[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 68 (Wednesday, May 15, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5093-S5099]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. PRESSLER:
  S. 1758. A bill to amend the Packers and Stockyards Act, 1921, to 
improve the administration of the act, and for other purposes; to the 
Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.


           The Packers and Stockyards Improvement Act of 1996

  Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, I am introducing legislation today that 
represents the first of several steps I am taking to get action on 
problems facing our domestic cattle industry. For the past year, I have 
been pressing the Clinton administration to address meatpacker 
concentration and utilize existing antitrust laws to make sure that 
cattle are sold in an open and competitive market. We have seen some 
action on the part of the administration to solve this problem. 
Frankly, its proposals offer nothing new. My bill is a necessary first 
step to pry open the market.
  Another step in the process is to get the Senate more engaged on the 
issue. As part of that effort, the Senate Committee on Agriculture, 
Nutrition and

[[Page S5094]]

Forestry, and the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and 
Transportation will hold a series of hearings on this subject next 
month. Cattle producers are facing the worst economic times in recent 
memory. The President has the authority to order immediate Justice 
Department action. Antitrust laws should be enforced now.
  I have been saying that for months, but my words have fallen on deaf 
ears. Only by taking action to enforce antitrust laws already on the 
books can we ensure the long-term economic viability of the U.S. cattle 
industry.
  South Dakota ranchers know that any real solution to beef prices must 
include antitrust action. It took only a few days and a 14 percent 
increase in the price of gasoline for the President to ask the Justice 
Department to establish a five-person task force to investigate 
possible antitrust violations. The facts are these: first, cattle 
prices are at their lowest levels in years; second, only a handful of 
the top packers control nearly 85 percent the market; and third, retail 
prices do not reflect the dramatically reduced price paid for cattle. 
Something is not right.
  The bill I am introducing accomplishes three things that South Dakota 
cattlemen have told me must be done. First, the bill would establish a 
livestock dealer trust. This would protect sellers from any losses when 
cattle are sold on commission to a dealer or market agency that goes 
bankrupt. This was part of the Senate-passed farm bill, but was not in 
the final version that was signed into law. Second, the bill would 
require the Packers and Stockyards Administration to include formula-
priced cattle in the definition of captive supplies. During the Senate 
Commerce Committee hearing I held last year in Huron, SD, producers 
made it loud and clear that this needed to be done. Finally, the bill 
would require the Secretary of Agriculture to make timely reports on 
the numbers of livestock and livestock products that are exported and 
imported, and also require the reporting of prices paid for livestock.
  The Senate needs to carefully review this bill and other issues 
confronting the U.S. cattle industry. Packer concentration, price 
manipulation, possible price fixing and captive supply all must be 
looked at and a definite course of action implemented. The introduction 
of this bill today is the first step in this process.
  We need to keep in mind that old saying ``if it ain't broke, don't 
fix it.'' Well the U.S. cattle industry is broke and it needs fixing, 
now. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.
       By Ms. MIKULSKI (for herself and Mr. Sarbanes):

  S. 1759. A bill to amend title 5, United States Code, to require that 
written notice be furnished by the Office of Personnel Management 
before making any susbtantial change in the health benefits program for 
Federal employees; to the Committee on Governmental Affairs.


      The Federal Health Benefit Change Accountability Act of 1996

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I am introducing today, along with 
my colleague from Maryland, Senator Sarbanes, the Federal Health 
Benefit Change Accountability Act. This bill is also being introduced 
in the House of Representatives by Congressman Ben Cardin. Our 
legislation will ensure that Congress has an opportunity to respond to 
any proposed reductions in retired Federal employee health benefits.
  I want to save lives, save jobs, and save money. The 1996 
prescription plan for Federal retirees that Blue Cross/Blue Shield 
negotiated with the Office of Personnel Management [OPM] is 
jeopardizing jobs, and in some cases may be jeopardizing lives. I want 
this policy changed for 1997, and I want to make sure that Congress is 
well informed of any future changes in health benefits.
  Our bill will protect retired federal employees from the type of 
attacks on their earned health benefits that we are seeing with this 
plan. The bill would require a new reporting process at OPM. OPM would 
have to provide an annual report to Congress that would describe any 
significant changes in Federal retiree health benefits. The report 
would explain how proposed changes would affect retirees--both 
financially and in quality of care. The report would also explain what 
cost savings OPM expected to achieve. Congress would have time to react 
if there were concerns with the changes.
  This legislation is necessary because of the terrible situation 
our Federal retirees find themselves in today with their Blue Cross/
Blue Shield prescription benefits. Retirees in this prescription plan 
have a new 20-percent copayment at their neighborhood pharmacies. This 
is forcing retirees out of neighborhood pharmacy and away from the 
pharmacists they know and trust. They are forced to use mail order for 
most of their prescription needs, where there is no copayment, and 
where their care consists of an 800 number and a mail box.

