[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 44 (Thursday, March 9, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3744-S3758]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
By Mr. THOMAS (for himself, Mr. Nickles, Mr. Helms, Mr. Burns,
Mr. Lott, Mr. Stevens, and Mr. Kyl):
S. 518. A bill to limit the acquisition by the United States of land
located in a State in which 25 percent or more of the land in that
State is owned by the United States, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
the no-net-loss of private lands act
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill, the No-
Net-Loss of Private Lands Act.
Mr. President, this is a bill that I think is a commonsense approach
that would begin to slow and halt the Federal Government's continual
land acquisition in the public land States.
This is an issue that is peculiar to the West; peculiar to public
land States. As you know, as the original States grew at the
Mississippi River and beyond, as the States came into the Union, they
acquired all the lands that lay within their States. They even went
into private ownership, or in fact belonged to the State. Those kinds
of things that were of public interest, such as parks and forests and
others, were withdrawn later by the Government for a particular use. I
certainly support that idea.
In the West, however, it was handled differently. There was a period
of time for homestead, and much of the public land was taken up. But
there were incentives to take it up. However, the West is peculiar. The
arid States are peculiar in that the lands pretty much rely on the
water. They rely on the feed for livestock.
[[Page S3745]] So lands that were not taken up were left after the
homestead time was over. These were simply lands that were there when
all the private ownership was done.
So they were managed by the Federal Government. And in fact, the
organic act of the land management agencies indicated that they would
be held prior to pending disposal. The fact is, to make a long story
short, there was no disposal, and that they are now permanently managed
by the Federal Government.
The Federal Government continues in addition to that to acquire
substantial amounts of land throughout the Nation in every State. I
think people are saying it is time to slow or stop the growth of the
Federal Government in its land ownership and to limit its ever-
increasing impact on our lives.
In my State of Wyoming, approximately 50 percent of the surface
belongs to the Federal Government, and more, as a matter of fact, in
the subsurface in the State. But when half of your State belongs to the
Federal Government and is managed by Federal land managers, then your
economic future depends a great deal upon how the management takes
place and what happens in those lands.
Other Western States have an even higher percentage of Federal
ownership. For example, in Idaho it is 61 percent; Utah, 63 percent;
and, in Nevada, nearly 85 percent of that State is owned and managed by
the Federal Government.
Unfortunately, particularly, in recent years, as the economies begin
to grow, the Federal Government has not always been a good neighbor to
the people of the West. The Federal land management agencies continue
to make it more difficult, and continue to lock up vast amounts of land
in the West.
We are not talking here in multiple use of parks or wilderness. We
are talking about lands that have been set aside for multiple use and
the Federal Government--and particularly this administration--has made
it increasingly difficult to use these lands as multiple use for timber
harvest, for grazing, and
for mining. All these uses, many of which are compatible ones with
another, play a very important part, of course, in our economy. So
there has indeed and continues to be a ``war in the West.''
Just yesterday we had some hearings to talk about domestic energy.
One of the issues that certainly is a part of that is the difficulty of
access to public lands for exploration and production of minerals. It
has been almost a deathblow to the domestic oil industry in the West.
Recently, the General Accounting Office released a report detailing
the growth of the amount of lands and found that over the last 3
decades the Federal land ownership has increased dramatically. In the
fiscal year 1994 alone, the Federal land management agencies acquired
an additional 203,000 acres of land in the United States.
These increases, of course, were a result of expansion to the forests
or wildlife refuges or national parks. I have no objection to that. As
a matter of fact, when there is a reason to acquire lands for a public
purpose that is determined through the process, I have no problem with
it.
The purpose of this bill is to say that in States where more than 25
percent of the surface is owned by the Federal Government and when
additional lands are acquired, there should be lands of equal value
disposed; a fairly simple concept, and I think a fairly fair concept.
It is particularly, of course, appropriate only for the West, only with
those States with more than 25 percent.
It seems to me it is a fairness issue. It puts the West in sort of
the same position as the rest of the States. It is an equity issue. It
certainly is an issue of economics for us.
So I am very pleased to introduce this bill. I have a number of
cosponsors. I urge my colleagues to take a look at this bill and see if
they think there is fairness causing the Federal Government through
trades or sales to dispose of lands of equal value to additional lands
that are acquired.
It is time for the Federal Government to take a look at itself. Of
course, that is what this whole Congress has been about; making some
fundamental changes in Government in terms of the size of Government,
in terms of the cost of the Government, and in terms of shifting those
things--that can be managed better in the private sector or by the
States--back to the private sector and to the States. This bill is
consistent with that view.
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President. I am pleased to join Senator Thomas in
introducing legislation which will limit land acquisition by the
Federal Government. Very simply, it makes no sense for the Federal
Government, with all of its financial problems, to continue buying land
that it can not afford to properly manage.
On the contrary, the Federal Government should be examining its
current land holdings for possible sale prospects. I am sure there are
many instances where the Government bought land over 100 years ago to
support a program or policy which is no longer valid in today's
society. Here is where Senator Thomas' bill will ask the question: why
do we still have the land? Under this legislation, a review would occur
prior to any land purchase to maintain a no-net-gain public lands
policy. This analysis will permit the identification of land to be sold
to compensate for the piece considered for purchase. It will also
answer that important question.
This legislation applies only to States in which the Federal
Government currently controls more than 25 percent of the land. This
approach focuses a legislative solution where the problem is the
greatest. It avoids that one-size-fits-all mentality which existed in
past Congresses.
Presently, there are 13 States in which the Federal Government
already owns and controls over a fourth of the land. You could call
these States Federal colonies. They are virtual hostages to Federal
policies and to the Washington bureaucrats who dominate the States'
economies by their whims and agenda.
Fortunately, Mississippi's public lands percentage is under 5
percent. That does not mean I do not appreciate the problem. I became a
cosponsor because Federal intrusion into local jurisdictional matters
is pervasive.
Every State must have the ability to sustain a viable growing economy
and to manage its natural resources. How can a State or local
municipality function when out of the blue, a Federal policy can
override legitimate local concerns? We saw that happen last year with
regard to a questionable agenda concerning grazing fees.
Let's talk numbers because they will illustrate the magnitude of the
Federal Government's appetite. There are roughly 2 billion acres in the
United States, of which the Government already owns about 650 million
acres. When this patchwork of Government ownership is consolidated, it
translates into a land mass equal to the size of 11 Southern States
starting with Virginia and stretching around the gulf to Texas and
going north to Arkansas and Kentucky. And we still need more. In
addition to the South, you would have to add the west coast from
California through Oregon and half of Washington is required to equal
the size of the land area controlled by the Federal Government.
That's over one-fourth of the United States, and if that is not
enough, the Federal Government continues on a buying frenzy. Just last
year, it claimed over 7 million more acres of land. That represents an
area larger than the State of Maryland. I do not think anyone can
dispute the fact that this Federal land policy needs to be reviewed and
put on a diet. The Thomas legislation provides a responsible first
step. It merely tries to stabilize the growth.
When you visualize the extent of Federal ownership, several questions
come to mind. Why does the Federal Government need so much land? Is it
all really needed? Will the sky fall if this Government stops buying up
more private land?
Beyond Federal land gluttony, what is even more disturbing is how
poorly the Federal Government manages these lands. For the Government
to take land on the premise that it will do a better job conserving the
land, ignores reality. There is ample evidence that private lands are
far better managed ecologically than Government lands.
A review of the budgets for just two Federal agencies responsible for
land management reveals they are funded only to a level to perform
custodial care. Ordinarily, I would be sympathetic to their desire for
more funds for
[[Page S3746]] land management improvements, but these same agencies
are the ones who seek to acquire more and more land. The Bureau of Land
Management and the National Park Service just can not say no. Rather
than use their budget to manage and husband natural resources already
in their care; they are out shopping for more land. They have become
the Nation's largest absentee landlord. Evidently, their agenda is to
take as much private land as possible with no real intention to manage
it wisely.
Today, Senator Thomas is offering a win-win legislative solution. The
Federal Government gets a maintenance diet, and the States get a chance
to chart their own destiny without fear of more Government intrusion.
Let me be clear about this: Federal holdings take land off local tax
rolls, causing the property tax base to shrink and tax rates to rise
commensurately for those who remain. This only gets worse as more and
more land is taken.
Let me be even more candid: A growing Federal presence is
increasingly perceived as an oppressive Federal occupation. In most
instances, the Federal Government is not necessarily a good neighbor.
Our Founding Fathers deeply believed in individual rights. That
includes freedom of speech and religion; and the right for Americans to
own property. Unfortunately, today it looks as if the Federal
Government believes it must own and control the land, rather than
individual Americans. Senator Thomas has provided us an opportunity to
stop this policy and restore our country to what our Founding Fathers
envisioned.
I thank my colleagues for their consideration, and I hope they will
examine this worthwhile legislation.
______
By Mr. DASCHLE (for himself, Mr. Exon, Mr. Ford, Mr. Conrad, Mr.
Dorgan, Mr. Kohl, Mrs. Feinstein, Mr. Bumpers, Mr. Robb, Mr.
Kerry, Mr. Feingold, Mr. Harkin, Mr. Reid, Mr. Hollings, Mrs.
Boxer, Mr. Levin, Mr. Pryor, and Mr. Biden):
S. 519. A bill to require the Government to balance the Federal
budget; to the Committee on the Budget and the Committee on
Governmental Affairs, 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 charged.
the balanced budget act of 1995
Mr. DASCHLE.
Mr. President, I wish to thank the distinguished Senator from North
Dakota for his comments this morning. I have respected the leadership
of Senator Conrad on this issue, as I have of the distinguished Senator
from Montana.
Mr. President, a number of Senators have been developing for some
time a bill that we are introducing today that would put our money
where our mouth is when it comes to making the tough decisions on the
budget that we all know must be made.
Over the course of the last several weeks, we have had a vigorous
debate about the advisability, the practicality, and the prudence, of a
balanced budget amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
As everyone knows, by a very close vote, the Senate has decided, at
least for now, that there will not be a constitutional amendment to
balance the budget. But no one should interpret that to mean there will
not be an effort to reduce the deficit, or that we will not continue on
the progress that we have made in the past 3 years on getting the
deficit under control. We intend to continue deficit reduction further
than it has come to this point. We want to balance the budget by a date
certain without relying on the Social Security trust funds.
We made good progress. We have reduced the deficit, now, by 40
percent from what it was just 3 years ago. It has been a long time
since the Senate and the Congress has done that. The last time
Washington has reduced the deficit 3 years in a row was during the time
of Harry Truman. So we have come a long way. We have made some very
tough choices. We made tough choices with regard to both revenue as
well as cuts in 1990. We made very tough choices, and on another very
close vote, passed a $600 billion deficit reduction package in 1993.
We have come this far as a result of those very tough choices,
choices for which a lot of Members took a lot of political heat. We can
say, perhaps somewhat boastfully, that because of those tough choices,
our country is stronger today. Because of those tough choices, we have
actually been able to make real progress in meaningful deficit
reduction.
