[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 110 (Wednesday, July 24, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S8636-S8643]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
By Mr. GRAHAM (for himself and Mr. Moynihan):
S. 1984. A bill to amend title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and
Safe Streets Act of 1968 to require a 10 percent reduction in certain
assistance to a State under such title unless public safety officers
who retire as a result of injuries sustained in the line of duty
continue to receive health insurance benefits; to the Committee on the
Judiciary.
the alu-o'hara public safety officers health benefits act
Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, almost 1 year ago today, Officer
Joseph Alu and Detective James O'Hara responded to an emergency hostage
situation.
When the officers had arrived at the scene--they found that the
assailant had cordoned himself off in a bedroom of a house and had
taken two teenaged girls for hostages.
The officers broke down the bedroom door, only to discover that the
assailant had doused himself, the hostages, and the entire house in
gasoline.
At that moment, the assailant dropped a lighter on the floor, setting
the room ablaze, killing himself and the two hostages. Officers Alu and
O'Hara were critically wounded--receiving severe burns over most of
their bodies.
Both officers remained in the hospital for the better part of a year
fighting for their lives.
Officer O'Hara was so badly burned that while he struggled for his
life in the intensive care unit for over 6 months, his wife was told to
expect and prepare for his imminent death.
Miraculously, Officer Alu and Officer O'Hara survived. But, while
still in the hospital, the city of Plantation Police Department
notified the officers that since they would not be physically able to
return to work--they and their families would lose their health
insurance benefits.
Imagine fighting for your life in a hospital, in excruciating pain,
knowing that your family is going to be left unprotected.
When these heroes returned home--that is exactly what they found: no
job, disability payments of approximately $1,200 a month, prohibitively
expensive COBRA insurance which would run out in 18 months, and no
private health insurance for them and their families.
For over 5 months, Officer Alu's wife, Sheila, stayed home to care
for her husband during his rehabilitation--herself unable to work to
bring in badly needed extra income.
Further complicating their situation was their 5-year-old daughter
Christina, who was battling chronic asthma without health insurance.
Detective O'Hara's family was in a similar situation. In fact, his
wife still must care for his everyday needs almost 1 year later.
But instead of giving up hope, officers Alu and O'Hara fought hard.
They brought their case to the Florida Legislature--and won.
The legislature, with a Republican Senate and a Democratic House,
unanimously passed this legislation at the State level--requiring that
localities continue whatever health insurance benefits the officer had
prior to the injury.
Mr. President, although they have won personal victories, officers
Alu and O'Hara have continued their fight--taking their case to
Congress--asking us to make sure that other officers not go through the
same pain, uncertainty, and feelings of shame as they did when they
were unable to provide for their families.
Across the Nation, unlike veterans who have risked their lives to
protect our national security, those who protect our homes and streets
have their insurance canceled by municipalities or States when they can
no longer do the job.
Mr. President, my legislation, endorsed by all major police and
firefighter organizations, would create a safety net for injured
officers by requiring municipalities that receive Federal crime dollars
to continue to maintain the same level of benefits that an officer had
prior to being injured in the line of duty.
If a locality chooses not to offer health insurance to these public
safety officers, it would only be able to receive 90 percent of its
full complement of community-oriented policing services funding.
Mr. President, the scope of this bill is extremely narrow. It would
apply only to a handful of public safety officers, estimated at
approximately 100 nationwide per year.
And it is not costly. CBO has already stated that this bill is not an
unfunded mandate.
But its message is unmistakeably clear.
We need laws which protect our valiant men and women on the front
lines. When they go down in the line of duty protecting us, we have a
corresponding duty to care for them.
Mr. President, this bill would provide only the most basic package of
benefits. It does not grant any enhanced or increased benefits over
what the officer had at the time of the injury.
[[Page S8637]]
The bill requires State and local governments to offer only the
minimum level of health insurance necessary to maintain the health
coverage the officer had prior to the disabling injury.
For instance, if an officer or firefighter did not have family
coverage prior to the injury, he would not be entitled to family
coverage after the injury.
Mr. President, I am proud of my State of Florida. But it should not
take a terrible incident like this to make sure that our public safety
officers are protected.
We can prevent this situation from ever happening to officers like
Alu and O'Hara by passing this legislation this year, in a bipartisan
fashion.
Mr. President, allow me to conclude by commending both Officer Alu
and Detective O'Hara and their families for their bravery, sacrifice,
and dedication to public service.
Without their perseverance we would not be here today discussing this
most critical issue.
I know that police officers and firefighters across the Nation share
my gratitude for their courage and selflessness.
Mr. President, in passing this bill, we will honor our commitment to
all of our public safety officers: to protect and care for them after
they have done so much to protect and care for us.
______
By Mrs. FEINSTEIN (for herself and Mrs. Hutchison):
S. 1985. A bill to increase penalties for sex offenses against
children; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
The Amber Hagerman Child Protection Act of 1996
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today for two reasons. First, I
want to talk about two little girls whose short lives have had an
impact far beyond their youthful imaginings. Unlike their families and
friends, we do not know them for the love they gave, nor do we know of
them for their academic ability or artistic talents. Sadly, unlike
their families and friends, we did not know them while they were
alive--we know them only because of their tragic deaths.
The second reason I rise today is to introduce legislation with
Senator Hutchison which is designed to prevent other children from
suffering their fate, the Amber Hagerman Child Protection Act of 1996.
I ask that a copy of the bill be printed in full following my remarks.
An earlier version of this bill was introduced in the House by
Representative Martin Frost of Texas.
The first little girl I want to tell you about is Polly Klaas. Many
people throughout our Nation have come to know about this 12-year-old
girl from Petaluma, CA, a small, close-knit community north of San
Francisco, and the tragic circumstances of her death.
Polly was kidnaped from her bedroom on October 1, 1993, by a bearded,
knife-wielding man who tied her up and threatened to slit her friends'
throats as her mother slept in a nearby room. Polly and her friends--
who were over for a slumber party--were playing a board game at the
time of the abduction.
