--The map described 
     in paragraph (1) shall be on file and available for public 
     inspection in the offices of the Commission and the 
     appropriate offices of the National Park Service.
       (c) Transfer of Funds.--Subject to subsection (d), the 
     Secretary shall transfer to the Commission such funds as are 
     appropriated for the acquisition of lands and interests 
     therein within the Reserve.
       (d) Conditions of Funding.--
       (1) Agreement by the commission.--Prior to the receipt of 
     any Federal funds authorized by this Act, the Commission 
     shall agree to the following:
       (A) Conveyance of lands in event of failure to manage.--If 
     the Commission fails to manage the lands acquired within the 
     Reserve in a manner that is consistent with this Act, the 
     Commission shall convey fee title to such lands to the United 
     States, and the agreement stated in this subparagraph shall 
     be recorded at the time of purchase of all lands acquired 
     within the Reserve.
       (B) Consent of owners.--No lands or interest in land may be 
     acquired with any Federal funds authorized or transferred 
     pursuant to this Act except with the consent of the owner of 
     the land or interest in land.
       (C) Inability to acquire lands.--If the Commission is 
     unable to acquire all of the lands within the Reserve, to the 
     extent Federal funds are utilized pursuant to this Act, the 
     Commission shall acquire all or a portion of the lands 
     identified as ``National Park Service Wilderness Easement 
     Lands'' and ``National Park Service Conservation Easement 
     Lands'' on the map described in section 5(b) before 
     proceeding with the acquisition of any other lands within the 
     Reserve.
       (D) Conveyance of easement.--Within 30 days after acquiring 
     any of the lands identified as ``National Park Service 
     Wilderness Easement Lands'' and ``National Park Service 
     Conservation Easement Lands'' on the map described in section 
     5(b), the Commission shall convey to the United States--
       (i) conservation easements on the lands described as 
     ``National Park Service Wilderness Easement Lands'' on the 
     map described in section 5(b), which easements shall provide 
     that the lands shall be managed to protect their wilderness 
     character; and
       (ii) conservation easements on the lands described as 
     ``National Park Service Conservation Easement Lands'' on the 
     map described in section 5(b), which easements shall restrict 
     and limit development and use of the property to that 
     development and use that is--

       (I) compatible with the protection of the Appalachian 
     National Scenic Trail; and
       (II) consistent with the general management plan prepared 
     pursuant to section 6(b).

       (2) Matching funds.--Funds may be transferred to the 
     Commission only to the extent that they are matched from 
     funds contributed by non-Federal sources.

     SEC. 6. MANAGEMENT OF THE RESERVE.

       (a) In General.--The Commission shall manage the lands 
     acquired within the Reserve in a manner that is consistent 
     with the Commission's authorities and with the purposes of 
     this Act.
       (b) General Management Plan.--Within 3 years after the date 
     of enactment of this Act, the Commission shall prepare a 
     general management plan for the Reserve and submit the plan 
     to the Secretary for approval.

     SEC. 7. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       (a) In General.--There are authorized to be appropriated 
     such sums as are necessary to carry out this Act, to remain 
     available until expended.
       (b) Land Acquisition.--Of amounts appropriated pursuant to 
     subsection (a), the Secretary may transfer to the Commission 
     not more than $17,500,000 for the acquisition of lands and 
     interests in land within the Reserve.

 Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senator 
Bill Bradley in introducing legislation that would authorize the 
Federal Government to provide up to $17.5 million to purchase land in 
the Sterling Forest area of the New York/New Jersey Highlands region. 
These funds are critical to preserving the largest pristine private 
land area in the most densely populated metropolitan region of the 
United States.
  The Sterling Forest is located in the highlands region on the New 
Jersey and New York border, within a 2-hour drive of more than 20 
million people; 2,000 acres on the New Jersey side were acquired by the 
State by eminent domain. However, the tract of land on the New York 
side, some 17,500 acres, is owned by a private corporation and is under 
constant threat of development.
  The current owners of the land have mapped out an ambitious plan 
that, if implemented, would be the largest real estate venture in the 
United States. The plan calls for 14,200 houses and over 8 million 
square feet of commercial and light industrial space. The development 
would include schools, shopping malls, sewage plants, and residential 
areas.
  The proposed development would also harm the environment: 5 million 
gallons of treated sewage effluent would be discharged daily into 
streams, and road salts, petroleum products, pesticides, and other 
contaminants would result in substantial nonpoint source pollution.
  As damaging as that would be, I am most concerned about the potential 
effects on New Jersey's water supply. Sterling Forest is an important 
watershed for New Jerseyans. The forest provides 18 percent of the 
clean water flow into the Wanaque/Monksville Reservoir System. The 
Wanaque system delivers drinking water to over 80 cities and towns in 
northern New Jersey, which represent 25 percent of the State's 
population.
  Mr. President, we ought not allow such desecration. Sterling Forest 
is worth preserving. It is nothing short of beautiful. Its rugged 
topography is good for wildlife, many threatened or endangered species, 
for hikers and naturalists and for the watershed--not for development.
  That is why we need to do all we can to protect this resource. This 
bill authorizes up to $17.5 million to be provided to the Palisades 
Interstate Park Commission for the purchase of Sterling Forest. The 
commission has played a critical role in negotiating among private and 
public parties to strike a compromise with the current owners of 
Sterling Forest. A compromise is possible. But we need the backing of 
these Federal funds to make it happen.
  Mr. President, we need this bill to preserve not just an 
environmentally pristine tract of land, but also to ensure that one-
quarter of New Jersey's residents' water supply is protected.
                                 ______

