[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 36 (Tuesday, March 28, 2000)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1815-S1826]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
STATEMENT ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
By Mr. THOMAS:
S. 2300. A bill to amend the Mineral Leasing Act to increase the
maximum acreage of Federal leases for coal that may be held by an
entity in any one State; to the Committee on Energy and Natural
Resources.
coal market competition act of 2000
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Coal Market
Competition Act of 2000. The legislation would amend the Mineral
Leasing Act to increase the acreage of coal leases. Companies need this
assurance as they plan and finance their operations into the future.
Now, more than ever, we need to diversify our Nation's resources. The
current oil prices are a daily reminder of what occurs when we allow
this country to be too dependent on foreign resources. It is time to
focus on domestic energy production and this legislation will
facilitate development of one of our Nation's abundant natural
resources, coal.
Most of the coal produced in our Nation comes from mines west of the
Mississippi River and the vast majority of that coal is mined in
western states with significant federal ownership of both the surface
and mineral estates. In fact, my state of Wyoming is home to 11 of the
top 12 coal mines based on tonnage. We produced approximately one third
of the total U.S. coal in 1999, with production exceeding 330 million
tons last year. Not surprisingly Wyoming is also the leader in federal
coal lease acreage with approximately 145,000 federal acres under lease
to 20 companies.
The current federal coal lease limitation under the Mineral Leasing
Act of 1920 is 46,080 acres per state. An amendment of the Mineral
Leasing Act in 1976 maintained the per-state limit and added a 100,000-
acre nationwide limit for any one company. The state coal lease limit
has not been changed for 36 years. Coal, sodium, phosphate and oil and
gas were all assigned identical or similar per state lease acreage
limitations in the 1926 amendments to the MLA (2,560 acres per state
for sodium, coal and phosphate, 2,560 acres per geologic structure and
7,680 acres per state for oil and gas). The acreage limitation for each
of these minerals was increased in the 1946 and 1948 MLA amendments
(coal, sodium and phosphate to 5,120 per state in 1948; oil and gas to
15,360 acres per state in 1946). The per state acreage limitation for
oil and gas leases was increased twice more (to 46,080 acres in 1957
and 246,080 acres in 1960) and the per state acreage ceiling for coal
(and phosphate) leases was increased once more to 46,080 acres (and
20,480 acres for phosphate) in 1964. In my view, it is time to address
the coal acreage limitations both on a state and national level.
The cap on coal needs to be raised to allow producers to remain
competitive in the world-wide market. In Wyoming, the coal mine sizes
will need to increase in order to maintain economic competitiveness.
Our coal industry has grown and prospered because its economic
competitiveness allowed Wyoming to be the location of choice for new
low-sulfur coal capacity to serve much of the world. The scale of
mining operations is much larger now.
In order for this competitiveness to continue, we must raise the
acreage cap to alleviate concern from several companies in both Wyoming
and Utah about the effect of the limitation on their planning and
production abilities. Larger lease acreage areas are required to
justify the significant capital investment necessary for mine
expansion. Under current leasing operations, the penalty for violation
of the acreage limitation is lease cancellation. It is essential during
a time like now--when oil prices are soaring--that we diversify and
develop our Nation's energy sources rather than be dependent on foreign
sources. Expanding lease acreage will allow coal to be competitive and
it is essential we have choices for energy here at home.
______
By Mr. GORTON (for himself and Mrs. Murray):
S. 2301. A bill to amend the Reclamation Wastewater and Groundwater
Study and Facilities Act to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to
participate in the design, planning, and construction of the Lakehaven
water reclamation project for the reclamation and reuse of water; to
the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
[[Page S1816]]
lakehaven utility district water reclamation project
Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, today I join Senator Murray from
Washington State in introducing legislation that will authorize the
Bureau of Reclamation to develop a water reuse project with Lakehaven
Utility District in Federal Way, WA.