Immediately after the assailant had fled with Polly, her two friends
awakened her mother, Eve Nichols, and she called 911: ``Apparently, a
man just broke into our house,'' she said, her voice rising in panic,
``and they say he took my daughter.''
Richard Allen Davis, a 41-year old parolee with two previous
kidnaping convictions and a history of psychotic behavior, was arrested
on November 30, 1993, and 4 days later, police say, he led them to her
body, dumped beside a highway. Next to Polly's body, police found a
specialty condom identical to one Davis had bought at the adult novelty
store Seductions a day or two before the kidnapping, according to the
store's former owner. Polly's clothes were pushed up to her waist.
At Davis' trial, prosecutors presented expert testimony that Davis'
abduction of Polly was motivated by a desire to gratify his sexual
tastes for bondage.
Last month, Davis was convicted of all ten counts against him,
including attempting a lewd act with a minor.
The second little girl I want to tell you about, Amber Hagerman, was
visiting her grandparents on January 13 of this year, the day she was
kidnaped. An eyewitness later told police that he saw a white or
Hispanic man pull the child from her pink tricycle and drag her into a
black pickup truck.
She was found dead 4 days later--her clothes stolen from her lifeless
little body--in a creek behind an apartment complex. Police have made
no arrests for the murder of Amber Hagerman, but are continuing to
follow every lead.
Amber's killer is still free and her family continues to feel the
pain caused by the loss of their beloved daughter. Just a few weeks
ago, Amber's grief stricken mother, Donna Whitson, released an open
letter to her daughter's unknown assailant. In it, she said:
[I]t has now been 122 days since I last saw my daughter
alive. One hundred twenty-two days since I felt her happiness
in my life. One hundred and twenty-two days ago, you tore my
baby girl from her family's love * * * [Y]ou destroyed
forever the happiness, harmony and dreams that my children
and I had been working so hard to bring to fruition. Our
plans for the future altered because of you.''
Imagine if you can, trying to comprehend what your own child's last
moments of life were like, or trying to fathom the pain and fear felt
by your own flesh and blood as they lived them. Donna Whitson has
probably done so every day since the loss of her daughter. In her open
letter, she asked her daughter's killer:
At what point between the time you stole my baby and the
time she was returned did you murder my child? Why had you
drained the life from her body? How could you steal the
clothes from her lifeless body and dump her like trash thrown
along the wayside?
Mr. President, it is for these two children and their families that
we must join with Donna Whitson to say loud and clear that
the abduction of children and child sexual abuse will not be tolerated
by this society.
The Crime Bill
Two years ago, Congress acknowledged that action must be taken to
stop child sexual abuse when it passed the President's crime bill.
The Violent Crime Control Act contained several tough provisions to
combat child sexual abuse. More specifically, the crime bill:
Established guidelines for State programs that require persons
convicted of crimes against children, including sexual misconduct with
a minor, to register their addresses with an appropriate State law
enforcement agency for 10 years after their release from prison;
Sexually violent predators must remain registered until a court
determines that they no longer suffer from a mental abnormality that
would make a predatory sexually violent offense likely.
The crime bill also doubled the maximum prison term for offenders who
commit a sexual abuse or sexual contact offense under Federal law after
one or more prior convictions for a Federal or State sexual abuse or
sexual contact offense.
I strongly believe that this landmark legislation will go a long way
toward protecting our Nation's children.
Earlier this year, the President signed Megan's Law, which requires
that State law enforcement agencies release information that is
necessary to protect the public from convicted sex offenders in their
midst. This change in the law was part of the Amber Hagerman Child
Protection Act as it was introduced in the House.
Yet, much more needs to be done.
The Amber Hagerman Child Protection Act
Clearly, too many children suffer the physical and emotional impact
of kidnaping and it must be stopped before more kids like Polly Klaas
and Amber Hagerman fall victim to its tragic effects.
Child sexual abuse must be stopped by taking sexual predators off our
streets. Swift, sure action must be taken to stop child sexual abuse,
and penalties must be increased for those who commit this heinous
crime.
The Amber Hagerman Child Protection Act will help accomplish this
goal in several ways:
The heart of the bill is a tough ``two strikes and you're out''
provision for child sex offenders. First, the bill adds
life imprisonment for a second offense where the second offense is a
Federal one. Second, this legislation also reduces Byrne grant funding
by 10 percent to States which do not pass a similar two strikes
provision to ensure that all States take this important step to help
save our children from sexual abuse.
[[Page S8638]]
This legislation expands Federal child sexual abuse statutes to cover
instances when the perpetrator crosses State lines with the intent to
commit the offense, or commits the offense in interstate or foreign
commerce.
Lastly, the bill establishes a national database for sex offenders
and child kidnappers to be maintained by the FBI; and makes that
database accessible to appropriate State law enforcement officials.
The bill that we are introducing today differs from the House bill in
two ways. First, because enhanced community notification has,
fortunately, been enacted into law as Megan's Law, that provision is no
longer necessary. Second, the House bill contains an explicit death
penalty for killing a child in the course of a Federal sex offense. I
agree that such an evil and perverted act deserves the death penalty;
however, I believe that the death penalty which already exists in
Federal law, and which would apply to this heinous act under our bill,
is preferable, as it is slightly broader than the penalty in the House
bill.
Conclusion
Mr. President, the sick, tragic deaths of Polly Klaas and Amber
Hagerman serve as stark reminders that from tragedy and grief can come
constructive action and effective solutions, such as the crime bill's
three strikes initiative to incarcerate for life the most dangerous
criminals in our society.
We have much work to do to ensure the safety of our children from
abduction and sexual abuse; passing this bipartisan legislation is a
vital part of that effort. As a banner across the building in which the
Polly Klaas Foundation is headquartered says: ``We ache. We grieve.
We're angry. We're not done.''
I urge all of my colleagues to give their support to the Amber
Hagerman Child Protection Act.
Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Hutchison and myself, I send the
bill to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill will be received and referred to the
appropriate committee.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Hutchison and
myself, I have just sent to the desk the Amber Hagerman Child
Protection Act. The purpose is to try to provide a Federal response to
those who molest children.
Recently, a study showed about 40 percent of the child molesters are
recidivists. I, frankly, think that could well be even higher than
that.
In virtually every community throughout the United States, there is a
story to tell. Senator Hutchison will speak in a moment about a story
from Texas. I can speak about a story from California. I can speak of
Polly Klaas, and the person who was just convicted of abducting,
kidnaping, raping and killing her had a prior record.
The bill we are proposing today attacks the problem of sex offenders
on both the State and Federal level. The purpose of the bill is to
require life imprisonment for a repeat, two-time child sex offender and
to provide an opportunity for the second offense to be heard in a
Federal court.
The purpose of this bill is that if an individual is convicted of
child molestation and repeats that felony, either on Federal land or in
the crossing of State lines, that it will become a Federal offense and
subject to life imprisonment.
This is a harsh bill. It is a tough bill. It has been introduced in
the House by Representative Frost. It is my hope, and I believe Senator
Hutchison's hope, that tomorrow in the Judiciary Committee I will offer
it as an amendment to the child pornography bill. If it fails there, we
will try at a later time to offer it as an amendment on the floor to a
bill.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 1985
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 ``Amber Hagerman Child
Protection Act of 1996''.
SEC. 2. INCREASED PENALTIES FOR FEDERAL SEX OFFENSES AGAINST
CHILDREN.
(a) Aggravated Sexual Abuse of a Minor.--Section 2241(c) of
title 18, United States Code, is amended--
(1) by inserting ``whoever in interstate or foreign
commerce or'' before ``in the special'';
(2) by inserting ``crosses a State line with intent to
engage in a sexual act with a person who has not attained the
age of 12 years, or'' after ``Whoever''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following: ``If the defendant
has previously been convicted of another Federal offense
under this subsection or under section 2243(a), or of a State
offense that would have been an offense under either such
provision had the offense occurred in a Federal prison,
unless the death penalty is imposed, the defendant shall be
sentenced to life in prison.''.
(b) Sexual Abuse of a Minor.--Section 2243(a) of title 18,
United States Code, is amended--
(1) by inserting ``whoever in interstate or foreign
commerce or'' before ``in the special'';
(2) by inserting ``crosses a State line with intent to
engage in a sexual act with a person who, or'' after
``Whoever''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following: ``If the defendant
has previously been convicted of another Federal offense
under this subsection or under section 2241(c), or of a State
offense that would have been an offense under either such
provision had the offense occurred in a Federal prison,
unless the death penalty is imposed, the defendant shall be
sentenced to life in prison.''.
SEC. 3. CONDITION FOR BYRNE GRANTS.
Section 170101(f) of the Violent Crime Control and Law
Enforcement Act of 1994 is amended--
(1) by redesignating subparagraph (B) as subparagraph (C);
and
(2) inserting after subparagraph (A) the following:
``(B) In order not to reduce the funds available under part
E of title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets
Act of 1968 by 10 percent, a State shall, on the first day of
each fiscal year beginning 2 years after the date of the
enactment of the Amber Hagerman Child Protection Act of 1996,
have in effect throughout the State in such fiscal year a law
which requires a court to sentence a defendant in a State
prosecution who is convicted of an offense that would have
been an offense if such offense occurred in a Federal prison
under section 2241(c) or 2243(a) of title 18, United States
Code, and who has previously been convicted for such an
offense to life in prison without the possibility of
parole.''.
SEC. 4. RELEASE OF REGISTRATION INFORMATION.
Section 170101 of the Violent Crime Control and Law
Enforcement Act of 1994 is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``(g) Separate Data Base.--The Federal Bureau of
Investigation shall maintain a separate data base for
information submitted to the Bureau under this section and
make that data base accessible to appropriate State law
enforcement officials. The Bureau shall inform appropriate
local law enforcement officials on each occasion that a
person registered under this section changes registration to
that locality.''.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I yield to my colleague, the distinguished Senator
from Texas.
Mrs. HUTCHISON addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas is recognized.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I thank Senator Feinstein for working
on this bill, for putting it together, for carrying it through the
Judiciary Committee on which she serves, because this is something that
we can truly do in a bipartisan fashion.
I know that when our Dear Colleague letter goes out to all of the
Senators that we will have probably 75 or 80 cosponsors, because this
is a bill that I think everyone will see the need for and want to
support.
In fact, as Senator Feinstein mentioned, this bill is named for the
9-year-old victim of a tragic killing that was so unnecessary and,
unfortunately, is still unsolved. Nine-year-old Amber Hagerman was
abducted while riding her bicycle outside her grandparents' home in
Arlington, TX, earlier this year. She was kept alive for at least 48
hours before being murdered. Her nude, slashed body was found in a
creek bed behind an Arlington apartment complex on January 17, 4 days
after she was snatched away from her friends and family by a man
driving a truck.
The killer of this much-beloved and innocent child has never been
identified. Her family and friends still are not comprehending why this
could have happened to such a child. The entire community remains
stunned, saddened and enraged. They have the chilling certainty that
there is a child killer on the loose in their community, in our State,
in our country.
Although we do not know the name of this monster who kidnaped,
molested, and murdered this 9-year-old child, we do know several
unpleasant
[[Page S8639]]
facts about sexual predators who prey on children, like Amber, in
communities across this country.
Twenty percent of those in State prisons convicted of violent
crimes--65,000 people--report having victimized a child. More than half
of these victims were 12 years old or younger, 75 percent of them were
female.
Thirty percent of these sexual predators report having committed
their crimes against multiple victims. Sixty-six percent of prisoners
convicted of sexual assaults committed their crime against a child.
The repeat crime rate for sex offenders is estimated to be as much as
10 times higher than the recidivism rate of other criminals.