We need another effort just like that this year. The only change that
I hope we can make is that in 1993, unfortunately, it became a very
partisan choice, the Republicans versus Democrats. I hope this year,
given the tremendous burden we all must share in coming to grips with
this deficit, that it does not have to be partisan; that it indeed will
be a bipartisan effort at deficit reduction; that we could put the next
installment on deficit reduction into place now in 1995.
So the bill that we are introducing, Mr. President, will do just
that. It says very fundamentally three things. First and foremost, that
we shall reduce the deficit to zero by the year 2002, or at the
earliest possible date set by the Budget Committee.
Our view is that unless we have a time certain, it is really
impossible to develop the necessary blueprint to get us from here to
there. Recognizing that we have $1.8 trillion of deficit reduction
decisionmaking ahead of us, there is no way we can come to grips with
it and do all that we must to do it right unless we take it in
installments year after year, recognizing that each year has to be a
downpayment.
So that is the provision in our bill: to set a date certain, either
2002 or the earliest date set by the Budget Committee.
The second provision is one that we have talked a good deal about:
protecting Social Security. I said the deficit over the course of the
next 7 years will be $1.8 trillion more if we do nothing. That is our
goal. It would be $1.2 trillion if we were to use the Social Security
trust funds to finance the deficit. Many of us feel that using Social
Security trust funds to pay for other government programs is wrong.
There is a designated purpose for those trust funds, and we do not want
to play games with trust fund dollars or with the revenue that would be
required to meet the obligations we have to workers who will need the
trust funds to retire in future years.
So our view is to take Social Security off the table, to recognize
the magnitude of the problem for what it really is--$1.8 trillion--and
to begin making the effort to balance the budget, as we know we must.
The third, and an equally important element in this budget package,
is one which simply says this must be the Congress to start this
effort. This must be the Congress to begin making the headway and
leading the way to ensure that future Congresses do what we know we
must do. We cannot delegate the responsibility to future Congresses, it
has to be this one now, this year, this session of Congress. And so our
bill makes that point very clear.
Our bill provides for a budgetary point of order--a requirement that
60 Senators must vote to overturn--against any reported budget
resolution that does not balance the budget by a date certain.
So, Mr. President, there has been a lot of discussion, a lot of
debate, and a lot of strongly held feelings about how we get from here
to there. I believe the time has come for us to put aside the rhetoric,
to get down to the real hard decisionmaking that we all must do if we
are going to accomplish this in a successful way.
In 23 days' time, the Budget Committee is required--by law--to
produce a budget blueprint. In 38 days, Congress must approve a plan.
We stand ready to work with our Republican colleagues to craft a plan
that meets the goals set out in the bill we are introducing today. We
hope they will support this bill.
Mr. President, the Social Security trust funds are the only Federal
funds that are explicitly excluded from the deficit calculations under
this bill. That is because, as I have said, the surplus revenues
building up in those trust funds--amounting to $705 billion between now
and 2002--would otherwise be raided to balance the budget.
Just as we are determined to protect Social Security, this bill would
force Congress to set national priorities as
[[Page S3747]] we balance the budget. As we engage in that process, we
need to protect those who need our help. Cutting back on meals for
schoolchildren, as some are proposing, is not what proponents of this
bill have in mind. Neither would we support cutting back on benefits to
veterans with service-connected disabilities.
The debate should be about priorities. We must balance the budget,
and we must do it in a way that strengthens the economy and that is
fair.
I am very pleased that so many of my colleagues have joined me in
cosponsoring this bill. Many of them are on the floor this morning to
participate in this colloquy. I yield the floor at this time to
accommodate the other statements.
Mr. President, I ask that the time that I have just used be taken
from my leader time. And I ask unanimous consent that the full 30
minutes under my control be made available to my colleagues.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. DASCHLE. With that, I yield to the distinguished Senator from
North Dakota, and I designate the distinguished Senator from North
Dakota as the manager of the time.
Mr. DORGAN addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
The discussion by Senator Daschle, the minority leader, is about an
initiative that would give this Congress a procedure to try to reduce
the Federal budget deficit and reach a balanced budget. All of us
understand that changing the Constitution will not change the budget
deficit. That requires specific actions by the Congress.
We finished a battle last week that was a bruising debate, a battle
on the question of should the U.S. Constitution be amended to require a
balanced budget. That proposition would have had 75 or 80 votes had it
included a provision that said the Social Security trust funds will not
be used to balance the budget. But that provision was voted down, and,
therefore, the amendment itself lost.
But the question is not whether there is a constitutional amendment.
The question is whether we will balance the Federal budget. We have
proposed today a process by which we hope Republicans and Democrats can
join together to say it is up to us now together to balance the Federal
budget.
I said yesterday I had watched ESPN 1 day just very briefly and they
were showing a bodybuilding contest. The announcer, in announcing this
bodybuilding contest, said something kind of interesting that I thought
applied to Congress as well. He said, ``You know, there's a difference
in the skills a bodybuilder uses between when he poses and when he
lifts,'' because in this contest they were posing. He said, ``That
requires a different skill than lifting.''
It occurred to me that that is a perfect description of what happens
here. Some are skillful posers and do no lifting at all. The question
at the moment is not how do we pose on the issue of a balanced budget,
the question is how will we all decide to lift together to cut the
spending, to do the things necessary in a real way to balance the
Federal budget.
So we propose that by statute we require that as a Congress we
complete a budget that includes a specific plan to bring the deficit
down to zero by the year 2002, without raiding the Social Security
trust funds. No one need force us to do that. It is our job to do that.
We propose a 60-vote point of order against any budget that would
come to the floor of the Senate that does not do that. We propose to
set up a supermajority against legislation that would fail to do
exactly what everyone in this Chamber says we want to do, and that is
require a budget plan to balance the Federal budget by the year 2002.
That is real medicine. That is not in the sweet by-and-by. That is
not posing. That is deciding on a process that will require real
lifting.
Everyone in this Chamber understands, or should, that what happened
in 1993 probably will not happen again. We won by one vote a $500
billion reduction in the Federal deficit over 5 years. It turned out to
be a $600 billion reduction in the accumulated deficits. We carried
that by one vote because one side of the aisle decided they would help
lift, the other side did not. That probably will not happen again.
The only way we can achieve progress toward a goal the American
people want and a goal the American people know this country needs is
if every one of us, all of us--Republicans and Democrats, conservatives
and liberals--decide our goal is 2002, our responsibility is a budget
plan that is real and enforceable and our determination, our grim
determination is to get there and to do that. This legislation
establishes a process that will accomplish that.
The question then for Members of the Senate is not a question of
posing anymore. It is a question of who is going to join together to be
involved in helping balance the budget in a real way.
I hope that in the coming days, we will decide as a Senate to adopt
this process, which was proposed by the minority leader and I hope will
be embraced on a bipartisan basis. The minority leader is saying that
we share a common goal and we will come together for a common purpose.
We will legislate in a manner that gives this country a balanced budget
by the year 2002. No excuses. No raiding the Social Security trust
funds. No dishonest budgeting. If we do that, this country will have
been well served by all of us working together for a change, and I
think that will strengthen America.
Mr. President, I yield the floor and I yield 3 minutes to the Senator
from Wisconsin, Senator Kohl.
Mr. KOHL. I thank the Senator. Mr. President, I rise today to offer
my support for the Democratic leadership's balanced budget legislation.
This legislation says two things: First, the only budget that Congress
should consider is one that contains a plan that will bring us into
balance; and second, in bringing our budget into balance, Congress
should protect Social Security.
Though there is disagreement on whether we need a constitutional
amendment to balance the budget, there are few who think that we should
not be moving toward that goal. And though a few want Social Security
on the budget cutting table, a large majority believe that we ought to
balance the budget without using the Social Security trust fund. And so
I do not see why the legislation that we are talking about today should
not gain a huge majority vote in the U.S. Senate.
Anyone who voted for the balanced budget amendment, as I did, and
anyone who believes that we should not balance the budget using Social
Security, as I do, should clearly support this legislation. The
American people are tired of hearing us endlessly debate the idea of a
balanced budget. They want to see us do something to get there. If that
means changing our rules so we cannot consider a budget that is out of
balance, then we ought to change our rules. And if that means Democrats
and Republicans sitting down together to map out the hard cuts we need
to make, then we ought to sit down together. But make no mistake, we
will be held accountable if we let our work toward a balanced budget
end with the defeat of the balanced budget amendment. I voted for the
balanced budget amendment even though it would not take effect for
years because I believe that it is imperative we get our Nation's
fiscal affairs in order. I support this legislation because it does
something right now to force Congress into balancing the budget.
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:
S. 519
Be it enacted in the Senate and the House of
Representatives of the United States of America in Congress
assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Balanced Budget Act of
1995''.
SEC. 2. ENFORCEMENT OF A BALANCED BUDGET.
(a) Purpose.--The Congress declares it essential that the
Congress--
(1) require that the Government balance the Federal budget
without counting the surpluses of the Social Security trust
funds;
(2) set forth with specificity in the first session of the
104th Congress the policies that achieving such a balanced
budget would require; and
(3) enforce through the congressional budget process the
requirement to achieve a balanced Federal budget.
[[Page S3748]] (b) Point of Order Against Budget
Resolutions That Fail To Set Forth a Glide Path to a Balanced
Budget.--Section 301 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974
is amended by inserting at the end thereof the following new
subsection:
``(j) Congressional Enforcement of a Balanced Budget.--
``(1) Point of order.--It shall not be in order to consider
any concurrent resolution on the budget (or amendment,
motion, or conference report thereon) unless that
resolution--
``(A) sets forth a fiscal year (by 2002 or the earliest
possible fiscal year) in which, for the budget as defined by
section 13301 of the Budget Enforcement Act of 1990
(excluding the receipts and disbursements of the Federal Old-
Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund and the Federal
Disability Insurance Trust fund), the level of outlays for
that fiscal year or any subsequent fiscal year does not
exceed the level of revenues for that fiscal year;
``(B) sets forth appropriate levels for all items described
in subsection (a)(1) through (7) for all fiscal years through
and including the fiscal year described in paragraph (A);
``(C) includes specific reconciliation instructions under
section 310 to carry out any assumption of either--
``(i) reductions in direct spending, or
``(ii) increases in revenues.
``(3) No amendment without three-fifths vote in the
senate.--It shall not be in order in the Senate or the House
of Representatives to consider any bill, resolution,
amendment, motion, or conference report that would amend or
otherwise supersede this section.''.
(c) Requirement for 60 Votes to Waive or Appeal in the
Senate.--Section 904 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974
is amended by inserting ``301(j),'' after ``301(i),'' in both
places that it appears.
(d) Suspension in the Event of War or Congressionally
Declared Low Growth.--Section 258(b)(2) of the Balanced
Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 is amended
by inserting ``301(j),'' after ``sections''.
Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleagues in
introducing the Balanced Budget Act of 1995. It is my understanding
that this proposal will be offered as an amendment on legislation the
Senate will be considering shortly. I look forward to working with my
colleagues to pass this legislation to put the Federal Government on a
path toward a balanced budget.
The proposal we are introducing today contains elements of an
amendment Senator Exon, the distinguished ranking Democrat on the
Budget Committee, offered when the Senate considered the congressional
accountability bill, and an amendment I offered during Senate
consideration of the constitutional balanced budget amendment. In my
opinion this proposal is one of the most sensible ideas ever presented
to this body. It is sensible because it is more likely to actually
achieve a balanced Federal budget than the amendment to the
Constitution considered by the Senate last week and secondly because
this proposal is statutory in nature, and thus would not trivialize the
Constitution with an unenforceable amendment.