The Lakehaven Utility District is one of Washington State's largest
water and sewer utilities, providing 10.5 million gallons of water a
day to over 100,000 residents in South King County. The utility depends
on a groundwater supply system that is replenished by local
precipitation. As development in this Seattle suburb has increased,
aquifer recharge has diminished. The utility district recognizes it
must protect its precious resources and has undertaken several projects
to ensure it will have an adequate water supply for future generations.
One of these projects involves extensive treatment of the utilities
effluent for reuse. Some of the treated water will be used to irrigate
golf courses and other facilities, while the rest of the water will be
returned to the aquifer through injection wells. The techniques for
water reuse are innovative, yet proven, and have been implemented
throughout Nevada and California. Currently, the Lakehaven Utility
District discharges 6 million gallons of treated water into Puget Sound
every day. This new program will allow the district to reuse these
crucial resources while replenishing its precious groundwater supply.
This legislation amends title XVI of the Reclamation Projects
Authorization and Adjustment Act of 1992 to authorize the Bureau of
Reclamation to provide the Lakehaven Utility District the technical and
financial assistance necessary to implement its reuse project.
I am pleased to support this project, which I believe is crucial to
maintaining wetlands and rivers in Washington State. The Northwest is
faced with a salmon crisis that demands every available drop of water
remain in our streams and riparian areas. The Lakehaven Utility
District water reclamation project will ensure that the South King
County community continues to rely on groundwater resources rather than
turning to other sources that must be preserved for fish recovery.
______
By Mr. CLELAND:
S. 2302. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to expand
the enhanced deduction for corporate donations of computer technology
to public libraries and community centers; to the Committee on Finance.
community technology assistance act
Mr. CLELAND. Mr. President, there has been a lot of talk recently
about the ``digital divide'' and the differences in the availability of
information between the technological haves and have nots. With the
emerging digital economy becoming a major driving force of our nation's
economic well-being, we must ensure that all Americans have the
information tools and skills that are critical to full participation in
the new economy. Access to such tools is an essential step to ensure
that our economy grows strongly and that in the future no one is left
behind.
While we know that Americans are more connected to digital tools than
ever before, the ``digital divide'' between certain demographic groups
and regions of our country continues to persist and in many cases is
widening significantly. As a member of the Commerce Committee,
Subcommittee on Communications, I am alarmed by these developments.
Just consider:
A third of America's economic growth in recent years has come from
information technologies, producing 19 million new jobs. Yet, while
thirty percent of white Americans are connected to the Internet only 11
or 12 percent of African Americans or Hispanic Americans are on-line.
Households with incomes of at least $75,000 are more than 20 times as
likely to have access to the Internet as those at the lowest income
levels, and more than 9 times as likely to have a computer at home.
Additionally, citizens in rural areas, including large parts of my
state of Georgia, are less likely to be connected to the Internet than
urban users. Regardless of income level, those living in rural areas
are lagging behind in computer ownership and Internet access.
A viable alternative for many of these under served individuals is
Internet access outside the home and statistics show that computer use
at public libraries and community centers is on the rise. First of all,
among all Americans, 17 percent use the Internet at some site outside
the home. Secondly, minorities are even more likely to use the Internet
and pursue online courses and school research at even higher rates.
Third, those earning less than $20,000 who use the Internet outside the
home are twice as likely to get their access through a public library
or community center. Finally, Americans who are not in the labor force,
such as retirees or homemakers, are twice as likely to use public
libraries for access.
Given the ``digital divide'' among these demographic groups, and the
dependence of many Americans on the use of technology outside the home,
especially at libraries and community centers, I am introducing today
the Community Technology Assistance Act. Currently, the special
enhanced tax deduction exists in the case of computer equipment donated
to elementary and secondary schools. My bill would extend for five
years the special enhanced tax deduction, currently scheduled to expire
at the end of this year, and would expand it to include computer
donations to libraries and community centers as well as to elementary
and secondary schools. Consider the many high profile technology and
Internet related companies, such as Microsoft, Intel and AmericaOnline,
that have donated computer equipment and web access to schools and
universities across America. My bill would make it easier for companies
and individuals to invest in their community and jump start efforts to
help bridge the ``digital divide'' in rural and low income areas
everywhere.