Mr. President, we know that more than 40 percent of convicted sex
offenders will repeat their crimes. We must begin to act on the
information that we have. The revolving doors of our criminal justice
system have to stop sending violent criminals out on the streets and
back into our neighborhoods to prey on those least able to take care of
themselves--our children.
Justice must be made to serve the young and most vulnerable among us,
as well as those who repeatedly violate the law. So it is in Amber
Hagerman's memory that I am cosponsoring Senator Feinstein's
legislation today to protect this Nation's children from sex offenders.
As Senator Feinstein said, the purpose of the bill is tough. It is to
require life imprisonment for two-time child sex offenders when their
cases are heard in Federal court, and it encourages States to do
likewise.
It provides for a nationwide system of tracking sex offenders to be
administered by the FBI.
This legislation would establish new Federal jurisdiction over sexual
offenses against children when a person commits a crime after crossing
State lines with the intent of committing a sex offense.
So, Mr. President, I think Senator Feinstein told us what is in the
bill. I will not go into it any further. But I do want to say that it
is a primary responsibility of our Government to protect our citizens,
and especially the youngest and most vulnerable citizens.
We are going to send a message today to the monsters in our society
who would murder children that there is going to be a price to pay.
Hopefully, we will get these people off the streets, out of our
neighborhoods, out of our parks and begin to get serious about personal
security in this country, especially for our children. Thank you.
I thank Senator Feinstein for working on this bill and for allowing
me to be the cosponsor of it in honor and memory of my constituent, 9-
year-old Amber Hagerman, so that her legacy will be that she will be a
part of protecting children like her from meeting her fate. Thank you,
Mr. President. I thank Senator Feinstein. I yield the floor.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Thompson). The Senator from California.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, if I may, I thank the distinguished
Senator from Texas. It is a great pleasure to work with her. I hope we
have success in this measure. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the
floor.
By Mr. HATFIELD:
S. 1986. A bill to provide for the completion of the Umatilla Basin
project, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Energy and Natural
Resources.
The Umatilla Basin Project Completion Act
Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, almost 20 years ago, I traveled
to Pendleton, OR, to hold a hearing on longstanding water disputes in
the Umatilla River Basin. These disputes were somewhat typical of other
water conflicts throughout the western United States, in that, I was
lucky to get out of that hearing room alive. The tension between all
sides at that 1977 hearing was so high, I was almost certain that a
small war would break out right there in the room. Fortunately, that
meeting was the low point in the effort to resolve water conflicts in
that northeast Oregon river basin. Since that time, we have experienced
many high points.
In the ensuing 11 years since that fateful meeting of 1977, local
leaders were successful in bringing irrigators, Indian tribes,
environmentalists, elected officials and government bureaucrats
together on one of the most successful fishery restoration projects
this Nation has ever seen, the Umatilla Basin project. In 1988,
Congress enacted the Umatilla Basin Project Act in an effort to develop
a pragmatic, least-cost approach to meeting the Federal Government's
treaty obligations in the basin without devastating the area's valuable
agricultural economy. This project has truly been a model of
cooperation between those seeking to utilize water for agricultural
purposes and those whose historical way of life and culture hinged on
the restoration of healthy fish runs in the Umatilla River.
The Umatilla Basin project has been a product of years of debate and
grassroots consensus building. Its two main purposes have been to
restore a healthy anadromous fishery to the Umatilla River and to
provide irrigated agriculture with a predictable water supply. On both
counts, the project has been a tremendous success.
Under the 1988 act, new pumping facilities were authorized to allow
three irrigation districts, which previously withdrew their water from
the Umatilla River, to leave the water instream for fish. In exchange,
the irrigation districts received an equal volume of water from the
adjacent Columbia River to irrigate their crop lands. The project has
had no impact on Columbia River flows and has restored strong, healthy
fish runs to the Umatilla River for the first time in decades. In fact,
in the first 6 months of 1996 already, over 4,000 fish have returned to
a river that in the 1960's lost its native salmon. In fact, prior to
the authorization of the Umatilla Basin project, irrigation withdrawals
from the Umatilla River literally dried the river up during the summer
months.
While the Umatilla Basin project has been a huge success for all
parties involved, the 1988 act provided Columbia River exchanges for
only half of the Umatilla River irrigation withdrawals. In order to
make the project whole and satisfy the Federal Government's treaty
fishery obligations to the Umatilla Tribes, the remainder of the
project must be built. Today, I am introducing legislation which
achieves this goal, while at the same time, resolves a longstanding
dispute regarding the delivery of water to lands not officially within
Bureau of Reclamation project boundaries.
The bill I am introducing today, entitled the ``Umatilla Basin
Project Completion Act,'' incorporates the key components of a general
agreement reached last April in meetings between the Confederated
Tribes of the Umatilla, irrigation districts, State water resources
department, locally elected officials and Federal agencies. My bill has
three major provisions. First, it calls for the construction of the
third and final phase of the Umatilla project, which will exchange
Columbia River water for an equivalent amount of irrigation water now
taken out of the Umatilla River. This final phase, known as phase 3,
will cost $71 million and will fully satisfy all obligations of the
Federal Government to provide the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla
Indian Reservation with water for fishery needs in the Umatilla River
below the mouth of McKay Creek, as recognized by their 1855 treaty with
the United States. The 1988 Umatilla Basin Project Act authorized the
construction of phases 1 and 2. Phase 3 alone will provide almost as
much water to the fishery resources of the Umatilla River as did the
previous two phases.
Second, my bill adjusts the boundaries of three of the four
irrigation districts in the Umatilla project to include lands irrigated
with project water prior to 1988. The three districts for which these
boundary adjustments will be legislatively granted, are already
exchanging Umatilla River for Columbia River water, as authorized under
phases 1 and 2. The fourth district, Westland Irrigation District, was
not included in phases 1 and 2 of the 1988 Act and is still withdrawing
water from the Umatilla River. My bill does not grant a boundary
adjustment for Westland until the phase 3 Columbia River water exchange
is fully up and running.