The proposal we are introducing today would set the Federal budget on
a glide path toward being balanced beginning this year. What this means
is that, rather than waiting 7 years before acting, as the
constitutional balanced budget amendment provided for, the Congress
would have to begin reducing the deficit this year. Under this glide
path the Federal budget deficit would be lower every year between now
and 2002, when the budget presumably would be balanced.
If the Budget Committee were to report a budget resolution that did
not set us on a glide path toward a balanced budget or that failed to
achieve a balanced budget by the targeted date, any Member of this body
could raise a point of order. It would take 60 votes to overcome this
point of order. In comparison, the constitutional balanced budget
amendment failed to provide an enforcement mechanism. If Congress
failed to achieve a balanced budget, nothing would happen unless
Congress passed legislation permitting the courts to enforce the
amendment--a result most proponents of the amendment said would not
occur.
When I offered my amendment as an alternative to the constitutional
amendment, Senator Hatch, the distinguished manager of House Joint
Resolution 1, pointed out that statutory budget restrictions don't work
because they can be overcome by a simple majority vote. However,
Senator Hatch failed to note that my amendment required 60 votes in
order to modify or repeal the balanced budget requirement. The very
same 60 votes that would have nullified the balanced budget requirement
of the constitutional amendment. The Balanced Budget Act of 1995, which
we are introducing today, contains the very same 60 vote requirement
before changes could be made.
The proposal we are introducing today is also far superior to the
constitutional amendment because it addresses some of the very
legitimate concerns expressed by Senators during the debate on House
Joint Resolution 1. For instance, unlike the constitutional amendment,
the Social Security trust fund would not be able to be used to mask the
deficit. When we say the budget is balanced, it will really be
balanced.
In addition, our proposal would prevent a minority of Senators from
sending this country into an economic tailspin. Congress could suspend
the balanced budget requirement by passing a joint resolution in a
fiscal year which CBO identified a period of low-growth--at least 2
consecutive quarters of below zero real economic growth. The
constitutional amendment, in comparison, would have allowed 41 Senators
to stop any effort by the Government to prevent a depression through
stimulus spending.
Mr. President, the people of this country do not expect miracles.
They expect us to be sensible, and they expect us to keep faith with
them in their demands to get our deficit under control. The beauty of
the proposal we are offering today is that we can both achieve a
balanced federal budget and save our sacred organic law called the
Constitution of the United States, which every single one of us held up
our hand to protect, preserve, and defend when we were sworn into the
Senate. That did not just mean to protect the Constitution and all the
rights it provides for the people of this country; it also meant
protecting it against trivialization and politicization.
There have been over 11,000 efforts to amend the Constitution since
this country was founded. Think of it, 11,000. And because of the
eminent good sense of the Congress and people of this country, we have
only amended the Constitution on 18 separate occasions, and that
includes the Bill of Rights, which was adopted at the same time the
Constitution was.
The only time we have ever attempted to put social policy into the
Constitution was Prohibition. We found out that you can say as an
amendment to the Constitution everybody will love the Lord, but you
cannot enforce that. You should not put things that are unenforceable
into the Constitution.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent I be permitted to proceed for
3 more minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, since last week's vote on the balanced
budget amendment I have received calls and letters from people saying,
``Senator, you are going to be in big trouble if you run for reelection
in 1998.'' My response is far better that I be in political trouble
than the Nation be in big trouble by starting down the path of putting
every single whim and caprice that somebody can come up with in some
national magazine in the Constitution.
The people in this body who do not want the issue for political
purposes but who really want a balanced budget are not only going to
support the Balanced Budget Act of 1995 when the Senate considers the
proposal, they are going to support it strongly, because it has teeth
and it requires action immediately.
The people in this country are not interested in all the partisan
bickering that has taken place in Congress. When it comes to the
deficit, they expect the people of this body to hold hands and work
together.
I made a chamber of commerce speech the other night. I said the
beauty of our system is that while you may not like our politics, the
truth of the matter is that we agree on a lot more things than we
disagree on.
The people on that side of the aisle and the people on this side of
the aisle get awfully partisan, almost personal at times. But the truth
of the matter is where the country is at risk we join
[[Page S3749]] hands. And every day in the world, we agree on a lot
more things than we do not agree on.
Mr. President, if there ever was a time when the American people have
a legitimate demand that we join hands and agree on something, it is
this deficit. And the proposal we are introducing today does what the
American people want and it does not tinker or clutter our
Constitution.
I yield the floor.
Mr. FORD. Mr. President, it is always good to listen to my
distinguished friend from Arkansas. He tells it like it is, and I think
we all enjoy his remarks and the manner in which he expresses his
convictions. It is very difficult for some of us in this Chamber to be
as eloquent as he is. We are no less sincere than he is, but his
sincerity can be put in a way that communicates with all of us.
During the debate over the balanced budget amendment, our colleagues
from the other side of the aisle put forth grand sounding resolutions
about how they would balance the budget by a date certain without using
the Social Security trust fund to do it. That was all well and good,
and many Democrats voted in favor of the honorable sounding proposals.
The problem is, they did not do anything. Those sense-of-the-Senate
resolutions, you know, had no teeth. We could vote for that, go back
home, pound our chests and say we voted for it, but it did not mean
anything. It had no enforcement provisions.
Yesterday, several of our colleagues, those who voted for the
constitutional amendment and those who voted against the amendment
passing this Chamber--but all with the same goal, the same end, and
that is a balanced budget--said let us start eliminating the deficit,
get to paying off the debt. As the Senator from Arkansas said, we all
want the same thing and the way to get there is here and now. It is not
later. We can do it today.
So our colleagues yesterday held a press conference. We put forth
what I feel is a real budget balancing piece of legislation. This
proposal replaces words with action. It calls for a 60-vote point of
order on any budget resolution that comes before this body that does
not lead to a balanced budget by a certain date. This point, a certain
date, is important. It may be difficult to get there. But we need, as
the Senator from Arkansas said, to tell our constituents that we are
making an honest effort. I have heard my colleagues on the other side
say, and in the press, making speeches back in their home States: I
have never supported a tax increase in my political career. But now, if
we pass this balanced budget amendment, I will start considering tax
increases.
That tells this Senator--and it does not take a brain surgeon to
understand it, I do not think--they want a gun to their head to balance
the budget. Otherwise, they are not going to do it. They are not going
to lean on this amendment to the Constitution to be that gun to their
head to start helping.
You can hear a lot of things, but in 1993, when it was a tough vote
and the hide was coming off politically, we stood here without a
Republican; 50 of us voted, and the Vice President of the United States
broke that tie. We reduced the deficit over $600 billion, and we did it
without any help of those who proposed a constitutional amendment. That
proves that the body can, with a capital C--do it.
Now, all we have to say is let us get down to it; pass this amendment
and say every year, every year, every year the deficit has to be less
than it was the year before.
With or without a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution, Mr.
President, we the Congress must still act to implement it. We have the
power to achieve the desired goal right now. We do not have to wait
until 38 States ratify an amendment. We do not have to wait until 2005,
if they do not ratify it until 2003. We can start right now.
So let us use that power that the people placed in our hands. Our
proposal would force this action--and I underscore force this action.
If the constitutional amendment would force that Republican who made
the speech, that he would now consider increased taxes if you have the
balanced budget amendment in the Constitution, why do we not have the
intestinal fortitude to do it now?
Our proposal would force this action and get on the path to what we
all want. As the Senator from Arkansas said, we all agree on more
things than we disagree on. Already this morning, I have seen reports
that suggested our colleagues from the other side of the aisle have
already labeled our actions that we took yesterday and are attempting
to take here as just another political ploy--just another political
ploy.
Vote for this amendment and see if it is a political ploy. See if we
do not start on the right path to get a balanced budget. And we will
come closer by this action today, or tomorrow, than we would have had
we voted for a balanced budget amendment and waited for the States to
ratify it. Try us. That is all I ask. If you think this is a political
ploy: Try us. Vote for it and see what happens.
I hope they do not mean this, that it is a political ploy. I truly
believe that this amendment will do what everybody in this Chamber
talks about but we do not have the right kind of action on, such action
as this is, to achieve a balanced budget. If they do not join us in
this effort, we will never get to a balanced budget. This can be the
most political of all actions, trying to take the issue--trying to take
the issue.
I said last evening that before the vote in the hearts of some of
those on the other side of the aisle, and at the national committee,
they hope it fails because they want the issue. Boy, it did not take 24
hours to find out they wanted that issue. I want to tell you. My phone
calls are still the same. They are still better than 50 percent. If you
count the votes, you win by better than 50 percent. You do not lose. So
I am still getting more thanking me than those saying you are out of
here. They are going to get a chance, I guess, to tell me more in the
next few years. But let us not take the issue. Let us take the action.
The action is necessary to actually balance the budget.
So if this is a political ploy, I say again, Mr. President, try us.
Vote for this amendment. Let us start doing something right and leave
Social Security alone. I was here in 1983. We made a hard decision
then. I think it would have been very, very tough on any of us to vote
in 1983 to say in 12 years we are going to take this tax that we are
taking out of the pockets of the employees and the employers to pay for
foreign aid and welfare, and to attempt to do all these other things.
So, Mr. President, I hope that all our colleagues will join on this
and not say that it is just anther political ploy.
______
By Mr. SHELBY:
S. 520. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow a
refundable tax credit for adoption expenses; to the Committee on
Finance.
the adoption assistance for families act
Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, today I am introducing a bill to
help strengthen the role of the family in America. With the hustle and
bustle of the world today, we sometimes overlook simple, commonsense
ways to help one another. My bill, entitled ``Adoption Assistance for
Families Act,'' would effectively find homes for children who need
parents and find children for parents who need families. Mr. President,
the objective of my legislation is to provide an appropriate and
reasonable incentive to encourage a policy which should be embraced by
all Americans.
Adoption is a positive action that benefits everyone involved.
Obviously, a loving, caring family is the primary benefit of adoption.
Studies show the child also receives a strong self identity, positive
psychological health and a tendency of financial well-being.
On the other hand, parents who adopt children also benefit. They
receive the joy and responsibility of raising a child as well as the
love and respect only a child can give. The emotional fulfillment of
raising children clearly contribute to the fullness of life.
Lastly, do not forget society. Society is unambiguously better off as
a result of adoption. Statistics show time and again that children with
families intact are more likely to become productive members of society
than children without both parents.
Unfortunately more times than not, a financial barrier stands in the
way of otherwise qualified parents-to-be. The monthly costs of
supporting the child
[[Page S3750]] is not the hurdle, but instead the initial outlay. Many
people may not realize, but there are many fees and costs involved with
adopting a child. These include: maternity home care, normal prenatal
and hospital care for the mother and child, preadoption foster care for
the infant, home study fees, and legal fees. These costs can range
anywhere from about $13,000 to $36,000 according to the National
Council for Adoption.