Ensuring access to the fundamental tools of the digital economy is
one of the most significant investments our nation can make. Our
country's most important resource is its people. Our companies are only
as good as their workers. Highly-skilled, well educated workers make
for stellar businesses and create superior products. In a society that
increasingly relies on computers and the Internet to deliver
information and enhance communication, we need to make sure that all
Americans have access. Our domestic and global economies will demand
it. Ready access to telecommunications tools will help produce the kind
of technology-literate work force that will enable the United States to
continue to be a leader in the global economy well into the 21st
Century and beyond.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of my bill be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 2302
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 ``Community Technology
Assistance Act''.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
Congress finds the following:
(1) A third of America's economic growth in recent years
has come from information technologies, including 19,000,000
new jobs.
(2) Thirty percent of white Americans are connected to the
Internet while only 11 or 12 percent of African Americans or
Hispanic Americans are online. Households with incomes of at
least $75,000 are more than 20 times as likely to have access
to the Internet than those at the lowest income levels, and
more than 9 times as likely to have a computer at home.
(3) Citizens in rural areas are less likely to be connected
to the Internet than urban users. Regardless of income level,
those living in rural areas are lagging behind in computer
ownership and Internet access.
(4) Unemployed persons who access the Internet outside
their homes are nearly 3 times more likely to use the
Internet for job searching than the national average. Those
Americans who are ``not in the labor force'', such as
retirees or homemakers, are twice as likely to use the public
libraries for access.
(5) Those earning less than $20,000 who use the Internet
outside the home are twice as likely to get their access
through a public library or community center than those
earning more than $20,000.
(6) Minorities are more likely users of the Internet and
pursue online courses and school research at even higher
rates outside the home (50.3 percent for Hispanics, 47.0
percent for American Indians/Eskimos/Aleuts, and 46.3 percent
for African Americans).
(7) Among all Americans, 17.0 percent use the Internet at
some site outside the home.
[[Page S1817]]
Many Americans who obtain Internet access outside the home
rely on such places as public libraries (8.2 percent) and
community centers (0.6 percent).
SEC. 3. ENHANCED DEDUCTION FOR CORPORATE DONATIONS OF
COMPUTER TECHNOLOGY TO PUBLIC LIBRARIES AND
COMMUNITY CENTERS.
(a) Expansion of Computer Technology Donations to Public
Libraries and Community Centers.--
(1) In general.--Paragraph (6) of section 170(e) of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to special rule for
contributions of computer technology and equipment for
elementary or secondary school purposes) is amended by
striking ``qualified elementary or secondary educational
contribution'' each place it occurs in the headings and text
and inserting ``qualified computer contribution''.
(2) Expansion of eligible donees.--Subclause (II) of
section 170(e)(6)(B)(i) of such Code (relating to qualified
elementary or secondary educational contribution) is amended
by striking ``or'' at the end of subclause (I) and by
inserting after subclause (II) the following new subclauses:
``(III) a public library (within the meaning of section
213(2)(A) of the Library Services and Technology Act (20
U.S.C. 9122(2)(A)), as in effect on the date of the enactment
of the Community Technology Assistance Act, established and
maintained by an entity described in subsection (c)(1), or
``(IV) a nonprofit or governmental community center,
including any center within which an after-school or
employment training program is operated,''.
(b) Conforming Amendments.--
(1) Section 170(e)(6)((B)(iv) of the Internal Revenue Code
of 1986 is amended by striking ``in any grades K-12''.
(2) The heading of paragraph (6) of section 170(e) of such
Code is amended by striking ``elementary or secondary school
purposes'' and inserting ``educational purposes''.
(c) Extension of Deduction.--Section 170(e)(6)(F) of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to termination) is
amended by striking ``December 31, 2000'' and inserting
``December 31, 2005''.
(d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to contributions made after December 31, 2000.
______
By Mr. SHELBY:
S. 2304. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to phase
out the taxation of Social Security benefits; to the Committee on
Finance.
older americans tax fairness act
Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Older
Americans Tax Fairness Act. This legislation would eliminate--yes,
eliminate--the unfair tax on Social Security benefits in this country.