Finally, my legislation calls for the preparation of a comprehensive
water management plan for the Umatilla River Basin. As a followup to
last
[[Page S8640]]
April's meetings, all of the affected parties--the State, Federal and
local Governments, the tribes, and the irrigation districts--agreed to
cooperate in preparing a comprehensive water management plan for the
Umatilla Basin. The Plan would serve as a guide in allocating water to
maximize the fishery benefits while recognizing valid existing uses. My
bill authorizes $500,000 to assist this most promising and valuable
effort.
It should be noted at this time that not all of the items identified
in last April's consensus process were included in my legislation.
While I felt that each of these items had merit, fiscal realities and
the short time frame remaining prior to sine die adjournment of the
104th Congress precluded me from including them in this bill.
Mr. President, I recognize that large authorizations for new
construction projects are not particularly popular at this time. This
bill, however, is far preferable to the traditional mode of meeting our
Nation's treaty fishery obligations to Indian tribes. To date, the
standard mode of operation has been protracted litigation and
adjudication of rights, followed by construction of costly projects. In
the Yakima River Basin, for example, the Federal Government and
irrigators spent nearly 20 years and $50 million just adjudicating the
tribe's treaty fishery rights. During that time, the Yakima River
salmon runs continued to decline, and Congress passed legislation
authorizing another $150 million to restore the Yakima River fishery.
Unfortunately, similar sad tales reverberate throughout the Pacific
Northwest. Our experience in the Umatilla River Basin, to date, has
been more positive and successful.
The bill I am introducing today reflects the general consensus
reached by Tribes, irrigation districts, local communities,
environmentalists, and State, local, and Federal governments. These
groups came together in the same cooperative spirit that characterized
the 1988 Umatilla Basin Project Act to reach agreement that the final
phase of the Umatilla Basin Project should be completed and that, once
and for all, the longstanding debate over authorized water deliveries
for irrigation purposes should be resolved. I am proud of the work
these groups have done and look forward to working with them to resolve
their remaining issues and concerns with this legislation.
I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the bill be printed in the
Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 1986
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
Section 1. This Act may be referred to as the ``Umatilla
Basin Project Completion Act.''
Sec. 2. Title II of Public Law 100-557 is amended by adding
at the end thereof:
``SEC. 214. AUTHORIZATION OF PROJECT COMPLETION.
``For purposes of completing the Columbia River water
exchanges and other mitigation efforts necessary to restore
the Umatilla River Basin fishery, and to provide for the
expansion of Umatilla Basin Project district boundaries, the
Secretary of the Interior (hereinafter referred to as the
Secretary), acting pursuant to the Federal reclamation laws
(Act of June 17, 1902, and Acts amendatory thereof and
supplementary thereto), is authorized to complete
construction and to operate and maintain the integrated
Umatilla River Basin Project, including pump exchange
projects known as Phases I, II, and III.
``SEC. 215. UMATILLA RIVER PHASE III EXCHANGE
``(a)(1) The Secretary is hereby authorized to construct a
third and final phase of the Umatilla River Basin Project to
provide additional flows in the Umatilla River for anadromous
fish through a water exchange with Westland Irrigation
District.
``(2) Prior to construction, the Secretary shall complete a
feasibility study to identify alternatives within the
authorized ceiling to provide Westland Irrigation District
exchange flows of approximately 220 cubic feet per second, or
greater.
``(3) The feasibility study for the Phase III exchange
facilities shall include an analysis of inclusion of other
irrigators in the exchange, appropriate backup systems, water
conservation opportunities, and such other analyses as the
Secretary may deem appropriate to improve the exchange
project for fishery restoration purposes.
``(4) Prior to completion of Phase III facilities, the
Secretary shall negotiate and execute an exchange agreement
with the Westland Irrigation District and any other
participating irrigators to allow the use of Columbia River
water in exchange for an equal amount of Umatilla River or
Mckay Reservoir water: Provided, that the irrigation
districts shall continue to be eligible to receive the same
volume of water as they received under their respective
contracts with the Bureau of Reclamation dated July 6, 1954
for Hermiston Irrigation District, November 18, 1949 for
Stanfield Irrigation District, July 6, 1954 for West
Extension Irrigation District, and November 18, 1949 for
Westland Irrigation District.
``(5) Phase III facilities may pump Columbia River water
for exchange purposes only, and not for conjunctive use.
``(b) Operation of Mckay Reservoir.--The Secretary shall
operate Mckay Reservoir in accordance with Federal and State
law and water rights filed pursuant to State law. The
Secretary is authorized to continue to designate and deliver
Mckay Reservoir water for Umatilla River fishery purposes.
This Title shall not alter any party's rights or obligations
under existing contracts for Mckay Reservoir water.
``(c) Operation and Maintenance Costs.--All exchange system
operation and maintenance costs and any increased operation
and maintenance costs to the Project caused by the Phase III
Exchange shall be the responsibility of the Federal
Government and shall be non-reimbursable.
``(d) Power for Project Pumping.--The Administrator of the
Bonneville Power Administration, consistent with provisions
of the Columbia River Basin Fish and Wildlife Program
established pursuant to the Pacific Northwest Electric Power
Planning and Conservation Act (94 Stat. 2697), shall provide
for project power needed to effect the Phase III water
exchange for purposes of mitigating anadromous fishery
resources. The cost of power shall be credited to fishery
restoration goals of the Columbia River Basin Fish and
Wildlife Program.
``SEC. 216. UMATILLA BASIN PROJECT BOUNDARY ADJUSTMENT.