Just like the person who wants to buy a home, but cannot because the
financial hurdle of a downpayment stops them, so are the parents-to-be
who cannot adopt a child because of the substantial initial fees, fees
that could actually exceed the cost of a downpayment for a house. As a
result, the benefits to everyone involved never materialize; children
do not receive loving parents and married couples are prohibited from
welcoming children into their compassionate family.
My bill seeks to address this problem. The Adoption Assistance for
Families Act would allow a $5,000 refundable tax credit for adoption
expenses. This credit would be fully available to any individual with
an income up to $60,000 and phased out up to an income of $100,000.
I believe this tax credit will go a long way in helping children find
the caring homes they so desperately need. This legislation would
undeniably benefit children, parents, and society as a whole. Mr.
President, I hope my colleagues will join me in reaching out to
families in order to provide a better, brighter future for our children
and a heightened degree of appreciation for the potential life holds.
Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support this
legislation.
______
By Ms. SNOWE:
S. 521. A bill entitled ``the Small Business Enhancement Act of
1995''; to the Committee on Finance.
the small business enhancement act of 1995
Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I introduce a package of legislation
to meet the needs of America's small businesses. The legislation I am
introducing today will help these small businesses by extending a tax
deduction for health care coverage, requiring an estimate of the cost
of bills on small businesses before Congresses passes those costs, and
assign an Assistant U.S. Trade Representative for Small Business.
In order to create jobs both in my home State of Maine and across
America, we must nurture small businesses, because small business is
the engine of our economy. Businesses with fewer than 10 employees make
up more than 85 percent of Maine's jobs, and nationally, small
businesses employ 54 percent of the private work force. In 1993, small
businesses created an estimated 71 percent of the 1.9 million new jobs.
When we call small business the ``engine'' of our economy, we mean it:
and America's small businesses are jump-starting our economy.
Small businesses are the most successful tool for job creation that
we have. They provide two-thirds of the initial job opportunities in
this country, and are the original--and finest--job training program.
Unfortunately, as much as small businesses help our own economy--and
the Federal Government--by creating jobs and building economic growth,
Government too often gets in the way. Instead of fueling small
business, Government too often stalls our small business efforts.
Government regulations and redtape add up to more than a billion
hours of paperwork time by small businesses each year, according to the
Small Business Administration. Moreover, because of the size of some of
the largest American corporations, U.S. commerce officials too often
devote a disproportionate amount of time to the needs and jobs in
corporate America rather than in small businesses.
My legislation will address three aspects of our Nation's laws on
small businesses, and I hope it will both encourage small business
expansion and fuel job creation.
First, this legislation will allow self-employed small businessmen
and women to fully deduct their health care costs for income tax
purposes. This provision will place these entrepreneurs on equal
footing with larger companies by eliminating a provision in current
law that limits deductions to 25 percent of the overall cost. In
addition, the legislation makes the tax deduction permanent. At a time
when America is facing challenges to its health care system, and the
Federal Government is seeking remedies to the problem of uninsured
citizens, this provision will help self-employed business people to
afford health insurance without imposing a costly and unnecessary
mandate.
From investors to start-up businesses, self-employed workers make up
an important and vibrant part of the small business sector--and too
often they are forgotten in providing benefits and assistance. Indeed,
11 percent of uninsured workers in America are self-employed. By
extending tax credits for health insurance to these small businesses,
we will help to provide health care coverage to millions of Americans.
I am pleased that the Committee on Ways and Means in the U.S. House
of Representatives has decided to report out a bill restoring the 25-
percent tax deduction retroactively. This decision will allow self-
employed small business people to deduct health care costs on their
1994 tax returns. I can think of no better incentive for small
businesses than a positive action of this nature.
Earlier this month, I joined 74 of my colleagues in writing to the
Senate leadership urging quick consideration of this issue once it is
transmitted to the Senate from the other body. I remain committed to
working with the leadership to restore this crucial provision.
My legislation will also require a cost analysis of legislative
proposals before new requirements are passed on to small business. Too
often, Congress passes well-intended programs that shift the costs of
programs to small businesses. The proposal will ensure that these
unintended consequences are not passed along to small businesses.
According to the U.S. Small Business Administration, small business
owners spend at least 1 billion hours a year preparing Government
forms, at an annual cost that exceeds $100 billion. Before we place yet
another obstacle in the path of small business job creation, we should
understand the costs our plans will impose on small businesses.
The legislation will require the Director of the Congressional Budget
Office to prepare for each committee an analysis of the costs to small
businesses that would be incurred in carrying out proposals contained
in new legislation. This cost analysis will include an estimate of
costs incurred in carrying out the bill or resolution for a 4-year
period, as well as an estimate of the portion of these costs that would
be borne by small businesses. This provision will allow us to fully
consider the impact of our actions on small businesses--and through
careful planning, we will succeed in avoiding unintended costs.
Finally, this legislation will direct the U.S. Trade Representative
to establish a position of Assistant U.S. Trade Representative for
Small Business. The Office of the U.S. Trade Representative is
overburdened, and too often overlooks the needs of small business. The
new Assistant U.S. Trade Representative will promote exports by small
businesses and work to remove foreign impediments to these exports.
Mr. President, I am convinced that this legislation will truly assist
small businesses, resulting not only in additional entrepreneurial
opportunities but especially in new jobs. I urge my colleagues to join
me in supporting this legislation.
______
By Mr. BENNETT (for himself, Mr. Brown, Mr. Campbell, Mr. Hatch,
and Mr. Kyl):
S. 523. A bill to amend the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Act
to authorize additional measures to carry out the control of salinity
upstream of Imperial Dam in a cost-effective manner, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
the colorado river basin salinity control act amendments act of 1995
Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation which
will amend the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Act and authorize
additional measures to carry out the salinity program. During the last
session of Congress, this noncontroversial bill passed the Senate
Energy Committee;
[[Page S3751]] however, the legislation was stalled in a log jam in the
closing days of the session. I am hopeful we will be able to move this
bill early in this session of Congress.
The Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Program has been authorized
by Congress and implemented by Federal and State entities for the last
20 years. There is now a need to update and revise the authorizations
provided for in the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Act so that
the Bureau of Reclamation [Reclamation] can move ahead in a more
responsive and cost-effective way with the portion of the program which
Reclamation is responsible for administering. The following statement
provides general background as to the purposes and legislative history
of the Salinity Control Act and the identified reforms necessary to the
act.
Background
In the 1960's and early 1970's, rising salinity levels in the Lower
Colorado River caused great concern because of damages inflicted by
salt dissolved in the water. This damage was occurring in the United
States and Mexico. In 1972, with the passage of the Clean Water Act, it
was apparent that water quality standards needed to be adopted in the
United States, and a plan of implementation to meet those water quality
standards needed to be identified. The U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency [EPA] published water quality standards for the Colorado River.
The United States modified the treaty with Mexico to add to the United
States commitments a water quality parameter.
The Colorado River Basin States were involved in many of the
discussions with respect to both the Mexico commitment and the water
quality standards. Through the formation of a Colorado River Basin
Salinity Control Forum, the States became collectively and formally
involved in discussions with Federal representatives concerning the
quality of the Colorado River.
At the urging and with the cooperation of the basin States and the
State Department in 1974, the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Act
was enacted by Congress. That authority became formally known as Public
Law 93-320 (88 Stat. 266), the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control
Act. That act consisted of two titles. Title I addressed the United
States commitment to Mexico, and title II addressed the authorization
for programs above Imperial Dam to help control the water quality in
the river for the benefit of users in the United States.
The amendments now being proposed in this legislation are exclusively
related to title II authorizations. Title I has not been amended since
the original enactment in 1974. Title II has received minor
modifications as authorities were given to Reclamation to consider
salinity control implementation strategies in some additional areas of
the Colorado River Basin. More importantly, title II was amended in
1984 by Public Law 98-569 (98 Stat. 2933). The 1984 amendments provided
for a formally constituted U.S. Department of Agriculture [USDA]
program within the Salinity Control Act. The amendments gave additional
responsibilities to the U.S. Bureau of Land Management [BLM] to seek
cost-effective salinity control strategies. The amendments further
described the basin States' cost-sharing responsibilities with respect
to the USDA program, and further increased the cost-sharing
requirements of the basin States with respect to newly authorized and
implemented Reclamation programs.
Needed Reforms
The Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Forum [Forum] has perceived
for some period of time the need for amendments to the authorization
relating to Reclamation's program. It has been felt by the States that
the program has, at times, been encumbered by formalities imposed by
Reclamation and the authorizing legislation which related to procedures
Reclamation used in implementing major water development projects in
decades past. It is felt that authorization which would allow
Reclamation to avoid some of these encumbrances and move more
expediently and cost effectively to the best salinity control
opportunities would ensure compliance with the water quality standards
of the Colorado River, and this compliance could be accomplished at
less cost.
There is a need to allow Reclamation to consider salinity control
strategy implementation in three geographic areas where planning
documents have been prepared and cost-effective salinity control
strategies have been identified. In the past, for Reclamation to
implement salinity strategies in new areas, formal approval by Congress
has been required. It is viewed that this is encumbering.
Further, it is felt that Reclamation needs flexibility so that it
might move to opportunities with the private sector to cost-share,
offer grants, and/or allow the private sector, rather than the Federal
Government to contract for the expenditure of appropriated funds. In
this manner the limited dollars would not be partially lost through
expenses which have been directly identified with the use of Federal
procurement procedures.
Last, Reclamation was authorized a ceiling expenditure in 1974 by
Congress. After two decades, the funds expended are approaching the
authorized ceiling. It is believed that it would be more appropriate
for a $75 million authorization provision to be placed on the program.
This will allow the salinity program to move forward for approximately
3 to 5 years at proposed spending levels.
The Salinity Forum believes that legislative reform for the
Reclamation program would be tailored after authorities given to the
USDA by the Congress in 1984. The inspector general for the Department
of the Interior released findings in 1993. Those findings are
incorporated in a document entitled, ``Audit Report, Implementation of
the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Program, Bureau of
Reclamation'', March 1993. The above legislation proposals are in
keeping with the recommendations of the inspector general.
Last year, Reclamation sent out a broad-based mailing to affected
parties and interest groups asking for recommendations concerning the
need for potential future efforts by Reclamation with respect to
salinity control. Further, Reclamation asked for input as to how the
program might possibly be reformulated. The responses received by
Reclamation are in keeping with this legislation, and it is my
understanding that the Bureau of Reclamation is expected to support
this legislation again this year.
To that end, I appreciate the excellent working relationship that has
existed between my office, the Commissioner's Office of the Bureau of
Reclamation, and the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Forum.
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:
S. 523
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. BASINWIDE SALINITY CONTROL PROGRAM FOR THE
COLORADO RIVER BASIN.
(a) Authorization to Construct, Operate, and Maintain a
Basinwide Salinity Control Program.--Section 202 of the
Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Act (43 U.S.C. 1592) is
amended--
(1) in subsection (a)--
(A) in the first sentence--
(i) by striking ``the following salinity control units''
and inserting ``the following salinity control units and
salinity control program''; and
(ii) by striking the period at the end and inserting a
colon; and
(B) by adding at the end the following:
``(6) Salinity control program.--
``(A) In general.--The Secretary, acting through the
Commissioner of Reclamation, shall implement a basinwide
salinity control program.