Last week, this body, the Senate, took a historic step toward giving
senior citizens more financial freedom and retirement security by
passing legislation to repeal the earnings limit on Social Security
benefits. We seized an opportunity to allow seniors to continue to work
and contribute their skills and knowledge to the most vibrant economy
in recent memory.
While the U.S. economy is currently reporting the lowest unemployment
number in years, employers are finding that labor is difficult to come
by and they are searching for ways to address this challenge.
Increasingly, they are turning to senior citizens to fill the void.
However, many seniors are finding that while they may want to work to
better their standard of living or have to work to make ends meet, they
are being hit by an additional tax burden, one that taxes their Social
Security benefits--their retirement security, in other words--such that
working, in many cases, is not financially beneficial to them.
When the Social Security program was first established by Congress,
Congress did not intend for benefits to be taxed at all. In fact,
Social Security benefits were exempt from Federal taxes for half a
century. But because of a financial crisis within the program in the
eighties and President Clinton's desire to fund new programs in 1993,
seniors who earn a modest wage now find that anywhere between 50 and 85
percent of their Social Security benefits are taxed in America. This
tax on Social Security benefits is misguided, I believe, and only acts
to penalize hard-working and productive senior members of society. As
workers, these senior citizens are taxed when they earn their money, as
we all know, they are taxed when the Government returns it in the form
of Social Security benefits, and if they are smart enough or lucky
enough to save it to give it to their children or grandchildren, they
will have to pay estate taxes, or a death tax, before anyone sees a
penny, in a lot of cases.
Not only is this essentially double taxation to some of our most
vulnerable citizens, our seniors, it is harmful to many seniors. Many
seniors need to work in order to pay for costly health insurance
premiums, prescription drugs, and other expenses which they incur as
they grow older. For these seniors, working is not a choice, it is a
necessity.
If we eliminate the tax on Social Security benefits in America, most
seniors would have more disposable income to pay for many of these
necessities of life. But rather than helping them, I believe we hurt
them--that is, the seniors--by taxing their Social Security benefits,
lowering their standard of living, and decreasing the amount of
disposable income they have available to them.
What many fail to recognize is, working seniors continue to
contribute to the economy not only in terms of knowledge and added
productivity but by paying taxes on their earnings and paying into the
Social Security trust fund without ever recognizing an additional
benefit.
Clearly, the benefits seniors provide to our economy in terms of
investment, knowledge, and skills far outweigh the minimal costs to the
Treasury of repealing this unjust tax on Social Security.
This tax on Social Security benefits implies the Federal Government
thinks senior citizens have nothing to contribute in the way of
effectiveness, efficiency, experience, or knowledge to the workforce.
You know and I know this is not true.
Senior citizens are our most valuable resource. They can provide
knowledge, insight, and experience to our booming economy. And they do.
We should treat them fairly and allow them to continue to earn and to
save without imposing a discriminatory ``old age tax'' simply because
they want to continue to contribute to society.
Responsible seniors--who plan for their retirement, who save and
invest for the future, and who strive to leave something to future
generations--are finding that it is just not worth it. At a time when
we are trying to encourage savings and investment, it does not make
sense to continue to tax Social Security benefits.
I am today encouraging my colleagues to join me in supporting the
Older Americans Tax Fairness Act to bring additional fairness and
freedom to the lives of millions of our most respected Americans.
Let's repeal the tax on Social Security benefits. Let's make it like
it used to be. It is the right thing for the seniors in America.
______
By Mr. THOMPSON (for himself, Mr. Lieberman, Mr. Voinovich, Mr.
Brownback, and Mr. Roth):
S. 2306. A bill to increase the efficiency and effectiveness of the
Federal Government, and for other purposes; to the Committee on
Governmental Affairs.