  I've been meeting with Federal retiree groups and with pharmacy 
groups, and what I'm hearing about this plan has disturbed me greatly.
  I'm hearing about elderly retirees who are confused about how and 
when to use mail order.
  I'm hearing about local pharmacies that are losing as much as 30 
percent of their business and that are going to have to lay off 
employees. I'm hearing about jobs being lost because local pharmacies 
are being cut out of the business of providing care to Federal 
retirees.
  I'm not antimail order, but I think it should be used under the right 
circumstances. A person can't wait for mail order when a weekend ear 
ache or a stomach virus strikes. A local pharmacist must be available 
right then. That is the safety net that allows mail order to work.
  As my colleagues know, retirees have special health needs that are 
different from the majority of younger Federal employees. They 
frequently take more than one medication at a time, and they have 
complicated medical histories.
  They also need the personal drug education and counseling that local 
pharmacy is able to provide. When they don't get this education and 
counseling, studies show they end up in the hospital because of 
noncompliance with their drug directions.
  Community pharmacy is the last health care professional a retiree 
will see before taking that prescription. We need to think very 
seriously about what that means and what the consequences are to 
retirees. Unfortunately, OPM did not put enough thought into these 
consequences when the Blue Cross/Blue Shield plan was approved.
  The very people who are unable to pay the 20-percent copayment 
because they are on fixed incomes and are forced to use mail order, are 
the people who are most likely to need the face to face counseling and 
drug education that they cannot get at mail order pharmacy.
  That's why we need a drug benefit that achieves fiscal discipline but 
that allows retirees choice in their pharmacy care. Otherwise we end up 
treating prescriptions like a commodity. We end up managing the benefit 
instead of managing the patient.
  Federal retirees have served us honorably and we must value them. We 
don't value them with words, we do it with actions. They earned and 
deserve retirement security and health security, and I want to see this 
government honor the promises that were made to them when they signed 
up for service.
  The legislation we are introducing today will help ensure that the 
promise of quality health care is not bargained away by the Office of 
Personnel Management in the future.
                                 ______

      By Ms. SNOWE (for herself, Mr. Dole, Mr. Bradley, Mr. 
        Rockefeller, Mr. Simpson, Mr. Kerry, and Mrs. Feinstein):
  S. 1760. A bill to amend part D of title IV of the Social Security 
Act to improve child support enforcement services, and for other 
purposes; to the Committee on Finance.


               the child support improvement act of 1996

 Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce the Child 
Support Improvement Act of 1996.
  Fourteen months ago, Senator Dole and I introduced our bill, the 
Child Support Responsibility Act of 1995, which later became an 
important piece of the welfare reform bill. Since that time, Congress 
has twice passed welfare reform, and twice it has been vetoed.
  And now, we are in much the same place we were 14 months ago. While 
it is my sincerest hope that child support will pass as part of a 
comprehensive

[[Page S5095]]

welfare reform bill this year, I believe that we must seize this 
opportunity to move forward on child support. Because this issue is too 
important to the future of American children to stand by and wait any 
longer.
  For many of our Nation's children, the American dream is a rapidly 
fading mirage--one that they can see but are unable to firmly grasp. 
I'm talking specifically about the millions of children who suffer from 
the neglect of deadbeat parents--those parents who help bring a child 
into the world and then, for whatever reasons, renege on their 
responsibilities as a parent to care for them and give them the tools 
necessary to craft a better life than the one we enjoy today.
  At a time when one in four children grow up in single-parent 
households, the crisis of unpaid child support remains a heavy burden. 
It is a burden that has not only taken an emotional toll on single 
parents and their children, but an economic toll as well. And it is 
sapping the financial resources of our State governments.
  While many single parents have had some success in winning child 
support, only half of those who succeed actually receive what is owed. 
The other half receives partial payments or no payments at all. And an 
alarming 40 percent of single parents who seek child support do not 
succeed in winning any order at all. That means that, while the 
potential for child support collections is estimated to exceed $47 
billion each year, only $15 billion or so is ever collected from 
noncustodial parents.
  Worse yet, those single parents who have never been married have a 
difficult time receiving any child support payments at all. Data 
collected from the 1990 census indicates that of all mothers who have 
never been married, 75 percent did not have child support orders and 
more than 50 percent had household incomes below the poverty level.
  These statistics translate into unprecedented burdens for single 
parents and their children, many of whom struggle to find good child 
care, quality medical care, warm clothes, or simply put food on the 
table.
  In all fairness, Congress has tried to strengthen child support 
enforcement mechanisms prior to this term. In 1975, Congress did pass 
the Child Support Enforcement and Paternity Establishment Program as 
part of the Social Security Act, and then it enacted further 
improvements to this effort by way of the 1984 Child Support 
Enforcement Amendments and the Family Support Act of 1988.
  Despite these actions, States have been hard pressed to keep pace 
with the virtual tidal wave of mothers seeking child support. States 
are faced with the daunting task of locating parents, establishing 
paternity, establishing child support orders, and collecting child 
support payments. Yet States have been hampered by a lack of leadership 
and technical support from the Federal Government.
  As a former Member of the House of Representatives, I have a long 
history of working to change and improve Federal laws governing child 
support enforcement, and introduced my own legislation to help relieve 
single parents and their children of the institutional barriers to 
progress on this issue. As cochair of the Congressional Caucus for 
Women's Issues, we made child support enforcement one of our top 
legislative priorities in previous Congresses, where some 30 bills were 
introduced to address this problem. But I believe we have come to a 
point where everyone agrees that child support enforcement is one of 
the most important aspects of our campaign to revamp the welfare system 
of this country. It affects every State--children at every income 
level--and it affects both single mothers and single fathers. As a 
national problem, child support enforcement merits a national solution. 
And we must demonstrate our leadership by providing it.
  That's why I have joined forces again with the distinguished majority 
leader, Senator Dole, to introduce the Child Support Improvement Act of 
1996. I should add, Mr. President, that this bill has true bipartisan 
support, and is intended to complement the efforts of my House 
colleagues, Congresswomen Nancy Johnson and Barbara Kennelly, who have 
introduced companion legislation in the House. Together, we have 
introduced the same child support provisions which received 
overwhelming support from both parties of Congress, as well as the 
administration, during welfare reform.
  By passing this legislation, we will send a clear signal to deadbeat 
parents that their days of irresponsibility are over. We will also send 
clear signal to States that the Federal Government will provide them 
with the assistance they need to collect child support on behalf of 
millions of American families.
  The bill contains commonsense reforms which achieve the following:
  To strengthen efforts to locate parents, it expands the Federal 
parent locator system by creating Federal and State data banks of child 
support orders, and allowing State-to-State access of the network. It 
also creates Federal and State directories of new hires, to allow for 
basic information supplied by employers from W-4 forms to be compared 
against child support data.

