[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.

                          ____________________