Government for the 21st Century Act
Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce the Government
for the 21st Century Act, a bill to establish a commission to bring the
structure and functions of our Government in line with the needs of our
Nation in the new century. This bipartisan legislation was the result
of work done by the Governmental Affairs Committee last Congress and is
virtually identical to S. 2623, 105th Congress. The bill has been
carefully crafted to address not just what our Government should look
like, but the more fundamental question of what it should do.
Clearly, the time has come to take a comprehensive and fresh look at
what the Federal Government does and how it goes about doing it.
Despite these good economic times, polls repeatedly show that Americans
have little trust or confidence in the Federal Government. They want
the Federal Government to work, but they don't think that it does.
Unfortunately, our citizens have ample reason for concern. The
Federal Government of today is a cacophony of agencies and programs,
many of which are directed at the same problems. Much of what
Washington does is inefficient and wasteful. Few would dispute that the
government in Washington cannot do effectively all it is now charged
with doing. When it comes to specifics, however, changing things is
[[Page S1818]]
extremely difficult. Virtually every Federal agency and program has an
entrenched constituency to shield it from scrutiny and fend off
challenges to the status quo. Hence, the familiar axiom that the
closest thing to immortality is a Washington spending program.
Federal agencies and programs have mushroomed over time, evolving in
a largely random manner to respond to the real or perceived needs of
the moment. Consequently, duplication and fragmentation abound. There
is an obvious need to bring some order out of this chaos. As former
Comptroller General Charles Bowsher stated in testimony before the
Senate Governmental Affairs Committee in 1995:
The case for reorganizing the Federal government is an easy
one to make. Many departments and agencies were created in a
different time and in response to problems very different
from today's. Many have accumulated responsibilities beyond
their original purposes. As new challenges arose or new needs
were identified, new programs and responsibilities were added
to departments and agencies with insufficient regard to their
effects on the overall delivery of services to the public.
The situation has not improved since then. Just last month, the
current Comptroller General, David Walker, recited an all too familiar
litany of duplication, waste, mismanagement, and other Federal
performance problems in testimony before the Senate and House Budget
Committees. The GAO ``high-risk list'' of those Federal activities most
vulnerable to fraud, waste, and abuse has grown from 14 problem areas
in 1990 to 26 problem areas today. Only one high-risk problem has been
removed since 1995. Ten of the 14 original high-risk problems are still
on the list today--a full decade later. Likewise, inspectors general
identify much the same critical performance problems in their agencies
year after year. Collectively, these core performance problems cost
Federal taxpayers countless billions of dollars each year in outright
waste. They also exact an incalculable toll on the ability of agencies
to carry out their missions and serve the needs of our citizens.
Of course, meaningful reform of the Federal Government will not come
from simply reshuffling current organizational boxes and redistributing
current programs. We need to conduct a fundamental review of what
Washington does and why. Our Founding Fathers envisioned a government
of defined and limited powers. Imagine their dismay if they knew the
size and scope of the Federal government today. We need to return to
the limited but effective government that the Founders intended. This
means divesting the Federal Government of functions it is not well
suited to perform. However, it also means ensuring that the Federal
Government does a better job of performing those core constitutional
functions for which our citizens must rely on it.
The commission established in the legislation we are introducing
today is a major step in that direction. It will take a hard look at
Federal departments, agencies and programs and ask such questions as:
How can we restructure agencies and programs to improve the
implementation of their statutory missions, eliminate activities not
essential to their statutory missions, and reduce duplication of
activities?
How can we improve management to maximize productivity, effectiveness
and accountability of performance results?
What criteria should we use in determining whether a Federal activity
should be privatized?
Which departments or agencies should be eliminated because their
functions are obsolete, redundant, or could be better performed by
state and local governments or the private sector?
Obviously, these questions involve subjective policy decisions.
However, policy decisions should be the product of honest and open
debate that stems from objective and fact-based analysis. I am
convinced that this analysis can best be provided by an independent,
nonpartisan commission that is removed from the normal pressures of
Washington.
The commission will have many information sources available to it.
The first cycle of implementation of the Government Performance and
Results Act of 1993 will be complete by the end of this month when
agencies submit their first performance reports. The plans and reports
that agencies have submitted under the Results Act, while far from
perfect, should provide a more comprehensive framework for reviewing
Federal missions and performance than we have had before.