  To ensure that collected funds go to families as soon as possible, it 
establishes a centralized State collections and disbursements unit, and 
requires employers that garnish wages from employees to pay those 
withheld wages to the State within 5 days.
  To increase paternity establishment, our approach simplifies 
paternity procedures, facilitates voluntary acknowledgement, and 
encourages outreach.
  To ensure that child support orders are fair and equitable to 
children, it provides for a simplified process for review and 
adjustment of child support orders, and requires provisions for heath 
care coverage to be required in child support orders. And to facilitate 
child support enforcement and collection, it requires States to adopt 
the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act, to encourage the seamless 
enforcement of child support orders across State lines.
  Finally, this bill expands the penalties for child support 
delinquency to include the denial of professional, recreational and 
driver's license to deadbeat parents, and permits the denial of a 
passport for individuals who are more than $5,000 in arrears. My 
husband, former Gov. Jock McKernan, pioneered a similar program in 
Maine in 1993. This program has been an amazing success in my home 
State. Between August 1993 and April 1996, $44 million was collected in 
outstanding child support payments from 15,000 individuals. In fact, in 
one case, a long-haul trucker who owed the State $19,000 drove to the 
State capitol and paid the amount in one lump sum. In another case, a 
real estate agent who owed more than $11,000 in child support money 
contacted the State and agreed to sell off some land to pay off his 
debt. Clearly, it's worth taking these steps. But we can do--and should 
do--much more.
  Mr. President, perhaps if we can replicate the successes of States 
like Maine on a national level, we can begin to ease and eventually 
lift the economic and emotional burdens caused by delinquent child 
support payments, and at last bring the justice, security, and equity 
to millions of single parents and their children.
  I look forward to working with my colleagues to ensure that 
noncustodial parents begin to accept and bear responsibility for their 
children, who will reap the financial support they so justly deserve 
and desperately need.
                                 ______

      By Mr. LAUTENBERG (for himself and Mr. Bumpers):
  S. 1761. A bill to eliminate taxpayer subsidies for recreational 
shooting transfer of federally owned weapons, ammunition, funds, and 
other property to the private Corporation for the Promotion of Rifle 
Practice and Firearms Safety; to the Committee on Armed Services.


      the self-financing civilian marksmanship program act of 1996

 Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I introduce the Self Financing 
Civilian Marksmanship Program Act of 1996. I'm pleased that Senator 
Bumpers is joining me in introducing this legislation.
  The goal of this legislation is simple: to block the transfer of a 
$76 million Federal endowment to American gun clubs.
  The Defense Department concluded long ago that the Army-run Civilian 
Marksmanship Program does not serve any military purpose. Even so, 
until recently the program was sustained by an annual $2.5 million 
Federal subsidy.
  To extricate the Army from this program, while ensuring a steady 
stream

[[Page S5096]]

of firearms to gun enthusiasts, pro-gun Members of Congress established 
a so-called private nonprofit version of the program in the fiscal year 
1996 Department of Defense authorization bill.
  In reality, the new corporation is private in name only. In fact, 
Congress blessed it with a multimillion-dollar endowment.
  When the corporation becomes fully operational in October 1996, it 
will take control of 176,218 rifles worth more than $53 million. It 
will receive $4.4 million in cash and be given property valued at $8.8 
million. Even more remarkable, the corporation will be given control of 
146 million rounds of ammunition worth $9.7 million.
  The old program was a flagrant example of government waste. The new 
version makes even less sense, since it relinquishes government control 
over the program.
  In 1993, the General Services Administration reconfirmed a long-
standing government policy. Under that policy, the Federal Government 
does not sell federally owned weapons to the public.
  The Congress should not make an exception for the private, nonprofit 
Corporation for the Promotion of Rifle Practice and Firearms Safety. 
The U.S. Government shouldn't be an arms merchant.
  Given the plethora of weapons readily available through the private 
sector, guns for which the federal government no longer has a use 
should be destroyed, and the corporation should be abolished.
  Our bill would do just that. It would abolish the so-called private 
corporation, block the transfer of this $76 million endowment, and end 
the federally run Civilian Marksmanship Program once and for all. It 
would not prohibit gun clubs from operation, but it would not subsidize 
them with federally owned weapons, ammunition, property, and cash.
  This gift of millions of dollars' worth of weapons and ammunition is 
terrible public policy. In fact, it's outrageous. The Government must 
work, to stem the rising tide of gun violence in this country, not aid 
and abet it.
  I hope the Congress will approve this legislation. I ask unanimous 
consent that a copy of the Washington Post article on this program and 
a copy of the legislation be inserted in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                S. 1761

       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 ``Self Financing Civilian 
     Marksmanship Program Act of 1996''.

     SEC. 2. PRIVATE SHOOTING COMPETITIONS AND FIREARM SAFETY 
                   PROGRAMS.

       Nothing in this Act prohibits any private person from 
     establishing a privately financed program to support shooting 
     competitions or firearms safety programs.

     SEC. 3. REPEAL OF CHARTER LAW FOR THE CORPORATION FOR THE 
                   PROMOTION OF RIFLE PRACTICE AND SAFETY.