``(B) Contracts and other vehicles.--The Secretary may
carry out this paragraph directly, or may enter into
contracts and memoranda of agreement, or make grants,
commitments for grants, or advances of funds to non-Federal
entities, under such terms and conditions as the Secretary
considers to be appropriate.
``(C) Cost-effective measures.--The salinity control
program shall consist of cost-effective measures and
associated works to reduce salinity from saline springs,
leaking wells, irrigation sources, industrial sources,
erosion of public and private land, or other sources, as the
Secretary considers to be appropriate.
``(D) Mitigation.--The salinity control program shall
provide for the mitigation of incidental fish and wildlife
resources that are lost as a result of the measures and
associated works described in subparagraph (C).
``(E) Planning report.--The Secretary shall submit a
planning report concerning
[[Page S3752]] the salinity control program to the
appropriate committees of Congress.
``(F) The Secretary may not expend funds for any measure or
associated work described in subparagraph (C) before the
expiration of a 30-day period beginning on the date on which
the Secretary submits a planning report under subparagraph
(E).''; and
(2) in subsection (b)(4) by striking ``and (5)'' and
inserting ``(5), and (6)''.
(b) Allocation of Costs.--Section 205(a) of the Colorado
River Basin Salinity Control Act (43 U.S.C. 1595(a)) is
amended--
(1) in paragraph (1) by striking ``authorized by sections
202(a) (4) and (5)'' and inserting ``authorized by section
202(a) (4), (5), and (6)''; and
(2) in paragraph (4)(i) by striking ``sections 202(a) (4)
and (5)'' each place it appears and inserting ``section
202(a) (4), (5), and (6)''.
(c) Authorization of Appropriations.--Section 208 of the
Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Act (43 U.S.C. 1598) is
amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(c) Additional Authorization of Appropriations.--In
addition to the amounts authorized to be appropriated under
subsection (b), there are authorized to be appropriated--
``(1) such sums as are necessary to pay for nonfederally
financed salinity control; and
``(2) $75,000,000 for the construction of federally
financed improvements described in section 202(a).''.
______
By Mr. WELLSTONE (for himself, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Reid, Mr.
Bradley, and Mrs. Murray):
S. 524. A bill to prohibit insurers from denying health insurance
coverage, benefits, or varying premiums based on the status of an
individual as a victim of domestic violence and for other purposes; to
the Committee on Labor and Human Resources.
the victims of abuse access to health insurance act
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President today I am introducing the Victims of
Abuse Access to Health Insurance Act. This bill would outlaw the
practice of denying health insurance coverage to victims of domestic
violence.
In Minnesota three insurance companies denied health insurance to
entire women's shelter because ``as a battered women's program we were
high risk.'' The women's shelter in Rochester was told that it was
considered uninsurable because its employees are almost all battered
women.
A woman sought the services of Women House in St. Cloud because the
abuse during her 12-year marriage had escalated to such an extent that
she was hospitalized for a broken jaw and spent 2 weeks in a mental
health unit of a hospital. She was subsequently denied coverage by two
insurance companies--one said they would not cover any medical or
psychiatric problems that could be related to the past abuse.
These are just a couple examples of women who have been physically
abused and sought proper medical care only to be turned away by
insurance companies who say they are too high of a risk to insure.
Victims of domestic violence are being denied health insurance
coverage. This is a abhorrent practice. It is plain old-fashioned
discrimination. It is profoundly unjust and wrong. And, it is the worst
of blaming the victim.
We must treat domestic violence as the crime that it is--not as
voluntary risky behavior that can be easily changed and not as a pre-
existing condition. Insurance company policies that deny coverage to
victims only serve to perpetuate the myth that the victims are somehow
responsible for their abuse.
Domestic violence is the single largest threat to women's health.
Denying women access to much needed health care must be stopped.
The Victims of Abuse Access to Health Insurance Act is a very simple
and straightforward bill. It would prohibit insurance companies from
``engaging in a practice that has the effect of denying, canceling, or
limiting health insurance coverage or health benefits, or establishing,
increasing or varying the premium charged for the coverage or
benefits'' for
victims of domestic violence.
It would prohibit insurance companies from considering domestic
violence as a preexisting condition. Under the bill, domestic violence
is defined as any violent act against a current or former member of the
family or household, or someone with whom there has been or is an
intimate relationship. This could mean spouse, partner, lover,
boyfriend, or children. If an insurance company, or even a company that
is large enough to self-insure, violates this act it could be held
civilly and criminally liable.
Reporting domestic violence and seeking medical help is often the
first step in ending the cycle. Oftentimes health care providers are
the first, and sometimes the only, professionals in a position to
recognize violence in their patient's lives. Battered women should be
encouraged to seek medical help. We should not be discouraging this by
allowing insurance companies to use this information against them.
Women should not have to fear that when they take that first step they
could lose their access to treatment.
Doctors and other health care providers need to be encouraged to
properly diagnose, treat, and document domestic violence. Denial of
health insurance coverage will cause doctors not to document it
accurately if only to protect the victim.
Domestic violence is the leading cause of injury to women, more
common than auto accidents, muggings, and rapes by a stranger combined.
It is the No. 1 reason women go to emergency rooms. And research
indicates that violence against women escalates during pregnancy.
Last year during the health care reform debate, I raised this issue
in the context of requiring insurance companies to make insurance
available to all people who wanted it. We should certainly all be
moving toward that goal. However, this is a real immediate need and it
must be addressed.
Last year Congress passed the first most comprehensive package of
legislation to address gender based violence--the Violence Against
Women Act. It was a great step forward in stopping the cycle of
violence. But, it is not enough. We cannot stop at reforming and
improving the judicial system and think it will solve the problem. The
entire community must be involved in the solution--we all must be
involved in stopping the cycle of violence.
Insurance companies should not be allowed to discriminate against
anyone for being a victim of domestic violence. This is an abhorrent
practice and should be prohibited.
I urge my colleagues to support it.
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:
S. 524
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 ``Victims of Abuse Access to
Health Insurance Act''.
SEC. 2. PROHIBITION OF HEALTH INSURANCE DISCRIMINATION
RELATING TO VICTIMS OF CERTAIN CRIMES.
(a) In General.--No insurer may engage in a practice that
has the effect of denying, canceling, or limiting health
insurance coverage or health benefits, or establishing,
increasing, or varying the premium charged for the coverage
or benefits--
(1) to or for an individual on the basis that the
individual is, has been, or may be the victim of domestic
violence; or
(2) to or for a group or employer on the basis that the
group includes or the employer employs, or provides or
subsidizes insurance for, an individual described in
paragraph (1).
(b) Pre-Existing Conditions.--
(1) In general.--A health benefit plan may not consider a
condition or injury that occurred as a result of domestic
violence as a pre-existing condition.
(2) Preexisting condition.--As used in paragraph (1), the
term ``preexisting condition'' means, with respect to
coverage under a health benefit plan, a condition which was
diagnosed, or which was treated, prior to the first date of
such coverage (without regard to any waiting period).
SEC. 3. CIVIL AND CRIMINAL REMEDIES AND PENALTIES.
(a) In General.--Whoever violates the provisions of this
Act shall be--
(1) subject to a fine in an amount provided for under title
18, United States Code, for a class A misdemeanor not
resulting in death;
(2) subject to the imposition of a civil monetary penalty;
and
(3) subject to the commencement by the aggrieved party of a
civil action under subsection (b).
(b) Civil Remedies.--
(1) In general.--Any individual aggrieved by reason of the
conduct prohibited in this Act may commence a civil action
for the relief set forth in paragraph (2).
(2) Relief.--In any action under paragraph (1), the court
may award appropriate relief, including temporary,
preliminary, or permanent injunctive relief and compensatory
and punitive damages, as well as the costs of suit and
reasonable fees for plaintiffs attorneys
[[Page S3753]] and expert witnesses. With respect to
compensatory damages, the plaintiff may elect, at any time
prior to the rendering of final judgment, to recover, in lieu
of actual damages, an award of statutory damages in the
amount of $5,000 per violation.
(3) Concurrent jurisdiction.--Both Federal and State courts
shall have concurrent jurisdiction over actions brought
pursuant to this section.
SEC. 4. DEFINITIONS.
For purposes of this Act:
(1) Domestic violence.--The term ``domestic violence''
means the occurrence of one or more of the following acts
between household or family (including in-laws or extended
family) members, spouses or former spouses, or individuals
engaged in or formerly engaged in a sexually intimate
relationship:
(A) Attempting to cause or intentionally, knowingly, or
recklessly causing bodily injury, rape, assault, sexual
assault, or involuntary sexual intercourse.
(B) Knowingly engaging in a course of conduct or repeatedly
committing acts toward another individual, including
following the individual, without proper authority, under
circumstances that place the individual in reasonable fear of
bodily injury.
(C) Subjecting another to false imprisonment.
(2) Insurer.--
(A) In general.--The term ``insurer'' means a health
benefit plan, a health care provider, an entity that self-
insures, or a Federal or State agency or entity that conducts
activities related to the protection of public health.
(B) Health benefit plan.--The term ``health benefit plan''
means any public or private entity or program that provides
for payments for health care, including--
(i) a group health plan (as defined in section 607 of the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974) or a
multiple employer welfare arrangement (as defined in section
3(40) of such Act) that provides health benefits;
(ii) any other health insurance arrangement, including any
arrangement consisting of a hospital or medical expense
incurred policy or certificate, hospital or medical service
plan contract, or health maintenance organization subscriber
contract;
(iii) workers' compensation or similar insurance to the
extent that it relates to workers' compensation medical
benefits (as defined by the Secretary of Health and Human
Services); and
(iv) automobile medical insurance to the extent that it
relates to medical benefits (as defined by the Secretary of
Health and Human Services).
SEC. 5. INAPPLICABILITY OF MCCARRAN-FERGUSON ACT.
For purposes of section 2(b) of the Act of March 9, 1945
(15 U.S.C. 1012(b); commonly known as the McCarran-Ferguson
Act), this Act shall be considered to specifically relate to
the business of insurance.
SEC. 6. REGULATIONS.
The Secretary of Health and Human Services shall issue
regulations to carry out this Act.
SEC. 7. EFFECTIVE DATE.
This Act shall take effect 90 days after the date of the
enactment of this Act.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I strongly support the Victims of Abuse
Access to Health Insurance Act, and I commend Senator Wellstone for
introducing it. This needed legislation will prohibit insurers from
denying health insurance coverage, benefits, or premiums to victims of
domestic abuse. Enactment of this measure is an essential step in the
struggle to combat domestic violence and to assist women and children
who are its victims.
Violence against women has reached epidemic proportions. Nationwide a
woman is beaten every 18 seconds. A woman is raped every 5 minutes.
More than 1 million women across the country are victims of reported
crimes of domestic violence; 3 million more such crimes go unreported.
Last year, as part of the omnibus crime bill, Congress passed the
Violence Against Women Act. In doing so, we established new Federal
penalties for spouse abusers, provided a civil rights cause of action
for gender-motivated crimes of violence, and authorized funds for
services for victims, including victim counselors, battered women's
shelters, rape crisis centers, and a national domestic violence toll-
free hotline.