``(a) Upon enactment of the Umatilla Basin Project
Completion Act, the boundaries of the three irrigation
districts with functioning Columbia River water exchange
facilities are adjusted by operation of law as follows:
``(1) Hermiston Irrigation District's boundaries are
adjusted to include the 1,091 acres identified in its 1993
request to the Bureau of Reclamation;
``(2) Stanfield Irrigation District's boundaries are
adjusted to include the 230.99 acres receiving water under
1995 and 1996 temporary contracts with the Bureau of
Reclamation; and
``(3) West Extension Irrigation District's boundaries are
adjusted to include the 2,436.8 acres identified in its 1993
request to the Bureau of Reclamation and are classified as
irrigable in the Bureau of Reclamation's Land Classification
Report.
``(b)(1) When the Umatilla Basin Project's Phase III
Exchange is completed and fully functional, the Westland
Irrigation District's boundaries shall be adjusted to include
the 7,023 acres receiving water under 1995 and 1996 temporary
contracts with the Bureau of Reclamation: Provided, That any
analysis required by the National Environmental Policy Act of
1969 on the boundary expansion request shall be accomplished
in conjunction with similar analysis on the Phase III
exchange facilities. The Westland Irrigation District shall
pay analysis costs associated with boundary adjustment, not
to exceed $300,000, and any additional costs shall be non-
reimbursable.
``(2) The Westland Irrigation District's temporary contract
with the Bureau of Reclamation is hereby extended for an
additional ten-year period. All other terms of the temporary
contract, including the payment, water delivery, and
mitigation provisions, shall remain the same. A riparian
project, as described in the 1996 temporary contract, will be
designed and completed by the Westland Irrigation District.
If Phase III is not fully functional when this temporary
contract, as extended, expires, the Secretary is authorized
to enter into additional extensions on such terms and
conditions as may be mutually agreeable.
``(c) Notwithstanding any other provision of this title, no
parcel may receive Project water unless it has a valid
existing State water right and is classified as irrigable in
the Bureau of Reclamation's Land Classification Report.
``(d) Upon approval of each irrigation district's boundary
adjustment request and adjustment of the boundary, a legal
description of the new district boundaries, including land
classification and project boundary maps, shall be provided
as an attachment to all four Irrigation District's existing
contracts.
``(e) No alteration in the ability to pay determination for
the Umatilla River Basin Project districts may be made as a
result of the Project boundary expansions authorized by this
Title.
``SEC. 217. TREATY OBLIGATIONS.
``The Federal Government and the Confederated Tribes of
the Umatilla Indian Reservation jointly recognize that
completion of Phase III and perpetual operation of the
integrated Project, including Phases I, II, and III, meets
all obligations of the Federal Government to provide the
Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation
with water for fishery needs in the Umatilla River below
the mouth of McKay Creek, as recognized by their 1855
Treaty with the United States.
``SEC. 218. WATER PROTECTION AND MANAGEMENT.
``(a) The Secretary shall continue working in cooperation
with the State of Oregon, the
[[Page S8641]]
Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation, the
irrigation districts, and the affected public toward
developing a Comprehensive Water Management Plan to assist in
restoring the Umatilla River Basin's anadromous fishery. The
Secretary shall develop an integrated groundwater/surface
water model of the Upper Umatilla River Basin for use in
developing the Comprehensive Water Management Plan.
``(b) Project facilities and features authorized by this
title shall be integrated and coordinated, from an
operational standpoint, into existing features of the
Umatilla Basin Project.
``(c) The Secretary shall enter into appropriate agreements
with the State of Oregon, the relevant irrigation districts,
and the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian
Reservation, as appropriate, to provide funding for
monitoring and administration, including regulation, of
project-related water supplies for the purposes herein
identified.
``SEC. 219. AUTHORIZATION FOR APPROPRIATION.
``(a) There is authorized to be appropriated to the
Secretary, plus or minus such amounts as may be justified by
reason of ordinary fluctuations of applicable cost indexes,
the following sums, without fiscal year limitation:
``(1) not to exceed $71,000,000 for feasibility studies,
environmental studies, and construction of the Phase III
Exchange: Provided, That all costs of Phase III planning and
construction, including operation and maintenance costs
allocated to the mitigation of anadromous fish species and
the study authorized in Section 215 of this Act, shall be
non-reimbursable, Provided further, That not less than 80 per
centum of such funds shall be used for actual construction;
``(2) not to exceed $500,000 for the development of a
Comprehensive Water Management Plan and integrated
groundwater/surface water model, as provided for in
Sec. 218(a) of this title; and
``(3) not to exceed $400,000 annually for enforcement and
protection of Phases I, II, and III exchange water for
instream uses, as provided for in Sec. 218(c) of this
title.''
SEC. 3. WATER RIGHTS.
Nothing in this Act shall:
(a) Impair the validity of or preempt any provision of
State law with respect to water or water rights, or of any
interstate compact governing water or water rights;
(b) Create a right to the diversion or use of water other
than as established pursuant to the substantive and
procedural requirements of State law and as recognized under
State law;
(c) Impair or affect any valid water right; or
(d) Establish or create any water rights for any party, nor
may any provision be construed to create directly or
indirectly an express or implied federal reserved water right
for any purpose.
______
By Mr. MACK (for himself, Mr. Lieberman, Mr. Abraham, Mr. Lott,
Mr. Hatch, and Mr. Bennett):
S. 1988. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide
for individuals who are residents of the District of Columbia a maximum
rate of tax of 15 percent on income from sources within the District of
Columbia, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.
the district of columbia economic recovery act
Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce with my colleagues
Senators Lieberman, Abraham, Lott, and Hatch the District of Columbia
Economic Recovery Act. The social, administrative, and fiscal problems
of our Nation's Capital are well documented: High crime rates, poor
schools, deteriorating infrastructure, and inadequate delivery of basic
public services, just to name a few. The District of Columbia is facing
its greatest economic crisis since it was established in 1790. Congress
has taken major steps, including the creation of a financial control
board, to assist the city during this current financial crisis. But
despite these efforts, the city has a long way to go to achieve
economic self-sufficiency.
The root of the District's problems is an ever-eroding middle class.
