[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.
____________________