       (a) Repeal of Charter.--The Corporation for the Promotion 
     of Rifle Practice and Firearms Safety Act (title XVI of 
     Public Law 104-106; 110 Stat. 515; 36 U.S.C. 5501 et seq.), 
     except for section 1624 of such Act (110 Stat. 522), is 
     repealed.
       (b) Related Repeals.--Section 1624 of such Act (110 Stat. 
     522) is amended--
       (1) in paragraphs (1) and (2) of subsection (a), by 
     striking out ``and 4311'' and inserting in lieu thereof 
     ``4311, 4312, and 4313'';
       (b) by striking out subsection (b); and
       (3) in subsection (c), by striking out ``on the earlier 
     of--'' and all that follows and inserting in lieu thereof 
     ``on October 1, 1996.''.
                                                                    ____


                [From the Washington Post, May 7, 1996]

Up in Arms Over Rifle Giveaway--Gun-Control Advocates Call Army Weapons 
                           a Subsidy for NRA

       A provision of the defense budget that went into effect 
     earlier this year requires the Pentagon to give away 873,000 
     old rifles from World War II and the Korean War, spurring 
     protests from gun-control advocates who believe the 
     government shouldn't add to gun commerce.
       The little-noticed measure was promoted by the National 
     Rifle Association and the congressional delegation in Ohio, 
     home to an annual marksmanship competition that will be 
     financed by the sale of the venerable M-1 rifles and other 
     aged guns with a resale value of about $100 million.
       The heavy, nine-pound M-1s are unlikely to be used in 
     street crimes such as drug killings, the program's advocates 
     say, because the main buyers have been and likely will 
     continue to be gun collectors who must be trained in shooting 
     rifles and pass a stringent background investigation.
       But critics say the recent congressional action is in 
     effect a subsidy to the NRA. It requires the Army to transfer 
     control over the rifles for free to a new nonprofit 
     corporation. The corporation will sell them to benefit 
     marksmanship programs and the yearly target tournament in 
     Camp Perry, Ohio, which is managed by the NRA.
       The old Army-administered program also co-sponsored the 
     annual Ohio tournament with the NRA, and over the years the 
     NRA used its close relationship with the project to market 
     itself, critics of the group said.
       Congress's action marked the death of the Army-administered 
     program, called the Civilian Marksmanship Program, which 
     critics called one of the U.S. government's oddest pork-
     barrel projects. The Pentagon ran it for decades but has 
     sought to disentangle itself in recent years.
       The program harkens to 1903, just after the Spanish-
     American War. U.S. military officials were upset to learn 
     farm boys conscripted for that conflict were not the rustics 
     of romantic American novels who could nail a jack rabbit from 
     200 yards--in fact, they couldn't hit a barn. Congress 
     established the project, supported by U.S. military guns and 
     money, to promote sharpshooting in future wars.
       ``The gift of millions of dollars worth of weapons and 
     ammunition is terrible public policy,'' said Sen. Frank R. 
     Lautenberg (D-N.J.) in a column in USA Today. ``In fact, it's 
     outrageous. The government must work to stem the rising tide 
     of gun violence in this country, not aid and abet it.''
       ``This program historically has been a federal subsidy to 
     the NRA's marketing,'' said Josh Sugarmann, a gun-control 
     activist and author of a 1992 book critical of the NRA. 
     Congress's latest action, he added, is ``a new funding 
     mechanism'' that also helps the NRA.
       The great majority of the gun clubs that take part in the 
     marksmanship program are affiliated with the NRA, he said. 
     For decades, in fact, the guns' buyers had to prove to the 
     Army they were NRA members--until a federal judge stopped the 
     requirement in 1979.
       Promoters of the 93-year-old program say it's no more 
     sinister than the Boy Scouts, the Future Farmers of America 
     and other youth groups that have taken part in its 
     marksmanship training. The M-1s that are sold are not used in 
     crimes, they said, because the strict background probes of 
     the guns' potential buyers cull out criminals. They also 
     point out that nine of the 10 members of America's 1992 
     Olympic shooting team learned marksmanship in the program.
       ``Any link opponents try to draw between this program and 
     urban violence is comparable to linking Olympic boxing 
     competition with hoodlum street fighting,'' said Rep. Paul E. 
     Gillmor (R-Ohio), who sponsored the new measure and whose 
     district draws 7,000 visitors and $10 million in revenue 
     during the summertime rifle competition.
       Gillmor added that it would cost the military $500,000 to 
     destroy the guns, while the cost is nothing if it gives them 
     away.
       Chip Walker, a National Rifle Association spokesman, said 
     Lautenberg and other critics of the program ``don't want to 
     promote firearms safety and responsibility.'' He added that 
     it's ``ironic'' that gun-control advocates for years have 
     criticized the NRA for its harsh rhetoric, urging it to stick 
     to its traditional mission of teaching firearms safety--and 
     now raise questions about its efforts to pursue even that 
     goal.
       Almost all the guns the Army is to give away are M-1s, the 
     bolt-action rifle lugged by GIs onto the beaches at D-Day and 
     Guadalcanal. Replaced in 1958 by the M-14 as standard 
     infantry issue, and later by today's M-16, the M-1 is 
     prized by collectors and war buffs--especially the 
     pristine guns sold in their original boxes by the Army.
       Last year the Army charged $310 each for the M-1s stored at 
     its Anniston Army Depot in Alabama--an increase from its 
     recent price of $250. In any case, those are discounts, 
     because M-1s usually sell for $400 to $500. In recent years 
     the program sold a maximum of 6,000 guns a year.
       The measure recently signed into law by President Clinton 
     in essence privatizes the program and transfers ownership of 
     the 373,000 rifles to the new Corporation for the Promotion 
     of Rifle Practice and Firearms Safety, whose board is to be 
     named by the Army. It will then sell the weapons for whatever 
     price the market will bear, and at whatever rate it chooses. 
     (The guns will remain at the Anniston facility until they are 
     sold.)
       The law requires the Army to transfer to the new 
     corporation $5 million in cash the Army program has on hand, 
     $8 million in computers and other equipment, about 120 
     million rounds of ammunition and the 373,000 guns. It's 
     estimated that only about 60 percent of the guns--about 
     224,000--are usable, and they could fetch about $100 million.
       The Pentagon has sought to remove itself as administrator 
     of the program, under which it sold 6,000 guns a year and 
     donated $2.5 million annually to the Ohio competition, 
     military officials said. The main reason, they said, is that 
     they concluded that the program years ago stopped 
     contributing to ``military readiness.'' Moreover, Pentagon 
     officials were uncomfortable being involved in an issue as 
     controversial as firearms.
       Finally, last year, military officials were upset by the 
     taint the program suffered when it was learned that members 
     of a Michigan militia had formed a gun club that became 
     officially affiliated with the Army program. Using that 
     affiliation, the militia members