I am pleased that Senators Lieberman and Voinovich are joining me in
introducing the bill today, and I thank them for the time and staff
they have devoted to the effort. I look forward to working with them on
this important legislation.
I ask unanimous consent that the Government for the 21st Century Act,
along with a brief summary and section-by-section analysis, be printed
in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
S. 2306
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE AND PURPOSE.
(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Government
for the 21st Century Act''.
(b) Purpose.--
(1) In general.--The purpose of this Act is to reduce the
cost and increase the effectiveness of the Federal Government
by reorganizing departments and agencies, consolidating
redundant activities, streamlining operations, and
decentralizing service delivery in a manner that promotes
economy, efficiency, and accountability in Government
programs. This Act is intended to result in a Federal
Government that--
(A) utilizes a smaller and more effective workforce;
(B) motivates its workforce by providing a better
organizational environment; and
(C) ensures greater access and accountability to the public
in policy formulation and service delivery.
(2) Specific goals.--This Act is intended to achieve the
following goals for improvements in the performance of the
Federal Government by October 1, 2004:
(A) A restructuring of the cabinet and sub-cabinet level
agencies.
(B) A substantial reduction in the costs of administering
Government programs.
(C) A dramatic and noticeable improvement in the timely and
courteous delivery of services to the public.
(D) Responsiveness and customer-service levels comparable
to those achieved in the private sector.
SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.
For purposes of this Act, the term--
(1) ``agency'' includes all Federal departments,
independent agencies, Government-sponsored enterprises, and
Government corporations; and
(2) ``private sector'' means any business, partnership,
association, corporation, educational institution, nonprofit
organization, or individuals.
SEC. 3. THE COMMISSION.
(a) Establishment.--There is established an independent
commission to be known as the Commission on Government
Restructuring and Reform (hereafter in this Act referred to
as the ``Commission'').
(b) Duties.--The Commission shall examine and make
recommendations to reform and restructure the organization
and operations of the executive branch of the Federal
Government to improve economy, efficiency, effectiveness,
consistency, and accountability in Government programs and
services, and shall include and be limited to proposals to--
(1) consolidate or reorganize programs, departments, and
agencies in order to--
(A) improve the effective implementation of their statutory
missions;
(B) eliminate activities not essential to the effective
implementation of statutory missions;
(C) reduce the duplication of activities among agencies; or
(D) reduce layers of organizational hierarchy and personnel
where appropriate to improve the effective implementation of
statutory missions and increase accountability for
performance;
(2) improve and strengthen management capacity in
departments and agencies (including central management
agencies) to maximize productivity, effectiveness, and
accountability;
(3) propose criteria for use by the President and Congress
in evaluating proposals to establish, or to assign a function
to, an executive entity, including a Government corporation
or Government-sponsored enterprise;
(4) define the missions, roles, and responsibilities of any
new, reorganized, or consolidated department or agency
proposed by the Commission;
(5) eliminate the departments or agencies whose missions
and functions have been determined to be--
(A) obsolete, redundant, or complete; or
(B) more effectively performed by other units of government
(including other Federal departments and agencies and State
and local governments) or by the private sector; and
(6) establish criteria for use by the President and
Congress in evaluating proposals to privatize, or to contract
with the private
[[Page S1819]]
sector for the performance of, functions currently
administered by the Federal Government.
(c) Limitations on Commission Recommendations.--The
Commission's recommendations or proposals under this Act may
not provide for or have the effect of--
(1) continuing an agency beyond the period authorized by
law for its existence;
(2) continuing a function beyond the period authorized by
law for its existence;
(3) authorizing an agency to exercise a function which is
not already being performed by any agency;
(4) eliminating the enforcement functions of an agency,
except such functions may be transferred to another executive
department or independent agency; or
(5) adding, deleting, or changing any rule of either House
of Congress.