      By Mr. KOHL (for himself and Mr. Feingold):
  [[Page S913]] S. 224. A bill to amend the Dairy Production 
Stabilization Act of 1983 to require that members of the National Dairy 
Promotion and Research Board be elected by milk producers and to 
prohibit bloc voting by cooperative associations of milk producers in 
the election of producers, and for other purposes; to the Committee on 
Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.


                  national dairy promotion reform act

 Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, one of the basic tenets upon which 
this Nation was founded was that there should be no taxation without 
representation. But the dairy farmers of this Nation know all too well 
that taxation without representation continues today. They live with 
that reality in their businesses every day.
  Dairy farmers are required to pay a 15-cent tax, in the form of an 
assessment, on every 100 pounds of milk that they sell. This tax goes 
to fund dairy promotion activities, such as those conducted by the 
National Dairy Promotion and Research Board, commonly known as the 
National Dairy Board. Yet these same farmers that pay hundreds, or in 
some cases thousands, of dollars every year for these mandatory 
promotion activities have no direct say over who represents them on 
that Board.
  In the summer of 1993, a national referendum was held giving dairy 
producers the opportunity to vote on whether or not the National Dairy 
Board should continue. The referendum was held after 16,000 dairy 
producers, more than 10 percent of dairy farmers nationwide, signed a 
petition to the Secretary of Agriculture calling for the referendum.
  Farmers signed this petition for a number of reasons. Some felt they 
could no longer afford the promotion assessment that is taken out of 
their milk checks every month. Others were frustrated with what they 
perceived to be a lack of clear benefits from the promotion activities. 
And still others were alarmed by certain promotion activities 
undertaken by the Board with which they did not agree. But overriding 
all of these concerns was the fact that dairy farmers have no direct 
power over the promotion activities which they fund from their own 
pockets.
  When the outcome of the referendum on continuing the National Dairy 
Board was announced, it had passed overwhelmingly. But because nearly 
90 percent of all votes cast in favor of continuing the Board were cast 
by bloc-voting cooperatives, there has been skepticism among dairy 
farmers about the validity of the vote.
  While I believe that dairy promotion activities are important for 
enhancing markets for dairy products, it matters more what dairy 
farmers believe. After all, they are the ones who pay hundreds or 
thousands of dollars every year for these promotion activities. And 
they are the ones who have no direct say over who represents them on 
that Board.
  It is for this reason that I rise today to introduce the National 
Dairy Promotion Reform Act of 1995.
  Some in the dairy industry have argued that this issue is dead, and 
that to reintroduce such legislation will only reopen old wounds. But I 
must respectfully disagree.
  The intent of this legislation is not to rehash the referendum 
debate, which was a contentious one. Instead, the intent is to look 
forward.
  Farmers in my State have traditionally been strong supporters of the 
cooperative movement, because the cooperative business structure has 
given them the opportunity to be equal partners in the businesses that 
market their products and supply their farms. I have been a strong 
supporter of the cooperative movement for the same reason.
  But there is a growing dissention among farmers that I believe is 
dangerous to the long-term viability of agricultural cooperatives. As I 
talk to farmers around Wisconsin, I am hearing a growing concern that 
their voices are not being heard by their cooperatives. They frequently 
cite the 1993 National Dairy Board referendum as an example. The bill 
that I am introducing today seeks to address that concern, by giving 
dairy farmers a more direct role in the selection of their 
representatives on the National Dairy Board. Whereas current law 
requires that members of the National Dairy Board be appointed by the 
Secretary of Agriculture, this legislation would require that the Board 
be an elected body.
  Further, although the legislation would continue the right of farmer 
cooperatives to nominate individual members to be on the ballot, bloc 
voting by cooperatives would be prohibited for the purposes of the 
election itself. There are many issues for which the cooperatives can 
and should represent their members. But on this issue, farmers ought to 
speak for themselves.
  It is my hope that this legislation will help restore the confidence 
of the U.S. dairy farmer in dairy promotion. To achieve that 
confidence, farmers need to know that they have direct power over their 
representatives on the Board. This bill gives them that power.
  I welcome my colleague from Wisconsin, Senator Feingold, as an 
original cosponsor of this bill, and I am also pleased to join today as 
an original cosponsor of his legislation, the Dairy Promotion Program 
Improvement Act of 1995.
  Senator Feingold's legislation would make other needed improvements 
in the National Dairy Promotion Program. Specifically, the bill would 
require that imported dairy products be subject to the same dairy 
promotion assessment as are paid on domestic dairy products today. 
Further, Senator Feingold's bill would provide this Nation's dairy 
farmers a chance to renew their support for the Dairy Promotion Program 
on regular basis, by requiring a referendum of farmers every 5 years, 
without bloc voting.
  I thank my colleague Senator Feingold for his efforts on these 
matters, and I believe that our two bills provide Dairy Promotion 
Program reforms that are both complementary and necessary.