[[Page S5097]]

     had taken target practice at a Michigan military base until 
     they were stopped.
                                 ______

      By Mr. PELL:
  S.J. Res. 55. A joint resolution proposing an amendment to the 
Constitution of the United States relative to the commencement of the 
terms of office of the President, Vice President, and Members of 
Congress; to the Committee on the Judiciary.


    presidential and congressional terms inauguration date advance 
                        constitutional amendment

  Mr. PELL. Mr. President. I offer a joint resolution to amend the 
Constitution to advance the Inauguration dates for the President and 
Members of Congress from January 20th and 3rd to December 10th and 1st 
respectively. In offering this resolution here in the 104th Congress, I 
note for my colleagues that this is an effort I first began in 1981 and 
with each succeeding set of national elections, I believe that the 
rationale and wisdom for changing these dates becomes more compelling.
  The current date for the Inauguration of the President was set by the 
20th amendment to the Constitution in 1933. Prior to that, the 
Inauguration date had not changed since being fixed by an act of the 
Continental Congress in 1788 commencing the proceeding of the 
Government of the United States under the newly ratified Constitution. 
Under that act, March 4th was chosen simply because it happened to be 
the first Wednesday in March of 1789 and it was thought at the time 
that that amount of time was needed for each State to appoint 
Presidential electors to the Electoral College and for them to meet and 
cast their ballots. Additionally, there were practical and controlling 
considerations over the difficulty and length of time it took to travel 
to and from the Capital City, the necessity for time to allow newly 
elected officials to tend to the long-term organization of their 
private affairs prior to their extended departure from home for 
Washington, and the lack of sophisticated means for the verification of 
polling results and for communication of news. Thus, in the founding 
days of our country, March 4th was seen as the earliest possible date 
by which the Government could, in an orderly and practical manner, 
bring about the will of the electors as expressed in congressional and 
Presidential balloting from the previous November.
  By 1933, however, it had become clear that it was no longer necessary 
to postpone the Inauguration of the President and Members of Congress 
until March 4th. Senator George W. Norris of Nebraska, the Champion of 
the 20th amendment to the Constitution which advanced the Presidential 
and congressional Inauguration dates to their current status, said on 
the Senate floor in 1932:

       When our Constitution was adopted, there was some reason 
     for such a long intervention of time between the election and 
     actual commencement of work by the new Congress. We had 
     neither railroads nor telegraphic communication connecting 
     the various States and communities of the country. Under 
     present conditions, however, the result of elections is known 
     all over the country within a few hours after the polls 
     close, and the Capital City is within a few days' travel of 
     the remotest portions of the country.
       . . . The only direct opportunity that the citizens of the 
     country have to express their ideas and their wishes in 
     regard to national legislation is the expression of their 
     will through the election of their representatives at the 
     general election in November. . . . In a government ``by the 
     people'' the wishes of a majority should be crystallized into 
     legislation as soon as possible after these wishes have been 
     made known. These mandates should be obeyed within a 
     reasonable time.

  Those words ring true today. With the further advancement in travel, 
communications, polling, and the ascertainment of election results 
since 1933, their remains no justification for the present lengthy 
hiatus between Election Day and Inauguration Day. We now know election 
results within minutes of the last closing of the polls, indeed, 
usually before they close through news projections, and travel to 
Washington is an affair that can be accomplished in a day. The 
Electoral College could easily complete its duties within a few days 
time and there is no impediment to the commencement of the terms of the 
Members of Congress by December 1st. necessary because of the role of 
the House of Representatives in the ratification of the results of the 
Electoral College. It is clear then that no structural or logistical 
justification exists for delaying the implementation of the decision of 
the voters made at the polls in early November.

