[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 193 (Wednesday, December 6, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S18100-S18102]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. BREAUX:
  S. 1450. A bill to provide that certain gaming contracts shall remain 
in effect, notwithstanding filing for bankruptcy, and for other 
purposes; to the Committee on the Judiciary.


                  the gaming contracts compliance act

 Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation 
that is intended to protect State and local governments from the 
financial crises caused when a casino declares bankruptcy and shuts 
down. I believe that gaming corporations should not be allowed to use 
Federal bankruptcy laws as leverage to gain more concessions from the 
city and State in which they are operating.
  On November 22, 1995, Harrah's casino in New Orleans declared 
bankruptcy and shut its doors--laying off 2,500 workers and leaving 
city and State officials facing multimillion-dollar budget shortfalls. 
As a result, the city may have to lay off as many as 1,000 city workers 
and substantially curtail city services. It is also estimated that the 
Louisiana Legislature faces a deficit of between $88.5 and $97.5 
million this fiscal year if Harrah's remains closed.
  The Gaming Contracts Compliance Act would protect the city of New 
Orleans and the State of Louisiana, and other cities and State 
governments in the future, by prohibiting gambling establishments from 
getting out of their original contracts with city, county (parish), and 
State governments by declaring bankruptcy. These corporations would be 
obligated to fulfill the original contracts even as they undergo the 
reorganization afforded them by bankruptcy protection. Casinos in 
bankruptcy would be allowed to renegotiate their contracts only if 
government officials agree.
  This legislation would prevent casinos like Harrah's from closing 
down to force a better deal from State and local governments--all at 
the expense of local taxpayers and casino workers. State and local 
officials cannot be left holding an open bag of broken promises given 
by international gaming operations simply because gambling revenue 
estimates are off the mark. The welfare of our cities and its citizens 
must come first.
                                 ______

      By Mr. McCAIN (for himself and Mr. Kyl):
  S. 1451. A bill to authorize an agreement between the Secretary of 
the Interior and a State providing for the continued operation by State 
employees of national parks in the State during any period in which the 
National Park Service is unable to maintain the normal level of park 
operations, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Energy and 
Natural Resources.


                       NATIONAL PARKS LEGISLATION

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, today, I am pleased to join Senator Kyl in 
introducing legislation to ensure that Grand Canyon National Park and 
other national park units remain open during Federal budget impasses 
which result in Government closures.
  The bill would authorize the Secretary of the Interior to enter into 
agreements allowing State and local governments to operate essential 
park facilities when Federal personnel are furloughed.
  As my colleagues are aware, during the recent budget crisis, the 
Clinton administration decided to shut visitors out of the Grand Canyon 
and other national parks. This decision hurt countless tourists, many 
of whom traveled great distances at enormous expense to experience the 
canyon. And it harmed local businesses that depend upon tourism.
  I continue to believe that the decision to close the Grand Canyon was 
unnecessary. I was interested to note that the administration did not 
restrict visitation to national forests or BLM lands, nor to the Mall 
in Washington--an area administered by the Park Service. Such 
restrictions, of course, would have been unnecessary, just as shutting 
visitors out of the Grand Canyon, while politically expedient, was 
unnecessary.
  Nevertheless, I appreciate the willingness of the administration to 
examine methods of ensuring that such park closure need not occur in 
the future. Enacting legislation empowering States to operate park 
units during temporary Federal furloughs, would help us to achieve that 
end.
  Mr. President, my fervent hope is that in the future we can avoid 
Government shutdowns which penalize not only national park visitors but 
many others seeking Government services.
  However, I trust that my colleagues and the administration will 
agree, we have an obligation to mitigate the impact on innocent people 
if and when such crises do occur. In the case of national parks, the 
State of Arizona and other States as well, are willing to offer their 
manpower and expertise to avoid the closure of these areas which are so 
essential to State and local economies. There is no reason the Federal 
Government should not take them up on that offer, even as we work to 
make sure that no vital Federal operation is cut off because of the 
failings of politicians in Washington, DC.
  Mr. President, often, our constituents are far better than we at 
expressing the real-life impact of Government decisions. During the 
park shutdown I received an open letter from Susan Morely, a 
constituent of mine from Flagstaff, AZ who relayed a very sad and 
distressing story about the impact of the closure on her family. She 
makes the case in favor of this legislation better than anyone else.
  I ask unanimous consent that a copy of Susan Morley's letter be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

     To: President Clinton, Members of Congress, Governor 
         Symington, House Speaker Mark Killian, The Media
       In 1992, my husband died of cancer at age 41, his dying 
     request was for his ashes to be distributed at Ribbon Falls 
     in the Grand Canyon. This was done shortly after his death.
       For the past three years, his brothers and sisters and I 
     and my children have planned a memorial hike so that we could 
     all visit this special site. Family members from Connecticut, 
     New Jersey and California and friends from Washington, D.C. 
     and Arizona came to join us in what was to be an important 
     part of our emotional healing.
       Instead, Congress and the President have turned this into 
     an emotional nightmare.
       My 13 year old has been crying because she was looking 
     forward to visiting Ribbon Falls with family and friends. How 
     do I explain to her what is happening in Washington?
       Family members paid hundreds of dollars for plane tickets, 
     car rentals and hiking gear. People have arranged time off 
     from work. For some, this is their only vacation this year. 
     One teacher had to get special permission from the school 
     superintendent to be here.
       We have looked forward to being together as family and 
     friends to celebrate Michael's life in a place he loved, at 
     the bottom of the Grand Canyon.
       Instead, we are stranded at the top because the President 
     and our elected representatives in Congress didn't do their 
     jobs.
       The Grand Canyon didn't have to close.
       American workers didn't have to be furloughed.
       Political agendas have brought us to this.
       It's time to stop ``playing politics'' and start running 
     the country.
                                                     Susan Morley,
                                               Flagstaff, Arizona.