    national dairy promotion reform act of 1995--summary of the bill

  The bill would amend the Dairy Production Stabilization Act of 1983 
to require that future members of the National Dairy Board be elected 
directly by dairy producers, and not appointed by the Secretary of 
Agriculture as they are currently.
  The bill would also prohibit the practice of bloc voting of members 
by producer cooperatives for the purposes of the Board elections.
  However, cooperatives could continue to nominate members to be on the 
ballot, as long as they adequately consult with their membership in the 
nomination process.
  The explicit details of the election process would be developed by 
the Secretary of Agriculture.
  I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the bill be included in 
the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 224

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``National Dairy Promotion 
     Reform Act of 1995''.

     SEC. 2. DAIRY VOTING REFORM.

       Section 113(b) of the Dairy Production Stabilization Act of 
     1983 (7 U.S.C. 4504(b)) is amended--
       (1) by designating the first and second sentences as 
     paragraphs (1) and (2), respectively;
       (2) by designating the third through fifth sentences as 
     paragraph (3);
       (3) by designating the sixth sentence as paragraph (4);
       (4) by designating the seventh and eighth sentences as 
     paragraph (5);
       (5) by designating the ninth sentence as paragraph (6);
       (6) in paragraph (1) (as so designated), by striking ``and 
     appointment'';
       (7) by striking paragraph (2) (as so designated) and 
     inserting the following new paragraph:
       ``(2)(A)(i) Subject to clause (ii), members of the Board 
     shall be milk producers nominated in accordance with 
     subparagraph (B) and elected by a vote of producers through a 
     process established by the Secretary.
       ``(ii) In carrying out clause (i), the Secretary shall not 
     permit an organization certified under section 114 to vote on 
     behalf of the members of the organization.
       ``(B) Nominations shall be submitted by organizations 
     certified under section 114, or, if the Secretary determines 
     that a substantial number of milk producers are not members 
     of, or the interests of the producers are not represented by, 
     a certified organization, from nominations submitted by the 
     producers in the manner authorized by the Secretary. In 
     submitting nominations, each certified organization shall 
     demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Secretary that the 
     milk 
     [[Page S914]] producers who are members of the organization 
     have been fully consulted in the nomination process.'';
       (8) in the first sentence of paragraph (3) (as so 
     designated), by striking ``In making such appointments,'' and 
     inserting ``In establishing the process for the election of 
     members of the Board,''; and
       (9) in paragraph (4) (as so designated)--
       (A) by striking ``appointment'' and inserting ``election''; 
     and
       (B) by striking ``appointments'' and inserting 
     ``elections.''
                                 ______

      By Mr. AKAKA:
  S. 225. A bill to amend the Federal Power Act to remove the 
jurisdiction of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to license 
projects on fresh waters in the State of Hawaii; to the Committee on 
Energy and Natural Resources.