  With no physical barriers to a more rapid installation of the 
President and Members of Congress, are there policy reasons for waiting 
2 months and more before swearing them into office? In my opinion, the 
typical arguments of preservation of tradition and the need for time 
for transition organization are less than compelling. Indeed, I believe 
that these justifications pale in comparison to the drawbacks of the 
current state of affairs.
  First and foremost, currently when a new President is elected, during 
the protracted transition period to a new administration that follows, 
it is unclear for almost 3 months who speaks for the United States on 
matters of national importance or crisis. As the undisputed leader in 
world affairs, and in a world ever more closely intertwined and 
influenced by daily events occurring throughout the international 
community, this is a needless peril into which we place ourselves. It 
is never wise not desirable for any country, particularly one with 
extensive power and influence such as ours, to tolerate any confusion 
or question about who runs and speaks for the affairs of State. Yet, 
whenever we elect a new President, we needlessly allow just such a 
situation to occur. We would substantially reduce the potential hazards 
of the current lengthy delay in the transition of our Government were 
this proposal adopted.
  Another pitfall of the current lengthy interregnum is that under the 
present system, the next fiscal year's proposed budget is submitted by 
the outgoing administration only to be subject to amendment and 
revision once the new administration takes office. This is a needless 
duplication of effort and inevitably results in an unnecessary delay of 
the budget process. Indeed, given the record of the current Congress 
with regard to the Federal budget, it is clear that any additional time 
or lack of either redundant or pointless effort would be welcome. If 
the new Congress were to be sworn in on December 1 and the President on 
December 10, the new administration would start with a clean slate with 
regard to the budget and the process would be off to a much smoother 
and more sensible start.
  Another clear benefit of an advance in the dates of inauguration for 
the President and Members of Congress would be that with the recently 
completed campaign season more fresh in the memories of the new 
administration and Congress, the opportunity would be greater to take 
quicker action on the proposals which collectively brought them to 
office. The populace, having listened to an extensive campaign and 
spoken their minds through the ballot box, deserve to have the views 
they supported formulated into legislation and acted upon in a 
reasonable and timely fashion. Waiting for 3 months to even begin the 
process seems to me to be simply too long.
  Other reasons for advancing the Inauguration of the President and 
Congress, while slightly more speculative, seem likely. For example, 
with the advance, the President would prudently be inclined to have a 
good idea of who he or she would choose for key positions in the 
Cabinet prior to the election. Indeed, the composition of the Cabinet 
could well become part of the preelection debate, something which I 
feel would be healthy given the enormous influence Cabinet members have 
over the day-to-day functions of the executive branch.
  Another potential benefit would be that given the much shorter period 
between Election Day and the commencement of the terms of the new 
Congress, the incentive or need to hold so-called lameduck sessions of 
Congress would be greatly reduced. This would produce the desirable 
result of discouraging the opportunity for Members who had lost at the 
polls to still meet, vote, and decide upon matters on behalf of the 
constituents who just turned them out. Again, in a democracy, it is the 
will of the people that should be afforded the greatest chance of being 
heard and reducing the likelihood of a lame-duck session of Congress 
would forward that goal.

  For all of these reasons, I again propose the constitutional 
amendment. For those unfamiliar with my earlier efforts to advance the 
Inauguration dates, a couple of points. First, there is

[[Page S5098]]

nothing magical about the dates of December 10th for the President and 
December 1st for Members of Congress. Indeed, when I first pursued this 
effort, I proposed earlier dates ranging from early to mid-November. 
However, at a hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee in 1984, 
there was a general feeling that perhaps that left too little time 
after the election for an orderly transition. Likewise, there was 
resistance to interference with the Thanksgiving holiday so early 
December presents itself as the earliest reasonable and desirable 
timeframe for setting these Inauguration dates. Incidentally, for those 
who wish to cling to tradition, establishing a swearing-in date of 
December 1st for Congress would be somewhat of a return to previous 
practice. The Constitution originally established the meeting day for 
Congress on the first Monday of December and this was the practice 
until the 20th amendment changed it in 1933. Thus, it was not until 
1934 that Congress began its sessions in early January. Under my 
proposal, Congress would resume the commencement of its sessions in 
early December.
  Thus, I offer my joint resolution to advance the Presidential and 
congressional Inauguration dates. This proposal is good government, it 
makes common sense, and is both feasible and practical. Furthermore, I 
believe that failing to change the dates needlessly risks confusion 
over who speaks for the national government, facilitates undesirable 
legislative scenarios such as the convening of lame-duck sessions of 
Congress, and unnecessarily delays the chance for those chosen by the 
electorate to take their rightful offices and act upon the issues of 
the day. I urge my colleagues to take the time to carefully consider 
this proposal and that they join me in this effort to make these 
straightforward and eminently reasonable changes in our governmental 
process.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at this point a brief 
history of the 20th amendment as prepared for the Judiciary Committee 
in 1985 be included in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

      Amendments to the Constitution: A Brief Legislative History


                              amendment xx

                           Text of amendment

       ``Section 1. The terms of the President and Vice President 
     shall end at noon on the 20th day of January, and the terms 
     of Senators and Representatives at noon on the 3d day of 
     January, of the years in which such terms would have ended if 
     this article had not been ratified; and the terms of their 
     successors shall then begin.
       ``Sec. 2. The Congress shall assemble at least once in 
     every year, and such meeting shall begin at noon on the 3d 
     day of January, unless they shall by law appoint a different 
     day.
       ``Sec. 3. If, at the time fixed for the beginning of the 
     term of the President, the President elect shall have died, 
     the Vice President elect shall become President. If a 
     President shall not have been chosen before the time fixed 
     for the beginning of his term, or if the President elect 
     shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice President elect 
     shall act as President until a President shall have 
     qualified; and the Congress may by law provide for the case 
     wherein neither a President elect nor a Vice President elect 
     shall qualified, declaring who shall then act as President, 
     or the manner in which one who is to act shall be selected, 
     and such person shall act accordingly until a President or 
     Vice President shall have qualified.
       ``Sec. 4. The Congress may by law provide for the case of 
     the death of any of the persons from whom the House of 
     Representatives may choose a President whenever the right of 
     choice shall have devolved upon them, and for the case of the 
     death of any of the persons from whom the Senate may choose a 
     Vice President whenever the right of choice shall have 
     devolved upon them.
       ``Sec. 5. Sections 1 and 2 shall take effect on the 15th 
     day of October following the ratification of this article.
       ``Sec. 6. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall 
     have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the 
     legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within 
     seven years from the date of its submission.''