(d) Appointment.--
(1) Members.--The Commissioners shall be appointed for the
life of the Commission and shall be composed of nine members
of whom--
(A) three shall be appointed by the President of the United
States;
(B) two shall be appointed by the Speaker of the House of
Representatives;
(C) one shall be appointed by the minority Leader of the
House of Representatives;
(D) two shall be appointed by the majority Leader of the
Senate; and
(E) one shall be appointed by the minority Leader of the
Senate.
(2) Consultation required.--The President, the Speaker of
the House of Representatives, the minority leader of the
House of Representatives, the majority leader of the Senate,
and the minority leader of the Senate shall consult among
themselves prior to the appointment of the members of the
Commission in order to achieve, to the maximum extent
possible, fair and equitable representation of various points
of view with respect to the matters to be studied by the
Commission under subsection (b).
(3) Chairman.--At the time the President nominates
individuals for appointment to the Commission the President
shall designate one such individual who shall serve as
Chairman of the Commission.
(4) Membership.--A member of the Commission may be any
citizen of the United States who is not an elected or
appointed Federal public official, a Federal career civil
servant, or a congressional employee.
(5) Conflict of interests.--For purposes of the provisions
of chapter 11 of part I of title 18, United States Code, a
member of the Commission (to whom such provisions would not
otherwise apply except for this paragraph) shall be a special
Government employee.
(6) Date of appointments.--All members of the Commission
shall be appointed within 90 days after the date of enactment
of this Act.
(e) Terms.--Each member shall serve until the termination
of the Commission.
(f) Vacancies.--A vacancy on the Commission shall be filled
in the same manner as was the original appointment.
(g) Meetings.--The Commission shall meet as necessary to
carry out its responsibilities. The Commission may conduct
meetings outside the District of Columbia when necessary.
(h) Pay and Travel Expenses.--
(1) Pay.--
(A) Chairman.--Except for an individual who is chairman of
the Commission and is otherwise a Federal officer or
employee, the chairman shall be paid at a rate equal to the
daily equivalent of the minimum annual rate of basic pay
payable for level III of the Executive Schedule under section
5314 of title 5, United States Code, for each day (including
traveltime) during which the chairman is engaged in the
performance of duties vested in the Commission.
(B) Members.--Except for the chairman who shall be paid as
provided under subparagraph (A), each member of the
Commission who is not a Federal officer or employee shall be
paid at a rate equal to the daily equivalent of the minimum
annual rate of basic pay payable for level IV of the
Executive Schedule under section 5315 of title 5, United
States Code, for each day (including traveltime) during which
the member is engaged in the performance of duties vested in
the Commission.
(2) Travel.--Members of the Commission shall receive travel
expenses, including per diem in lieu of subsistence, in
accordance with sections 5702 and 5703 of title 5, United
States Code.
(i) Director.--
(1) Appointment.--The Chairman of the Commission shall
appoint a Director of the Commission without regard to
section 5311(b) of title 5, United States Code.
(2) Pay.--The Director shall be paid at the rate of basic
pay payable for level IV of the Executive Schedule under
section 5315 of title 5, United States Code.
(j) Staff.--
(1) Appointment.--The Director may, with the approval of
the Commission, appoint and fix the pay of employees of the
Commission without regard to the provisions of title 5,
United States Code, governing appointment in the competitive
service, and any Commission employee may be paid without
regard to the provisions of chapter 51 and subchapter III of
chapter 53 of that title relating to classification and
General Schedule pay rates, except that a Commission employee
may not receive pay in excess of the annual rate of basic pay
payable for level V of the Executive Schedule under section
5316 of title 5, United States Code.
(2) Detail.--
(A) Details from agencies.--Upon request of the Director,
the head of any Federal department or agency may detail any
of the personnel of the department or agency to the
Commission to assist the Commission in carrying out its
duties under this Act.
(B) Details from congress.--Upon request of the Director, a
Member of Congress or an officer who is the head of an office
of the Senate or House of Representatives may detail an
employee of the office or committee of which such Member or
officer is the head to the Commission to assist the
Commission in carrying out its duties under this Act.
