[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others, were withdrawn later by the Government for a particular use.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.
     

                          ____________________