                               Background

       In accordance with the constitutional provisions written by 
     the Founding Fathers in 1787, the newly established U.S. 
     Government was to become effective when nine States ratified 
     the Constitution.\1\ After the ratification process was 
     completed in June of 1788, the existing Congress designated 
     March 4, 1789 as the official date when the Federal 
     Government, as outlined in the Constitution, would begin 
     operation. This date represented an estimate of the time 
     needed to appoint presidential electors in each State and 
     allow them to cast their ballots for President. In addition, 
     the States needed time to select both Representatives and 
     Senators to serve in the U.S. Congress. As mandated by the 
     Constitution, the President was to serve for 4 years, 
     Senators for 6, and Representatives for 2. All legislative 
     and executive offices, then and in the future, would commence 
     on March 4 and end in subsequent odd-numbered years on the 
     same date.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     Footnotes at end of article.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
       The problem inherent in this system was that the 
     Constitution, under Article I, Section 4, Clause 2, 
     stipulated:
       ``The Congress shall assemble at least once in every year, 
     and such a meeting shall be on the first Monday in December, 
     unless they shall by Law appoint a different day.''
       This meant that, although Congressmen were elected to 
     office in November of even-numbered years, they were not 
     entitled to take office until after the terms of their 
     predecessors expired the following March. Moreover, the new 
     Congressmen would not assemble until the following December. 
     This left a thirteen month lapse from the time of election 
     until the new Congress first convened. In the meantime, 
     defeated or retiring Congressmen would meet in their regular 
     session in December of the election year and continue to hold 
     office until their term expired on March 4 of the next year. 
     This short session of Congress, from December to March, was 
     nicknamed the ``lame-duck'' session, deriving its title from 
     the stock exchange term meaning ``one who was unable to meet 
     his obligations.'' \2\
       The ``lame-duck'' session of Congress was controversial for 
     a number of reasons. For instance, if the election of the 
     President were thrown into the House of Representatives, the 
     election would be decided not by recently elected 
     Congressmen, but by the ``lame-duck'' session. In addition, 
     should a session of Congress require more time to conduct its 
     business, the session could not be extended, since the terms 
     of many legislators expired on March 4. The pending business 
     would either have to be postponed until the following 
     December, or a special session of the new Congress would have 
     to be called. Consequently, the ``lame-duck'' session 
     provided parliamentary advantages for the majority party in 
     Congress. This is why constitutional amendments to eliminate 
     the ``lame-duck'' session continually faced opposition in 
     Congress.
       Objections to the ``lame-duck'' session were heard long 
     before proposals leading to the Twentieth Amendment were 
     introduced. On the opening day of Congress' first ``lame-
     duck'' session in March of 1795, Aaron Burr laid before the 
     Senate a motion introducing a constitutional amendment 
     extending the terms of Congressmen until the first day of 
     June.\3\ Again in 1840, Millard Fillmore introduced an 
     amendment that called for the elimination of the ``lame-
     duck'' session. Fillmore's resolution provided for the terms 
     of Congressmen to begin on the first day of December, rather 
     than fourth day of March.\4\ Several other amendments to the 
     Constitution, which would have altered the terms of office 
     and dates of congressional sessions, were introduced during 
     the last quarter of the nineteenth century. Each of them was 
     defeated.\5\
       In 1923, the first of several resolutions introduced by 
     Senator George W. Norris of Nebraska to eliminate the ``lame-
     duck'' session was reported by the Senate Committee on 
     Agriculture and Forestry.\6\ The measure, S.J. Res. 253, 
     easily passed the Senate on February 13, 63 to 6, 27 not 
     voting.\7\ However, as would be the case with several of 
     Norris' resolutions, the House of Representatives defeated 
     the proposal by delaying further action until Congress 
     adjourned in March. The same thing happened in 1924 with S.J. 
     Res. 22 (68th Cong.), and again in 1926 with S.J. Res. 9 
     (69th Cong.). In 1928, S.J. Res. 47 (70th Cong.) finally made 
     it to a vote in the House, where it gained a majority but 
     failed to receive the necessary two-thirds vote, 209 to 157, 
     66 not voting and 2 answering ``present.'' \8\
       On June 8, 1929, another Norris amendment proposal, S.J. 
     Res. 3 (71st Cong.), passed in the Senate and was sent to the 
     House. Once in the House, the Resolution lay on the Speaker's 
     table until April 17, 1930, when it was finally referred 
     to a House committee. In the meantime, a similar House 
     Resolution, H.J. Res. 292 (7st Cong.), was introduced. 
     This proposal, as amended by Speaker of the House Nicholas 
     Longworth of Ohio, would have required the second session 
     of Congress, which convened in January, to adjourn by May 
     4 of even-numbered years.\9\ H.J. Res. 292 passed easily 
     in the House, 290 to 93, 47 not voting and 1 answering 
     ``present.'' \10\ In conference, representatives from the 
     House and the Senate failed to agree on a compromise 
     measure. As a result, hopes for an amendment to the 
     Constitution once again expired with the adjournment of 
     the 71st Congress.\11\

                          Legislative history

       The elections of 1930 resulted in a Democratic landslide in 
     the House. Unlike Longworth, the new Speaker, John N. Garner 
     of Texas, came out in active support of an amendment to 
     remedy the ``lame-duck'' problem. On January 6, 1932, the 
     sixth Norris Amendment, S.J. Res. 14 (72nd Cong.), was 
     reported in the Senate by the Committee on the Judiciary. 
     During floor consideration in the Senate on January 6, one 
     amendment to