By enacting that law, Congress made a strong commitment to do more to
help the victims of domestic violence. We encouraged them to report
their abusers, and to seek assistance. We gave them new means to help
them protect themselves. And now, with this legislation, we must tell
them that they will not be denied health insurance for doing what is
necessary to protect themselves and their children.
Insurance companies that refuse to cover battered women commit an
injustice to those women and to society. Denial of health insurance to
victims of domestic violence is discrimination against women and
children. It is another way to blame and punish the victim, while
letting the abuser go free. Allowing this discrimination tacitly
endorses it--and endorses the myth that victims of domestic abuse are
responsible for the violence committed against them.
Denying such insurance also discourages victims of domestic abuse
from reporting the crimes against them and from leaving their abusers
and seeking help. It discourages victims from seeking medical treatment
for injuries inflicted by their abusers. For countless Americans,
health insurance is the only realistic means of obtaining access to
health care. The loss of health care for themselves and their children
is enough to intimidate many victims into staying in abusive
environments and keeping silent.
We must not condone any practice which makes it harder for women to
leave their abusers or deters them from reporting the crimes against
them and their children. We must not condone any practice which
punishes women for seeking medical treatment for themselves and their
children, for seeking safety from violence, or for speaking out against
the crimes committed against them. I urge my colleagues to support this
legislation, and I look forward to working with my colleagues to
promote its passage.
______
By Mr. BAUCUS (for himself, Mr. Daschle, Mr. Dorgan, and Mr.
Pressler):
S. 525. A bill to ensure equity in, and increased recreation and
maximum economic benefits from, the control of the water in the
Missouri River system, and for other purposes; to the Committee on
Environment and Public Works.
the missouri river water control equity act
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I will not speak for the full 25 minutes;
it will be 10 or 15 minutes. I thank the Chair for recognizing me. Mr.
President, I rise this morning with my colleagues from North Dakota and
South Dakota to discuss the Army Corps of Engineers and particularly
the Missouri River system.
We are here today to make our side of the story known on what is
called the Preferred Alternative to the Missouri River Master Water
Control Manual. That sounds very technical, but it is really about the
heart and soul of our State of Montana. Let me explain.
montana and the missouri river
It is difficult to describe what the Missouri River means to Montana.
People across the country may be familiar with the writer Norman
Maclean's book ``A River Runs Through It.'' He grew up in Missoula, and
the title refers to the Big Blackfoot on the western side of the
Divide. But for so many of us growing up east of the Continental
Divide, the river is the Missouri.
This river was part of our life before we became a State. Our
attachment to Missouri began eight decades before statehood, when Lewis
and Clark came up in their boats way back in 1805.
I grew up in the Helena Valley. My parents and friends--my friends
and I, in particular, spent our summers swimming in Holter Lake by my
family's ranch on the Missouri. Sometimes in Hauser Lake, sometimes
Canyon Ferry. Is it impossible to imagine Montana without lie on the
Missouri River.
The Missouri is where farmers get water for their crops; where
ranchers take their stock to drink; where sportsmen take the weekend to
go rafting or fishing. It comes up through Broadwater and Lewis and
Clark Counties, Great Falls, and Fort Benton, and runs all the way
through the State to the Fort Peck Dam and the North Dakota line.
So when people at the Army Corps of Engineers headquarters in
Washington, DC, or St. Louis, or Omaha, decide how high the reservoirs
will be, how much water we will have for irrigation, or whether we can
dock our boats at Fort Peck, it is an emotional, important decision
that affects us.
the 1987-92 drought
That would be true even if they at corps made good decisions. but up
to now, most of the decisions have not been good. They have been bad--
very bad.
We were hit by a big drought a few years ago that lasted 6 years,
from 1987
[[Page S3754]] to 1992. During most of that drought, the corps did
absolutely nothing to help us out. It stuck like a leech to the status
quo. Everything for irrigation down river, almost nothing for
recreation up river. One drawdown after another--drawdown during a
drought--when we had no rain to refill our reservoirs.
Our lake levels fell dramatically. At Fort Peck, the lake shore
receded until it was more than a mile from many boat ramps. Weeds were
growing in fields by the docks. This picture to my left will give you
an idea of the wreckage. At that point, I and other Montanans decided
we had enough, we were not going to take any more. We needed the corps
to go back to the book and make basic changes.
traditional corps management mistaken
Well, why did the corps allow this disaster to take place? Because
the corps has traditionally given the maximum preference to barge
traffic down river, which makes no sense.
According to the corps' own numbers, navigation is worth only about
$15 million a year. Many experts think even that is too high.
Recreation and tourism, according to the corps' own numbers, bring in
much more--about $77 million annually, which is five times the value of
navigation.
For years, the corps said the law required this approach. They said,
that is the law, you have to do it. But again, the corps is wrong--dead
wrong.
As the General Accounting Office testified at a hearing I held in
Glendive, MT, last year:
Contrary to what the Corps believed, Federal statutes
do not require the Corps to give recreation a lower
priority than other project purposes--flood control,
navigation, irrigation, and the generation of
hydroelectric power--in major decisions about water
releases.
new master manual is inadequate
For years, I urged the corps to update its operating plan for the
Missouri River. The draft of the new preferred alternative operating
plan is a step in the right direction.
But I am sorry to say it is not good enough. It is not much more than
a rehash of the status quo. It continues to give recreation the lowest
priority, even though recreation yields the most economic benefits. It
ignores the need to raise permanent reservoir levels, and it ignores
erosion below Fort Peck Dam. Let me examine these issues one by one.
disproportionate benefits for lower basin states
The first is simple fairness.
The four upper basin States receive about $358 million, or 32 percent
of the benefits, from river management. Lower basin States get $756
million, or 68 percent of benefits. As for Montana, we receive only
about 4 percent--not even a nickel of each dollar--of all of the
economic benefits of the Missouri River system. The preferred
alternative will not change that.
As you can see from this chart, it will mean that 32 percent for the
upper basin States and 68 percent for the lower basin States. That is
the allocation; no change, which is obviously unfair.
recreation too low a priority
Second, the corps still values navigation over recreation. That is
backwards. Navigation is worth only 1 percent of the river system's
economic benefits. One percent. Recreation brings in more. It is more
than just pleasure boating, it is jobs. Recreation is therefore more
valuable to the country, and it should be a much higher priority.
As I mentioned earlier, recreation benefits, overall, are five times
navigation benefits. The corps undervalued recreation in its Master
Manual Review. According to the corps, the average visitor to a corps
reservoir spends about $7 a day. But the Sports Fishing Institute found
that the amount spent for walleye fishing, for example, is $45 a day.
And at Fort Peck, the average was $69 a day. The corps' figures do not
add up.
minimum pool level must be higher
Third, the new plan does not change reservoir levels. The minimum
pool level, below which the corps will not release water in a drought,
is now 18 million acre-feet. At that level, weeds grow on the bed of
Fort Peck Reservoir. Boat ramps are high and dry a mile from shore.
Under the preferred alternative, the minimum pool level is still 18
million acre-feet.
The right level should be 44 million acre-feet. The master manual
environmental impact statement prepared by the corps states that 44
million--not 18--44 million acre-feet yields the greatest economic
benefit to the Missouri basin States. Repeating that, 44 million acre-
feet yields the greatest economic benefit to the Missouri basin States.
Specifically, it adds $1.28 million to the regional economy.
As you can see from the chart on my left, those numbers speak for
themselves. And that level would benefit the environment and the
quality of life--things we cannot estimate in cold cash, but which are
more important in Montana than I can tell you.
River management requires compromise, and we understand that.
Downstream States have not understand that in the past. They wanted to
stone wall. They wanted everything, and they have usually gotten it in
the past. But the problems remain. We pledge to work with our friends
downstream to find a fair solution.
I can tell you now, Mr. President, that anything under 44 million
acre-feet is unacceptable, and anything that gives navigation more than
its fair share will not fly.
plan is inadequate in combating erosion
Finally, the plan ignores erosion. Before we completed Fort Peck Dam
in 1940, there was virtually no erosion anywhere along the river, from
what is now the dam to Lake Sakakawea. Since then, 4,935 acres of prime
farm land have eroded away, washed down to North Dakota by explosive
releases from the Fort Peck Reservoir. And the corps itself predicts in
the next 50 years, erosion will cost us another 4,500 acres.
Talk about taking private property without compensation. Here is an
example. The farmers in Montana have received no compensation for what
they have lost. And the corps has done nothing to stop further erosion.
In the 54 years we have had the Fort Peck Dam, the corps has built
one--just one--streambank stabilization project in Montana.
That defies common sense. It defies good policy. And it defies the
law. The Water Resources Development Act of 1990 requires the corps to
spend $3 million every year to perform streambank stabilization.
And under the preferred alternative, there will be more releases, not
fewer. It is no better--in fact, it is worse--than the status quo.
fdr's promise
Plain and simple, the corps must do better. It is time the corps kept
the old promise that the river would be managed for everybody.
President Franklin Delano Roosevelt made that promise to us. He came
to Fort Peck 4 years before I was born. In those days, few Montanans
owned cars. The Depression had us flat on our back. Twenty-eight
Montana counties applied for aid from the Red Cross. We have only 56
counties in the entire State. North of Fort Peck, in Daniels County,
3,500 of the county's 5,000 citizens were on Federal relief--3,500 of
the county's 5,000 citizens were on relief.
But even so, 20,000 Montanans came out to see their President. FDR
stood under the massive wooden scaffold they put up to build the dam.
And he said:
The Nation has understood that we are building for future
generations of our children and grandchildren, and that in
the greater part of what we have done, the money spent is an
investment which will come back a thousand-fold in the coming
years.
We believed him. We put in the investment. Montana farmers gave up
250,000 acres of prime riverbottom land. But very little of it--forget
``a thousand-fold''--has returned.
Year after year, for six decades, the corps has betrayed FDR's
promise. We are sick and tired of it. It is time to put it right.
conclusion
I am sorry if I have gotten a little emotional about this. But when
it comes to keeping Montana's water in Montana, most of us get
emotional. And I do want to recognize the progress the corps has made.
Ken Byerly, the editor emeritus of the Lewistown News Argus, once
wrote that ``solving this problem is like eating an elephant; you take
it one bite at a time.''
We have taken some bites already. About 4 years ago, the late Senator
[[Page S3755]] Quentin Burdick and I convinced the corps to admit that
the basic manual--a work drafted in the 1950's, before the Interstate
Highway System made barge traffic more or less obsolete--had to be
redone to meet the needs of the 1990's.
But the corps has not spent a penny. Instead, it orders releases of
water that increase erosion.
In 1993, at our hearing in Glendive, Colonel Schaufelberger, who was
the commander of the Missouri River Division of the corps at that time,
somewhat sheepishly agreed that the corps' lawyers had been wrong.
Federal laws actually do let the corps consider recreation on an equal
basis with navigation and other uses. I ask unanimous consent that an
excerpt of his testimony be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Excerpt From a Hearing Before the Committee on Environment and Public
Works, October 1, 1993
Senator Baucus. * * *
I would like to begin with Mr. Duffus. You state in your
report that there is no legal requirement that the Corps give
preference to navigation over recreation; in fact, you state
in your report that recreation must be given at least equal
status to navigation. That is, the law makes that clear, in
GAO's judgment, that recreation has equal status compared
with navigation. Is that correct?