Since 1950, Washington's population has declined by nearly 250,000
residents: In fact, 68,000 people left between 1988 and 1993 alone. The
vast majority were middle-class families whose taxes funded the city's
operations. So far, D.C.'s response to this decline has been misguided:
even-higher taxes. But this has only led to even more residents leaving
the city in search of lower tax rates, better schools, and safer
streets.
We believe that the best way to help the District is to promote
economic growth, and the best way to promote economic growth is to
significantly reduce the tax burden on its residents. Economic growth
will mean more jobs, more opportunity, greater private sector
investment, and ultimately a better quality of life in the Nation's
Capital.
There is a large and growing consensus that our current income tax
system has become a tremendous obstacle to economic growth and an
improved standard of living. After eight decades of misuse by
lawmakers, lobbyists, and special interests, today's tax system is
unfair, complex, costly, and punishes work, savings, and investment.
Therefore, we as a nation need to fundamentally rethink the manner in
which income is taxed in order to construct a system that is equitable,
efficient, and can support economic growth. This effort, which perhaps
appropriately begins in the Nation's Capital, is an important first
step.
In order to achieve genuine tax reform, we must take the blinkers
off, special interests must give way to the overriding national
concerns, partisan class warfare must end, and the defenders of the
status quo must step aside to make way for positive change. Mere
tinkering with the Tax Code, or simply reshuffling the existing tax
burden is not genuine tax reform. We must create a new tax structure
that allows everyone to benefit from economic growth. The flat tax
encompasses this new thinking and fundamental change needed to create a
fair, simple, and pro-growth tax system.
The D.C. Economic Recovery Act is an important step in luring middle-
class taxpayers back to the District of Columbia. It provides tax
incentives, including a 15-percent flat income tax rate for all
District residents and deductions of $15,000 for individual filers;
$25,000 for head of household filers; and $30,000 for married filers.
This will benefit everyone, especially the poor and middle class. Our
bill includes a $5,000 first-time home buyers provision designed to
assist middle-class families in purchasing homes within the District of
Columbia. Second, we have established a zero capital gains tax rate on
investments within the District, to help spur investment in the
District, so middle-class residents won't be hurt by onerous capital
gains taxes when they decide to sell their homes. In addition to these
incentives, we have included a brown-fields provision that is sure to
improve the city's quality of life by encouraging companies to clean up
environmentally damaged District land.
This bill also provides the opportunity for all Americans to
participate in the economic revitalization of the District of Columbia
by extending to everyone a zero capital gains rate for all investments
made within the District. We believe the American people want to take
pride in this city, and want it to represent all the best this Nation
has to offer. For too long, the city's economy has been locked into the
growth and declines of the Federal Government. Our bill offers the
chance to spur nongovernmental economic investment in the District of
Columbia.
The District of Columbia is not only home to the people who live
here, it is truly the Nation's city. Historically, Congress has
recognized this fact, and assured the financial integrity of the
District. However, we now realize that simply throwing money at the
problem is not the answer. We must find a way to fundamentally improve
the city without demanding additional financial commitments from
American taxpayers.
We believe that these incentives, along with responsible and sensible
financial management, are just what the District needs to become self-
sufficient.
Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I am delighted to join with Senator
Mack as an original cosponsor of this important legislation, the
District of Columbia Economic Recovery Act of 1996 [DCERA].
The District of Columbia belongs to each and every one of us. As
citizens of the United States, we have a stake in the successes, and a
stake in the failures, of Washington, DC. It is America's city.
For a variety of reasons, not all of them easily explained,
Washington is in desperate financial straits. The here and now
financial prospects are grim for the city and the future gets grimmer.
This is largely because middle-class families, the backbone of any
successful community, are fleeing the District in alarming numbers.
The legislation we are introducing today would instantly transform
our
[[Page S8642]]
Nation's capital, making it a more appealing place to live, to invest,
to build, to buy, and to work. This bill is designed to reverse the
flow of middle-class residents and businesses, who are currently
fleeing the city for the suburbs. Those still in the District would
have new incentives to stay. And many others now living elsewhere would
have a very strong incentive to move into the District with their
families and with their businesses.
We cannot make the schools better in the District overnight. We
cannot promise crime-free streets overnight. What we can do is provide
middle-class tax relief in the District, as a way to lure these middle-
class taxpayers to the District as a way to reestablish a tax base in
the District. And once we bring these people back, safer streets and
better schools can follow.
Surely we can wait. We can wait until the situation in the district
is so dire, when nearly all of the tax base in the District has fled
and we will be asked to take over the city altogether. Waiting strikes
me as penny wise and pound foolish.
Instead of waiting, we should consider the merits of the DCERA which
we are introducing today. This legislation is modeled on legislation
which has been introduced in the House with broad, bipartisan support,
by Representative Eleanor Holmes Norton. Both the House and the Senate
version of the DCERA establish a maximum Federal tax rate of 15
percent. Both bills double the personal exemption which would eliminate
Federal income taxes for single residents who make up to $15,000 a year
and married couples filing jointly who make up to $30,000 a year. At
the same time, the bill retains the mortgage and charitable deductions
and would allow a taxpayer to file under the old system, if preferred.
In contrast to Representative Norton's bill, our legislation
establishes a zero capital gains rate for D.C. investments held by D.C.
or non-D.C. residents for 3 years. Representative Norton's bill
restricts this capital gains treatment to investments held by
D.C. residents only. In crafting our version of this legislation, we
were concerned this would limit potential investment in the District.
For this reason, the Senate treatment is broader.
Also in contrast to the House DCERA, our bill includes a $5,000
credit for first time District home purchases and includes a provision
to clean-up abandoned brownfields within the District. Members of
Congress not representing the District could not take advantage of the
tax incentives in the bill and we are working toward an explicit
understanding that the District would not take advantage of the Federal
tax incentives in this bill by raising local taxes.