  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I rise today to talk about a piece of 
legislation introduced by Senator McCain and myself. This bill is 
significant, not only for Arizona, but for every State. It would 
authorize a cooperative arrangement between the Secretary of the 
Interior and a State under which State employees would be able to 
maintain continued operation of national parks in the State during any 
period in which the National Park Service is unable to. The bill is 
intended to mitigate the effects of a Government shutdown, or any other 
situation which could prevent the national parks from continuing normal 
operations.
  The recent Government shutdown affected all of us in various ways. As 
many of you may have heard on CNN, the administration chose to close 
the Grand Canyon National Park in Arizona. This was the first time this 
has happened since the park opened 76 years ago. The closure had very 
significant and widespread effects, not just for Arizona businesses but 
for visitors who had come a great distance--some as far as New 
Zealand--to see this crown jewel of our National Park System.
  Governor Symington of Arizona made an offer to assist the National 

[[Page S 18101]]
  Park Service in keeping the park open. On behalf of the State, he 
offered to supply the temporary funds and make State personnel 
available to keep the park functioning and open to visitors. The 
Department of the Interior refused his offer, citing a number of legal 
impediments to the State's plan. The purpose of the legislation that 
Senator McCain and I are introducing today is to overcome these 
impediments and provide for the legal authorization for the Department 
and an interested State to enter into an intergovernmental agreement 
that would allow a State to temporarily assume operations of a national 
park.
  I hope that others will join Senator McCain and myself in sponsoring 
this legislation.
                                 ______

      By Mr. GRAMS (for himself, Mr. McCain, and Mr. Coats):
  S. 1452. A bill to establish procedures to provide for a taxpayer 
protection lock-box and related downward adjustment of discretionary 
spending limits and to provide for additional deficit reduction with 
funds resulting from the stimulative effect of revenue reductions; read 
the first time.


                  the taxpayer protection lockbox act

  Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Taxpayer 
Protection Lockbox Act. I am pleased to be joined by my good friend and 
colleague from Arizona, Senator McCain.
  Mr. President, in light of what is happening today at the White 
House--with President Clinton carrying out his threat to veto our plan 
to balance the Federal budget--this legislation could not be introduced 
at a more appropriate time.
  The American people ought to be disgusted that the President would 
turn his back on their wishes and veto the Balanced Budget Act of 1995.
  After all, the people have called repeatedly on the Federal 
Government to get its spending under control. The President says he 
wants to eliminate the wasteful spending, too. Our plan delivers, and 
yet, our bill is being vetoed.
  The people want relief from a Federal tax burden that's consuming 26 
percent of their family's monthly income. The President says he wants 
to provide tax relief too, and even says he supports the child tax 
credit. Our plan delivers, and yet, our bill is being vetoed.
  The people have asked us to reform a welfare system that sucks up tax 
dollars yet offers few incentives for welfare recipients to move from 
dependency to independence. The President says he wants welfare reform, 
too, in fact, he made it a major part of his Presidential campaign. Our 
plan delivers, and yet, our bill is being vetoed.
  Most important, the people are calling on us to balance the Federal 
budget by the year 2002. The President says he wants a balanced budget, 
too, and agrees that we can get there in 7 years. Our plan delivers, 
and yet again, the President is stopping it in its tracks with today's 
veto.
  ``I want a budget that includes all of that,'' says the President--
``the spending cuts, tax relief, welfare reform, while it balances in 7 
years using honest numbers. I just do not want your budget.''
  And somehow the President manages to say it with a straight face, 
even though he has bogged down the budget negotiations by refusing to 
offer a comprehensive, 7-year plan of his own.
  Mr. President, despite all the rhetoric and all the campaign 
promises, this administration has no real interest in eliminating the 
Federal deficit and changing the status quo in Washington--they would 
have to curtail their spending to do it. Today's veto clearly 
demonstrates the President is not ready to cut spending. And that has 
been the pattern in Washington for a very long time--once the 
Government has gotten its hands on the taxpayers' dollars and 
squirreled them away into the Federal Treasury, Congress, and the 
President will spend them.