Mr. Duffus. That's correct, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Baucus. And what do you base that on? Is that just
your reading of the statute? What's the reason for that?
Mr. Duffus. The basis for the Corps' categorization of
project purposes as primary or secondary rose out of their
conclusion that if a project purpose was not identified and
had cost allocated to it, then it was not primary, it was
secondary. It had to be relegated to a secondary purpose. In
documents that they sent up to the Congress when the project
was authorized in 1994 and approved, recreation was not
allocated any cost. So it was on that basis that the Corps
came to the conclusion that recreation was a secondary
purpose.
Our review of the statute and our review of the legislative
history found no basis for that.
Senator Baucus. Colonel, do you agree that there is nothing
in the law that requires navigation to be given preference
over recreation--or to ask the same question turned around,
that the law in fact requires that equal emphasis be given to
recreation as compared to navigation?
Colonel Schaufelberger. Sir, the law does not discriminate.
The law says in the purposes of the reservoirs--and they are
enunciated--there is no priority established. So there is
nothing in the law that says there has to be one priority
over the other. The only priority established in the law is
the O'Mahoney-Milliken amendment, which specifies that
consumptive use has priority over other purposes. That's the
only priority that I'm aware of that is specified by law.
Senator Baucus. But there is nothing in the law that gives
preference to navigation over recreation?
Colonel Schaufelberger. That is correct, there is nothing
in the law.
Mr. BAUCUS. And today I am introducing a bill entitled the ``Missouri
River Water Control Equity Act.'' It will balance the equities between
the upper and lower basin States. It will require a greater emphasis on
recreation. And it will ensure that common sense, not pork-barrel
politics, determine how the Missouri River is run.
It may seem unimportant compared to many bills before the Congress.
But it means everything to Montanans. We have a lot of elephant steak
left to fry, but we are firing up the grill and we are determined to
make progress.
I thank you, Mr. President, and I want to thank my colleagues,
particularly the distinguished minority leader and also my very good
friend, the Senator from North Dakota, Senator Conrad, for joining me
here today.
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:
S. 525
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 ``Missouri River Water Control
Equity Act.''
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
Congress finds that--
(1) gross revenues from recreation on the Missouri River
system are estimated by the Army Corps of Engineers to be
$77,000,000 annually;
(2) gross revenues from navigation on the Missouri River
system are estimated by the Army Corps of Engineers to be
$15,000,000 annually;
(3) barge traffic produces only 1 percent of the annual net
revenue that derives from the operation of the Missouri River
system;
(4) the Army Corps of Engineers requires 18,000,000 acre-
feet of water to remain in the reservoirs of the Missouri
River system;
(5) maximum economic benefits for the Missouri River system
are estimated by the Army Corps of Engineers to be achieved
if 44,000,000 acre-feet of water are maintained in the
reservoirs of the Missouri River system;
(6) the recreation industry along the Missouri River has
been stifled by drawdowns of the reservoirs of the Missouri
River system during drought periods;
(7) barge traffic on the Missouri River has steadily
decreased since 1977 so that currently the quantity of cargo
shipped on the Missouri River is only 1,400,000 tons
annually;
(8) the States of Missouri, Iowa, Kansas, and Nebraska
receive 68 percent of the total economic benefits of the
Missouri River system; and
(9) the States of Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, and
Wyoming receive only 32 percent of the total economic
benefits of the Missouri River system.
SEC. 3. PURPOSES.
The purposes of this Act are--
(1) to ensure that the States of Montana, North Dakota,
South Dakota, and Wyoming receive an equitable portion of the
economic benefits from the operation of the Missouri River
system;
(2) to encourage the development of the recreation industry
along the Missouri River;
(3) to maximize the economic benefits to the United States
of the operation of the Missouri River system; and
(4) to phase out navigation, which is the least productive
use of the Missouri River system, in order to increase the
productivity of other competing uses of the system such as
hydropower and flood protection.
SEC. 4. MINIMUM POOL LEVELS.
(a) Missouri River System.--The Secretary of the Army,
acting through the Assistant Secretary of the Army having
responsibility for civil works (referred to in this Act as
the ``Secretary''), shall not permit the permanent pool
levels in the Missouri River system to fall below 44,000,000
acre-feet at any time unless the Secretary makes a finding
that a lower level is required to provide necessary--
(1) emergency flood control to protect human life and
property;
(2) hydropower; or
(3) water supply.
(b) Fort Peck Lake.--The Secretary shall not permit the
permanent pool level in Fort Peck Lake to fall below
12,000,000 acre-feet (which is equivalent to an elevation of
2,220 feet) at any time unless the Secretary makes a finding
that a lower level is required to provide necessary--
(1) emergency flood control to protect human life and
property;
(2) hydropower; or
(3) water supply.
SEC. 5. NAVIGATION DEAUTHORIZED.
(a) Transition Provision.--The Secretary shall decrease the
length of the first navigation season that begins after the
date of enactment of this Act, and each navigation season
thereafter, by 30 days from the length of the previous
navigation season, until such time as the navigation season
for the Missouri River is eliminated.
(b) Prohibition.--Beginning on the day after the end of the
last navigation season under subsection (a), the Secretary
may not authorize a program, project, or activity that
involves navigation on the Missouri River.
SEC. 6. MITIGATION OF EROSION.
(a) In General.--Not later than January 1, 1997, the
Secretary shall develop and implement a plan to mitigate
streamback and reservoir erosion caused by the operations of
the Missouri River system.
(b) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized
to be appropriated to carry out the plan developed under
subsection (a) $20,000,000 for each fiscal year.
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I would like to salute the Senator from
Montana, Senator Baucus, for his leadership on this subject. The
Senator from Montana has been an absolute champion for our part of the
country in trying to get fair treatment and equity with respect to the
management of the mainstream reservoirs. He has been absolutely
determined and dedicated to achieving a fair result.
I can remember very well when the Senator from Montana and I teamed
up to stop the appointment of a new head of the Corps of Engineers
until our part of the country got fair treatment in the depths of the
worst drought we had suffered since the Great Depression. The Senator
from Montana, Senator Baucus, has shown nerves of steel in taking on
the Corps of Engineers on this issue. Very frankly, our part of the
country has gotten short shrift, gotten shortchanged, and it has to be
altered.
Now we know that for years the Corps of Engineers was operating on a
policy that was not supported by law and was not supported by fact. And
it is because of the energy and effort of the Senator from Montana, in
large
[[Page S3756]] measure, that we are moving toward a new day today. I
want to thank him publicly for everything he has done.
Mr. BAUCUS. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. CONRAD. Yes.
Mr. BAUCUS. I thank the Senator.
Mr. President, I think that North Dakotans should know that there is
no Senator who has worked harder on this issue than their Senator, Kent
Conrad. He and I have teamed up many times on this matter. And I must
say it is a combination of working with the Senator from North Dakota,
as well as the other Senator from North Dakota, Senator Dorgan, and
other members of the House delegation that has enabled us to stem--
pardon the pun--more of the flow down the stream. But this is a problem
that has to be corrected, and I thank my colleague for joining me in
assuring this correction is made.
Mr. CONRAD. I thank the Senator from Montana. It has been a team
effort, but I think there is no doubt the Senator from Montana, Senator
Baucus, has been a key player in this effort.
Mr. President, from its origins in Montana to its end near St. Louis,
the mighty Missouri River is managed and controlled by the Army Corps
of Engineers. Five years ago, the Army Corps of Engineers began a
review of its river management plan, commonly called the master manual.
This was the first major review of the manual since it was implemented
in 1960.
The corps started this review in response to our concerns over
falling reservoir levels in the Dakotas and Montana. At that time, we
were in the middle of the worst drought since the Great Depression, and
the corps was draining huge amounts of water from the reservoirs for
the sole purpose of keeping a small number of barges on the Missouri
River afloat.
I can remember very well holding a hearing in the midst of that
terrible drought and learning, to my shock and my surprise, that the
Army Corps of Engineers was releasing record amounts of water from our
reservoirs in the midst of the worst drought in 50 years. I mean, think
about it. It is absolutely extraordinary. In the worst drought in 50
years, they were releasing record amounts of water and, as a result,
our reservoir levels were dropping like a stone.
Mr. President, while the barges continued to float, Lake Sakakawea
and other mainstream reservoirs dropped by almost 30 feet. It is hard
to imagine. It is hard to visualize what that meant, Mr. President. I
know the occupant of the chair, the distinguished occupant of the
chair, is from a downstream State, and I know there are legitimate
interests there as well. But I say to you, if you could have seen what
was happening in our part of the country, I think even the
downstreamers would have been stunned. To see a reservoir drop 30 feet
in a very short period of time and to see the economic wreckage caused
by that drop, I think, told many of us that something was badly askew.
I can still remember a young couple. He had been a pro football
player. He and his wife put everything they had into a resort right
before the drought hit. And when the reservoir dropped, they found
their marina high and dry. They found everything they had put in, all
their life savings, everything they could borrow, was lost, all of it
put at risk and all of it lost.
Mr. President, the water has returned to our reservoirs, but the need
to change the master manual remains. Five years of corps study has made
it clear that the current master manual provides disproportionate
benefits for downstream States at the expense of upstream States. About
70 percent of the system's economic benefits goes to downstream States,
while upstream States get roughly 30 percent. This is not a fair
distribution
of benefits and it should change.
Of special concern to me is the fact that the current plan destroys a
growing recreation industry from the upper basin to keep subsidizing a
shrinking Missouri River barge industry.
The main problem with the current manual is that it is slanted toward
navigation and based on outdated assumptions. The master manual
anticipates annual river navigation traffic of 12 million tons. We have
never even gotten close to that number. Commercial navigation is now
around 2 million tons per year; in other words, one-sixth of what is
assumed in the current master manual.
Navigation supplies only 1 percent of the system's annual economic
benefits--$17 million out of $1.3 billion. This compares with $76
million in annual benefits from recreation. Yet, the corps continues to
manage the entire system for the benefit of navigation and to the
detriment of other functions. Navigation is the only project function
managed for 100 percent of its potential--potential--economic output.
In economic terms, does it make any sense for the corps to favor
navigation over recreation? Anyone who takes an honest look at the
facts would answer ``No.''
Mr. President, the time has come to change this policy. The corps
should stop pretending that navigation is king. It is not. It never
was. My colleagues may be surprised to hear that the entire Missouri
River system would actually generate greater economic benefits if
Missouri River navigation were deemphasized. In other words, we would
give the taxpayers a better return on their investment if we would
place less emphasis on barges on the Missouri.
I believe that a better way to manage the river would be to
deemphasize Missouri navigation and keep more water in the upstream
reservoirs. Such a move would increase total economic benefits, improve
the river ecosystem, and result in more equitable distribution of the
benefits. Recreation and hydropower benefits would increase while flood
control and water supply functions would be largely unaffected.
In addition, deemphasizing Missouri river navigation would
significantly improve the river ecosystem. This approach makes economic
sense. It makes environmental sense. I cannot understand how any
rational review of the situation could reach any other conclusion.