I very much see this bill as a first step. Some of the urban problems
Washington faces are unique to Washington because Washington has no
State, no broader tax base, to draw on. At the same time, many of
Washington's problems are problems that are faced by cities all across
this country. If this approach works in Washington, I hope we can try
it in Bridgeport, New Haven, and Hartford as well.
I should note that, unlike some proponents of this legislation, I am
at best an agnostic on a flat tax. I believe progressivity in our tax
rates is inherently fair and am pleased that the legislation we are
introducing today has elements of that progressivity by providing such
a generous personal exemption. At the same time, a good number of our
cities are facing the loss of their middle-class population and the
only way to rebuild that base may be through bold measures like a flat
tax which has clear and compelling benefits for the middle class. The
people we are really anxious to bring back to our cities are the 28
percenters. Under the current Tax Code a typical family in the 28-
percent bracket would be a couple with two children who make roughly
between $39,000 and $95,000 after deductions. Our bill would create a
very favorable tax incentive for these people to stay in, or move to,
the District.
Mr. President, the most important thing there is to say about urban
policy in this country is that we really do not have an urban policy.
We know what has not worked; today we are introducing legislation that
we believe will work and there is no better place to start than in
Washington, DC, a city that belongs to all Americans.
I urge my colleagues to join us in cosponsoring this important
legislation.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today to join Senators Mack and
Lieberman in sponsoring legislation designed to spur economic growth in
the District of Columbia. The economic circumstances in the District
have eroded so significantly that they can no longer be casually
dismissed. Failure to act now with investment incentives would cost the
District even more in lost financial opportunities--financial
opportunities the District, and indeed our entire Nation, cannot afford
to miss.
Opponents of this legislation may be critical of the special
treatment given to the District of Columbia as opposed to other areas
of the country. Yet, this should be the greatest city in the world--
east of Salt Lake City.
In all seriousness, however, I believe that it is imperative that the
Capital of our Nation stand for democracy, economic development, and
security. It is difficult for the District of Columbia to represent
these qualities when it has become nearly unmanageable and is on the
brink of financial ruin. Something must be done to breathe new life
into Washington, DC. Otherwise, I've got some ghost towns in Utah I can
show you.
And, I want to emphasize that we are not talking about an infusion of
Federal funds. We are talking about encouraging private sector
investment in the city. We are talking about incentives for people to
live here. This legislation provides a way to bring both the capital
and stability needed to start the healing process.
The components included in this bill are specifically designed to
revitalize our Nation's Capital. First, the bill would tax all D.C.
residents at a flat rate of 15 percent and significantly increase their
standard deductions, yet retain both the charitable contribution
deduction and the home mortgage deduction. This provision would give
the middle class who left because of rising taxes a new incentive to
return to the District and once again call it home. In fact, this
recovery plan also establishes a $5,000 tax credit for first-time home
buyers for residences purchased within the District of Columbia. These
types of incentives would have a real and immediate impact on the
District and would help replace the middle-class base that has slowly
been eroding.
In addition to these provisions, Mr. President, this legislation
eliminates the capital gains tax on any investment made within the
District of Columbia by residents and greatly reduces it for
nonresidents. This part of the bill provides the District access to a
tremendous source of capital, otherwise unavailable.
Not only would this proposal begin to restore the financial viability
of our Nation's capital city, it would also provide a testing ground
for studying the effects of the basic principles of fundamental tax
reform. Our current system of taxation has been much criticized over
the past year and a half, and I agree that steps should be taken toward
a fairer, simpler, and more efficient tax system. However, while change
may be necessary, it must also be done carefully and deliberately.
Initiating a flat tax system in the District of Columbia could give
legislators much-needed insight into tax reform on a national scale.
Success in the District would result in ideas that could be applied
nationwide. Thus, this legislation would benefit the District of
Columbia, as well as every citizen of America.
Mr. President, this bill is far from perfect. It is a bold idea
designed to reverse the fall of a once-great city. Legitimate concerns
about the impact of this bill have been raised in recent days by
members of the House Ways and Means Committee and other. For one thing,
skeptics of this idea worry that the provisions of this bill would give
current residents of the District of Columbia a windfall. Other
concerns that have been expressed include taxpayers moving into the
District for only a short period to take advantage of the benefits of
this proposal, then moving out again. Other critics contend that the
root of the District's problems is not the lack of money, but poor
management of the resources already present and that therefore, an
infusion of new money and new residents would not change things
significantly.
I agree that the bill we are sponsoring today will not, by itself,
solve all of
[[Page S8643]]
the problems of the District of Columbia. I also agree that much work
needs to be done in further crafting this bill as it goes through the
legislative process to ensure that concerns about loopholes and
unintended benefits are met. And, I also completely agree that the
citizens of the District of Columbia must hold its elected leaders
accountable for waste and mismanagement.
It is important, however, that the general concepts of this bill are
put before the Congress. This bill is certainly not set in stone, and I
would anticipate that many Members of Congress and outside groups will
have a number of good ideas on how it can be improved. My goal is that
Congress start taking a serious look at ways to solve the problems of
our Nation's capital. One of these ways must include expanding the
local economy and, therefore, the local tax base. And, serious problems
often require bold solutions.
Washington, DC is the capital of the United States of America. Every
day there are buses of people who come to view the monuments, study the
historical treasures, and participate in their Federal Government.
Every day there are people from foreign nations who may get their first
and, in some cases, only taste of America from visiting our capital.
Unfortunately, a city rife with pot holes, dilapidated police cars, and
drug dealers and prostitutes openly offering their wares is not the
impression of our country most Americans wish to leave with visitors
from foreign countries, let alone tolerate themselves.
I quote Washington Post columnist James Glassman when I say that it
is time to act courageously and adopt a proposal that could help save
this city. I urge my colleagues to become actively involved in the
debate and in searching for ways to revitalize and reinvigorate a city
that is as important to Floridians as it is to Utahns, as important to
Californians as to Pennsylvanians.
I urge my colleagues to join us in this bold effort to jump start
both the economy and civic pride of the District of Columbia.
____________________