  My legislation, the Taxpayer Protection Lockbox Act, will help ensure 
that when pork-barrel spending is trimmed from the budget, it is the 
taxpayers--not the big spenders on Capitol Hill--who will benefit.
  For years, Members of Congress have bragged to their constituents 
about trying to cut the fat out of the Federal budget. Yet as time has 
passed, Federal spending has gone up, our annual budget deficits have 
gone up, and the debt we're leaving our children and grandchildren has 
gone all the way up to $5 trillion.
  How can this be? If all of these claims of cutting the budget are 
right, should spending not go down, not up?
  Well, if you are speaking in plain English, it should--a cut means 
you spend less money this year than you did last year. But in the 
language of Congress--``Hill-Speak'' as some call it--a cut is not 
necessarily a cut.
  For example, under our plan to balance the budget, Medicare spending 
will grow from $181 billion this year to $277 billion in the year 
2002--a 53-percent increase over the next 7 years. But because Medicare 
will not grow at the uncontrolled rates of the past, those who use 
Hill-Speak call this increase a ``cut.''
  It does not make much sense, does it? And yet there is more.
  Every year, Congress is required to pass the 13 appropriations bills 
which fund the Federal Government--everything from the National Highway 
System and NASA to foreign aid and the Postal Service. While many of 
these programs are important and worthwhile, too many tax dollars are 
still being used for wasteful pork-barrel projects, which either 
benefit certain regions of the country at the expense of others, have 
not been previously authorized by law, or are simply not worth the tax 
dollars spent on them.
  As a member of the Senate pork busters coalition, I have worked to 
eliminate this wasteful abuse of the taxpayers' hard-earned 
dollars. For example, during debate on the energy and water 
appropriations bill, I offered an amendment that would have eliminated 
$40 million from the Appalachian Regional Commission. I did not believe 
Minnesota taxpayers should be subsidizing so-called economic assistance 
to the 13 States, located mostly in the Southeast, which make up the 
ARC. But due to the program's strong support by Senators whose States 
benefit from ARC, this amendment was rejected by the Senate.

  What is worse about our appropriations system is that even if 
amendments like mine had passed, these funds are not returned to the 
Treasury or the taxpayers. Instead, they are placed into a slush fund 
which can be spent on other programs.
  In other words, even when we are successful in passing amendments to 
cut appropriations spending in these areas, these funds are not used 
for deficit reduction; they are used for additional spending in other 
areas. As I said before, only in a place like Washington dominated by 
Hill-Speak is a cut not necessarily a cut--and the result is a $5 
trillion debt for our children and grandchildren.
  In an effort to end this abuse of taxpayer dollars and to return 
honesty to the budget process, the Taxpayer Protection Lockbox Act 
changes the rules of the budget process to ensure that any funds cut in 
appropriations bills be dedicated back to the Treasury for the purposes 
of deficit reduction. By replacing the current Congressional slush fund 
with a taxpayers' lockbox, my legislation guarantees that when Congress 
cuts funding for wasteful programs, those dollars are returned to their 
rightful owners--the taxpayers.
  In addition, my legislation creates a new revenue lockbox, which is 
geared toward our 7-year balanced budget plan.
  As we all know, when Congress considers a long-term budget, we take 
into account economic projections which estimate the amount of tax 
revenue that will come into the Treasury over the next 7 years. We then 
use these revenue estimates to determine the extent to which Federal 
spending can grow without resulting in a budget deficit in the year 
2002.
  While these estimates by the Congressional Budget Office are 
generally on the mark, they are, of course, simply estimates. It is 
likely that even more dollars will come into the Treasury as a result 
of our balanced budget plan, given the fact that we include tax relief 
designed to stimulate economic growth, create new jobs and turn tax 
users into productive taxpayers.

  These additional dollars, however, should not be used to feed 
Congress' appetite for spending; instead, any additional revenue that 
results from our growth plan should be returned to the 

[[Page S 18102]]
taxpayers in the form of additional tax relief. After all, these funds 
were made available because of the hard work and productivity of the 
American people; it makes sense to give those dollars back to the 
taxpayers and encourage even greater productivity, rather than handing 
them to Washington for more pork-barrel spending.
  Even now, we can see the very problem my legislation is designed to 
address. As part of the budget negotiations, President Clinton has 
already tried to seize more of the dollars we are returning to the 
taxpayers in the form of tax cuts, to use them for--you guessed it--
more spending.
  The bottom line estimates are, the President wants to spend $400 
billion more than our Budget Act of 1995 called for--$400 billion more 
of your money.
  Well, the taxpayers cannot afford for us to let him do that today, 
nor can they afford it in the future. We must ensure that tax dollars 
are returned to their rightful owners: the taxpayers, not the 
Government.
  And that is just what my revenue lockbox does--it requires that any 
revenues above and beyond current estimates be used for tax cuts and/or 
additional deficit reduction. It ensures taxpayers that their hard-
earned dollars will no longer be automatically spent by the Government. 
It ends the misperception that tax dollars belong to the Government, 
rather than the taxpayers.
  Most importantly, it restores honesty to the budget process and 
ensures that a spending cut is truly a spending cut, even in 
Washington.
  Mr. President, the Taxpayer Protection Lockbox Act earns its name by 
locking in real deficit reduction, while protecting the American 
taxpayers when Congress just cannot seem to say ``no'' on its own. I 
urge my colleagues to join me in standing up for the taxpayers by 
supporting this timely legislation.

                          ____________________