Mr. President, the public has been fed a good deal of misinformation
about the master manual review. I want to address two falsehoods that
are being spread by some who are opposed to change.
First, the upstream States are not trying to use up, take away, or
sell all of the Missouri River water that would otherwise go
downstream. There is no way that North Dakota or any other upstream
State could use enough Missouri River water to affect the downstream
flows. It simply cannot be done. In addition, North Dakota has, I say,
no--and I repeat no--plans to divert to another State, sell, or trade
away the rights to Missouri River water.
Second, changes in the Missouri River master manual will not
significantly impact navigation and water supply on the Mississippi
River. Corps analysis concluded that ``Changes in the Missouri River
operations would not''--let me repeat that--``would not affect water
supply on the Mississippi River.'' Corps analysis also found there was
essentially no difference in Mississippi navigation between the current
plan and the corps' proposed change.
Finally, my colleagues should keep in mind that there is a legitimate
issue of fairness at work here. The upstream States have sacrificed 1.2
million acres of prime land to house the reservoirs that serve and
protect the downstream States. In return, we get a fraction of the
benefits and a fraction of the water projects that were promised as
compensation some 50 years ago.
Mr. President, let me emphasize, we have given up 1.2 million acres--
a permanent flood in our States--in order to save the downstream States
from repetitive flooding. So we have the permanent flood to save them
from annual flooding. Yet, they get the lion's share of the benefits of
the management of the system.
In contrast to what we have experienced upstream, the downstream
States have sacrificed nothing but received the lion's share of the
benefits, including navigation water supply, and to date $5 billion
worth of flood control--not million--$5 billion worth of flood control.
This is not what I call equity.
Mr. President, what we need in the Missouri River Basin is balance in
fairly meeting the competing interests along the river. By making key
changes in the master manual, we can achieve this balance while at the
same time increasing economic and environmental benefits.
[[Page S3757]]
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, the Corps of Engineers manages the flow
of the Missouri River based on assumptions about economic uses of the
river that have not been seriously reexamined or revised in 50 years.
Impartial observers, including the General Accounting Office,
acknowledge that the rules for operating the dams along the river,
known as the master manual, are outdated.
Historically, upstream States, including South Dakota, have accepted
the burden of flood control on the river. This tradition began with the
sacrifice of prime land to the construction of dams to prevent
downstream flooding.
Over time, recreation in upstream States has come to play a much more
prominent role in producing economic benefits from the river. Yet corps
management of the river ignores this development and continues to give
recreation lower priority than competing downstream uses.
Today there is general consensus on the need to substantially revise
the guidelines by which the Federal Government operates the dams on the
Missouri River. After reviewing the management of the Missouri River in
1992, the General Accounting Office concluded that the corps has been
managing the river based on ``assumptions about the amount of water
needed for navigation and irrigation made in 1944 that are no longer
valid.'' According to GAO, ``the plan does not reflect the current
economic conditions in the Missouri River Basin.''
As a result, in 1989 the Corps of Engineers initiated a study of the
operation of the main stem of the Missouri River, in anticipation of
revising the master manual. A number of alternative management plans
were developed and, based on the historical behavior of the river--from
1898 to 1994--the economic and environmental impacts of each
alternative were evaluated. The goal of this exercise was to identify
which alternative would maximize the economic value of the river,
considering such factors as flood control, navigation, hydropower,
water supply, and recreation.
In May 1994, the corps selected a preferred alternative, which called
for shortening the navigation season by 1 month and maintaining a
higher permanent pool behind the dams. In July 1994, the draft
environmental impact statement [EIS] was released for review. The
public comment period ended on March 1.
What has become clear through this 6-year process is that the
downstream States will go to great lengths to prevent this reassessment
from moving forward. Congressional representatives from downstream
States consistently have attempted to block any revision of the Master
manual that reflects the changing economics of
the river and gives recreation the priority it deserves.
The House Appropriations Committee in 1993--at the behest of
downstream members--called on the corps ``to follow the legislative
priorities and regulatory guidelines expressed in its current master
manual until a new management plan is approved by Congress.'' Now that
the corps has selected the preferred alternative, the downstream States
have made it clear that they will fight the changes it recommends.
It appears increasingly unlikely that even modest changes in the
master manual will be allowed to occur without legislation. That is
regrettable.
To focus light on the heart of this issue, today Senator Baucus is
introducing the Missouri River Water Control Equity Act, which seeks to
ensure that the changing economic conditions are acknowledged and
reflected in the management of the river. This bill simply states
explicitly policy that should be implicit.
This bill reflects the analysis of corps professionals. It would
require the agency to maintain a permanent pool of 44 million acre-feet
behind most dams, while allowing it to maintain lower levels if
necessary to meet downstream needs for flood control, water supply and
hydropower. It would also reduce the navigation season and require the
corps to develop and implement a plan to mitigate stream bank erosion
caused by operation of the dams.
Mr. President, times have changed. Assumptions valid 50 years ago are
no longer valid today.
Since 1944, significant economic changes have occurred in the economy
of the Missouri River. The downstream users refuse to accept this fact.
Instead, they cling to the outdated assumptions that disproportionately
reward their States to the detriment of upstream users.
Given the results of the corps' own evaluation, the revisions should
have gone much farther. Greater consideration should have been given to
increasing the permanent pool from its current level of 18 million
acre-feet. The analysis performed by the corps demonstrates significant
increases in recreation and wildlife habitat benefits at higher
permanent pool levels. Given the immense economic value of recreation
in the upstream States--now a $77 million per year industry--as well as
the ecological damage that has been suffered over the years due to
disruption of wetlands and the flooding of prime crop land--the master
manual should be altered to better support these activities.
The bill introduced today would require the corps to make modest
changes in the management of the river that their professionals have
recommended; changes that are fair and that increase national
environmental and economic benefits from the river.
Neither the upstream States nor the Nation as a whole can afford to
continue business as usual. It is my hope that Congress will take an
objective look at this issue, recognize the merits of this legislation
and move swiftly to enact it.
______
By Mr. GREGG (for himself and Mr. Bond):
S. 526. A bill to amend the Occupational Safety and Health Act of
1970 to make modifications to certain provisions, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on Labor and Human Resources.
the osha amendments of 1995
Mr. GREGG.
Mr. President, when OSHA was enacted it was intended to make the
workplace free from ``recognized hazards that are causing, or likely to
cause, death or serious physical harm to * * * employees.'' As with
many programs established by Congress, however, over the years OSHA has
developed a well-earned reputation for over-regulation. OSHA has moved
from its original purpose of protecting the workers to hindering
businesses with excessive mandates.
While I feel that a major problem within OSHA is of a cultural
nature, the bill will concentrate on five areas that will relieve the
oppressive and burdensome regulations. My bill, the OSHA Amendments of
1995, addresses the need for employee participation, risk assessment in
standard making, consultation services, reduced penalties for
nonserious violations, and warnings in lieu of citations.
This balanced approach will remove a feeling among the American
employers and employees that OSHA is the bad cop, and institute an
awareness of a partnership in assuring safety and health in the
workplace. The limitation of burdensome and repetitious paper work,
compiled with risk assessment and a reduced threat of large fines, will
make for a more businesslike approach.
As Chairman of the Labor Subgroup of the Regulatory Relief Task
Force, I have received numerous requests for the reform of OSHA. This
past month I held a roundtable on regulatory reform in my State of New
Hampshire and, although there were many issues raised, the one that was
unanimously supported was OSHA reform. Businesses across America share
New Hampshire's exasperation with what OSHA has become, as well as
their demands for relief. This bill begins to answer that call to
action.
______
By Mr. LOTT:
S. 527. A bill to authorize the Secretary of Transportation to issue
a certificate of documentation with appropriate endorsement for
employment in the coastwise trade for the vessel Empress; to the
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
certificate of documentation legislation
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I am introducing a bill today to direct the
vessel Empress, Official Number 975018, be accorded coastwise trading
privileges.
[[Page S3758]] The Empress was constructed in 1925 in the United
States. It is 75 feet in length, 16 feet in width, 5.5 feet in depth,
and is self-propelled. The vessel was owned by the United States until
1960. The vessel has been used as a corporate business vessel, private
residence, and charter vessel. It has also been used by nonprofit
groups such as the Special Olympics, March of Dimes, and the Ronald
McDonald House.
The current owner obtained the boat from his father. The owner has
all ownership records except for the years 1960 to 1965, when the
vessel was being used by the Boy Scouts of America.
The owner of the vessel is seeking a waiver of the existing law so
that the vessel can be used as a charter vessel.
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:
S. 527
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled, That
notwithstanding section 12106, 12107, and 12108 of title 46,
United States Code, and section 27 of the Merchant Marine
Act, 1920 (46 App. U.S.C. 883), as applicable on the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Transportation may
issue a certificate of documentation with appropriate
endorsement for employment in the coastwise trade for the
vessel EMPRESS (United States official number 975018).
______
By Mr. LOTT:
S. 528. A bill to authorize the Secretary of Transportation to issue
a certificate of documentation and coastwise trade endorsement for
three vessels; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
certificate of documentation legislation
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation which
seeks to temporarily authorize the operation of three vessels in the
coastwise trade. Ordinarily, I do not support any legislative relief
from section 27 of the Merchant Marine Act of 1920 to allow operation
of vessels not constructed in the United States. In this particular
instance, however, temporary relief from the Merchant Marine Act will
increase jobs in the shipbuilding industry, support the addition of
maritime jobs and expand the maritime transportation base.
I want to point out that the bill I am introducing today protects the
U.S.-build requirements of the Jones Act by stipulating that these
three vessels are authorized to operate in the coastwise trade if, and
only if, three criteria are met. These criteria are:
The owner of these vessels must execute a binding contract for
construction of replacement vessels within 9 months of enactment of
this provision;
All necessary repairs required to operate these vessels in the
coastwise trade must be performed in shipyards in the United States;
and
Each of these vessels must be manned by U.S. citizens.
If this legislation is adopted, jobs in the U.S. maritime industry
will be increased and new opportunities for maritime passenger
transportation in high demand areas will be created. Without this
authorization, these opportunities--including the addition of over 100
new shipyard jobs--will not occur.
I appreciate the attention of my colleagues and yield the floor.
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:
S. 528
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. COASTWISE TRADE AUTHORIZATION FOR HOVERCRAFT.
Notwithstanding section 27 of the Merchant Marine Act, 1920
(46 U.S.C. App. 883), the Act of June 19, 1886 (46 U.S.C.
App. 289), and sections 12106 and 12107 of title 46, United
States Code, the Secretary of Transportation may issue a
certificate of documentation with a coastwise endorsement for
each of the vessels IDUN VIKING (Danish Registration number
A433), LIV VIKING (Danish Registration number A394), and
FREJA VIKING (Danish Registration number A395) if--
(1) all repair and alteration work on the vessels necessary
to their operation under this section is performed in the
United States;
(2) a binding contract for the construction in the United
States of at least 3 similar vessels for the coastwise trade
is executed by the owner of the vessels within 6 months after
the date of enactment of this Act; and
(3) the vessels constructed under the contract entered into
under paragraph (1) are to be delivered within 3 years after
the date of entering into that contract.
____________________