    exempting hawaii from the hydroelectric jurisdiction of the ferc

 Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, for some time now, the State of 
Hawaii, its delegation in Congress, and conservation organizations 
throughout the State have been deeply concerned about Federal efforts 
to regulate hydroelectric power projects on State waters. The question 
of who should be responsible for hydropower regulation--the State or 
the Federal Government--is very contentious. It has not been a high-
visibility issue, however, because until now, the debate has occurred 
away from the public view.
  Those who care for Hawaii's rivers and streams recognize that 
continued Federal intervention may have serious repercussions for our 
freshwater resources and the ecosystems that depend upon them. Whenever 
a hydroelectric power project is proposed, a number of environmental 
considerations must be weighed before approval is granted. Important 
issues must be evaluated, such as whether the proposed dam or diversion 
will impair the stream's essential flow characteristics, or what effect 
the hydropower project will have on the physical nature of the stream 
bed or the chemical make-up of the water. Will a dam or diversion 
diminish flow rates and reduce the scenic value of one of Hawaii's 
waterfalls? Will it harm recreational opportunities? These, and other 
questions, must be answered.
  The effect of a new dam or diversion on the State's disappearing 
wetlands must be weighed. Wetlands provide vital sanctuary for 
migratory birds, as well as habitat for endangered Hawaiian waterbirds. 
They serve as reservoirs for storm water, filtering water-borne 
pollutants before they reach fragile coastal habitat, and providing a 
recharge area for groundwater.
  In Hawaii, historic resources often come into play. When Polynesians 
first settled our islands, Hawaiian culture was linked to streams as 
much as it was linked to the sea. The remnants of ancient Hawaiian 
settlements can be found along many of the State's rivers. Will the 
Federal Government give adequate attention to stream resources that 
have unique natural or cultural significance when it issues a 
hydroelectric license or permit?
  Most important of all, hydropower development must be compatible with 
preserving native aquatic resources. Hawaiian streams support a number 
of rare native species that depend upon undisturbed habitat. Perhaps 
the most remarkable of these species is the gobie, which can climb 
waterfalls and colonize stream sections that are inaccessible to other 
fish. These are some of the complex factors that must be considered 
during federal hydropower decision-making.
  A number of Federal agencies that have responsibility for fish, 
wildlife, and natural resource protection have raised questions about 
the State of Hawaii's commitment to protecting stream resources. They 
assert that FERC, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission is better 
equipped than the state to protect environmental values.
  However, the evidence supports precisely the opposite conclusion. 
FERC has a poor history of protecting aquatic species. And while the 
Federal hydropower review process requires that FERC consult with other 
Federal agencies--just as the State does--FERC retains the power to 
override requests by the State, as well as by Federal agencies, to 
protect environmental values. The landmark case in this area, 
California versus FERC, affirmed FERC's authority to reduce instream 
flow rates below the level that the State determined was the minimum 
necessary to maintain aquatic wildlife.
  Although FERC has never licensed a project in Hawaii, Federal 
agencies have an unfounded belief that State regulation of hydropower 
would be a danger to the environment. Nothing could be further from the 
truth. The State of Hawaii has demonstrated its commitment to 
protecting stream resources by instituting a new water code, adopting 
instream flow standards, launching a comprehensive Hawaii stream 
assessment, and organizing a stream protection and management task 
force.
  Meanwhile, FERC has played no role in stream protection other than to 
grant a preliminary permit to a hydropower developer on the Hanalei 
River. This is the same river that the Fish and Wildlife Service is 
fighting to preserve. From an environmental perspective, FERC is 
clearly off to a poor start.
  The experience with the proposed Hanalei hydropower project raises 
serious questions about the appropriateness of Federal efforts to 
regulate hydropower in Hawaii. Our rivers and streams bear no 
resemblance to the wide, deep, long, and relatively flat rivers of the 
continental United States. Hawaiian streams generally comprise groups 
of short riffles, runs, falls, and deep pools. Only 28 of them are 10 
miles or longer in length. Only 11 have an average flow greater than 80 
cubic feet per second. By comparison, the mean discharge of the 
Mississippi River is nearly 20,000 times the mean annual flow of the 
Wailuku River.
  The Federal interest in protecting the vast interconnected river 
systems of North America is misplaced in our isolated mid-Pacific 
location. When it comes to regulating hydropower in Hawaii, FERC is a 
fish out of water.
  In response to these concern, I am introducing legislation to 
terminate FERC's jurisdiction over hydropower projects on the fresh 
waters of the State of Hawaii. This legislation passed Senate during 
the 103d Congress as part of an omnibus hydropower bill, but the House 
and Senate could not resolve their differences on the bill. I will 
continue to fight for the passage of this legislation during the 104th 
Congress.
  I ask that a copy of the bill be printed in the Record following my 
remarks.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 225

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

     SECTION 1. PROJECTS ON FRESH WATERS IN THE STATE OF HAWAII.

       Section 4(e) of the Federal Power Act is amended by 
     striking ``several States, or upon'' and inserting ``several 
     States (except fresh waters in the State of Hawaii, unless a 
     license would be required by section 23 of the Act), or 
     upon''.
     

                          ____________________