[[Page S5099]]

     limit the second session of Congress was rejected before the 
     Resolution passed, 63 to 7, 25 not voting.\12\
       In the House, the Committee on Election of the President, 
     Vice President, and Representatives in Congress reported S.J. 
     Res. 14 with an amendment in the nature of a substitute 
     measure.\13\ Among numerous suggested alterations, the 
     substitute proposed ending presidential terms on January 24 
     and congressional terms on January 4, providing for 
     succession in the event of the death or lack of qualification 
     of the President-elect or Vice President-elect, making 
     provision in case of the death of candidates from which 
     Congress might have to choose a President or Vice President, 
     and setting an effective date for the first two sections of 
     the amendment.
       The House began consideration of S.J. Res. 14 under an open 
     rule on February 12, 1932.\14\ On February 13, numerous 
     amendments to the committee substitute were offered, all of 
     which were either rejected or withdrawn. The two amendments 
     withdrawn by their sponsors would have required ratification 
     of the amendment within 7 years of its submission to the 
     States and provided that Congress could, by concurrent 
     resolution, set an assembly date other than January 4.\15\ 
     The rejected amendments called for ratification of the 
     Twentieth Amendment by State conventions, extension of 
     Representatives' terms to 4 years, and limitation of the 
     second session of Congress.
       After the House debate concluded, the Election Committee's 
     substitute was approved and recommitted to the committee, 
     with instructions to report it back with a new section 
     establishing a mandatory 7-year ratification period.\16\ Once 
     the Resolution was amended accordingly and again reported by 
     the Committee on Election, it passed the House 204 to 134, 43 
     not voting.\17\ Minor differences between the House and 
     Senate versions were quickly resolved in conference.\18\

                          Ratification history

       The Twentieth Amendment was sent to the States for 
     ratification in March of 1932; and within 1 year, all 48 
     States had ratified. Virginia was the first State to ratify, 
     on March 4, 1932; and on January 23, 1933, Utah became the 
     required 36th State to approve the Amendment. The 
     ratification dates of each of the States appear below:
       Virginia, Mar. 4, 1932.
       New York, Mar. 11, 1932.
       Mississippi, Mar. 16, 1932.
       Arkansas, Mar. 17, 1932.
       Kentucky, Mar. 17, 1932.
       New Jersey, Mar. 21, 1932.
       South Carolina, Mar. 25, 1932.
       Michigan, Mar. 31, 1932.
       Maine, Apr. 1, 1932.
       Rhode Island, Apr. 14, 1932.
       Illinois, Apr. 21, 1932.
       Louisiana, Jun. 22, 1932.
       West Virginia, Jul. 30, 1932.
       Pennsylvania, Aug. 11, 1932.
       Indiana, Aug. 15, 1932.
       Texas, Sep. 7, 1932.
       Alabama, Sep. 13, 1932.
       California, Jan. 4 1933.
       North Carolina, Jan. 5, 1933.
       North Dakota, Jan. 9, 1933.
       Minnesota, Jan. 12, 1933.
       Arizona, Jan. 13, 1933.
       Montana, Jan. 13, 1933.
       Nebraska, Jan. 13, 1933.
       Oklahoma, Jan. 13, 1933.
       Kansas, Jan. 16, 1933.
       Oregon, Jan. 16, 1933.
       Delaware, Jan. 19, 1933.
       Washington, Jan. 19, 1933.
       Wyoming, Jan. 19, 1933.
       Iowa, Jan. 20, 1933.
       South Dakota, Jan. 20, 1933.
       Tennessee, Jan. 20, 1933.
       Idaho, Jan. 21, 1933.
       New Mexico, Jan. 21, 1933.
       Georgia, Jan. 23, 1933.
       Missouri, Jan. 23, 1933.
       Ohio, Jan. 23, 1933.
       Utah, Jan. 23, 1933.
       Colorado, Jan. 24, 1933.
       Massachusetts, Jan. 24, 1933.
       Wisconsin, Jan. 24, 1933.
       Nevada, Jan. 26, 1933.
       Connecticut, Jan. 27, 1933.
       New Hampshire, Jan. 31, 1933.
       Vermont, Feb. 2, 1933.
       Maryland, Mar. 24, 1933.
       Florida, Apr. 26, 1933.
       With more than the necessary number of States having 
     ratified, the Twentieth Amendment was certified as part of 
     the Constitution on February 6, 1933, by Secretary of State 
     Henry L. Stimson. Section 5 of the Amendment provided that 
     Section 1 and 2 would become effective on October 15, 1933; 
     therefore, the terms of newly-elected Senators and 
     Representaties began on January 3, 1934, and the terms of the 
     President and Vice President began on January 20, 1937.\19\
       The Twentieth Amendment appears officially as 47 Stat. 
     2569.


                               footnotes

     \1\ United States Constitution, Article VII.
     \2\ Carl Brent Swisher, American Constitutional Development 
     (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, Co., 1943), 723.
     \3\ Annals of the Congress of the United States, 1795 
     (Washington, D.C.: Gales & Seaton, 1849), 5: 853.
     \4\ Congressional Globe, 26th Congress, 2nd Session, 1840, 9: 
     44.
     \5\ Congressional Record, 70th Congress, 2nd Session, 1928-
     1929, 70; 1-8; H. Doc. 551.
     \6\ Congressional Record, 67th Congress, 4th, Session, 1932, 
     64, Pt. 4: 3505-3507.
     \7\ Ibid., 3540-3541.
     \8\ Ibid., 70th Congress, 1st Session, 1928, 69, Pt. 4: 4430.
     \9\ Ibid., 71st Congress, 3rd Session, 1931, 74, Part 6: 
     5906-5907.
     \10\ Ibid., 5907-5908.
     \11\ For a summary of these five proposals see: Congressional 
     Record, 72nd Congress, 1st Session, 1931-1932, 75.
     \12\ Congressional Record, 1372-1384.
     \13\ Ibid., 72nd Congress, 1st Session, 1932, 75.
     \14\ Ibid.
     \15\ Ibid., 3856-3857, 3875-3876.
     \16\ Ibid., 3857-78.
     \17\ 4059-60.
     \18\ Ibid.
     \19\Virginia Commission on Constitutional Government, The 
     Constitution of the United States, (Richmond, 1965), 36-37.

                          ____________________