(C) Reimbursement.--Any Federal Government employee may be
detailed to the Commission with or without reimbursement, and
such detail shall be without interruption or loss of civil
service status or privilege.
(k) Support.--
(1) Support services.--The Office of Management and Budget
shall provide support services to the Commission.
(2) Assistance.--The Comptroller General of the United
States may provide assistance, including the detailing of
employees, to the Commission in accordance with an agreement
entered into with the Commission.
(l) Other Authority.--The Commission may procure by
contract, to the extent funds are available, the temporary or
intermittent services of experts or consultants pursuant to
section 3109 of title 5, United States Code. The Commission
shall give public notice of any such contract before entering
into such contract.
(m) Application of Federal Advisory Committee Act.--The
Commission shall be subject to the provisions of the Federal
Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.).
(n) Funding.--There are authorized to be appropriated to
the Commission $2,500,000 for fiscal year 2000, and
$5,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2001 through 2003 to
enable the Commission to carry out its duties under this Act.
(o) Termination.--The Commission shall terminate no later
than September 30, 2003.
SEC. 4. PROCEDURES FOR MAKING RECOMMENDATIONS.
(a) Presidential Recommendations.--No later than July 1,
2001, the President may submit to the Commission a report
making recommendations consistent with the criteria under
section 3 (b) and (c). Such a report shall contain a single
legislative proposal (including legislation proposed to be
enacted) to implement those recommendations for which
legislation is necessary or appropriate.
(b) In General.--No later than December 1, 2002, the
Commission shall prepare and submit a single preliminary
report to the President and Congress, which shall include--
(1) a description of the Commission's findings and
recommendations, taking into account any recommendations
submitted by the President to the Commission under subsection
(a); and
(2) reasons for such recommendations.
(c) Commission Votes.--No legislative proposal or
preliminary or final report (including a final report after
disapproval) may be submitted by the Commission to the
President and Congress without the affirmative vote of at
least 6 members.
(d) Department and Agency Cooperation.--All Federal
departments, agencies, and divisions and employees of all
departments, agencies, and divisions shall cooperate fully
with all requests for information from the Commission and
shall respond to any such requests for information
expeditiously, or no later than 15 calendar days or such
other time agreed upon by the requesting and requested
parties.
SEC. 5. PROCEDURE FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF REPORTS.
(a) Preliminary Report and Review Procedure.--Any
preliminary report submitted to the President and Congress
under section 4(b) shall be made immediately available to the
public. During the 60-day period beginning on the date on
which the preliminary report is submitted, the Commission
shall announce and hold public hearings for the purpose of
receiving comments on the reports.
(b) Final Report.--No later than 6 months after the
conclusion of the period for public hearing under subsection
(a), the Commission shall prepare and submit a final report
to the President. Such report shall be made available to the
public on the date of submission to the President. Such
report shall include--
(1) a description of the Commission's findings and
recommendations, including a description of changes made to
the report as a result of public comment on the preliminary
report;
(2) reasons for such recommendations; and
(3) a single legislative proposal (including legislation
proposed to be enacted) to implement those recommendations
for which legislation is necessary or appropriate.
(c) Extension of Final Report.--By affirmative vote
pursuant to section 4(c), the Commission may extend the
deadline under subsection (b) by a period not to exceed 90
days.
(d) Review by the President.--
(1) In general.--
(A) Presidential action.--No later than 30 calendar days
after receipt of a final report under subsection (b), the
President shall approve or disapprove the report.
(B) Presidential inaction.--
[[Page S1820]]
(i) In general.--If the President does not approve or
disapprove the final report within 30 calendar days in
accordance with subparagraph (A), Congress shall consider the
report in accordance with clause (ii).
(ii) Submission.--Subject to clause (i), the Commission
shall submit the final report, without further modification,
to Congress on the date occurring 31 calendar days after the
date on which the Commission submitted the final report to
the President under subsection (b).
(2) Approval.--If the report is approved, the President
shall submit the report to Congress for legislative action
under section 6.
(3) Disapproval.--If the President disapproves a final
report, the President shall report specific issues and
objections, including the reasons for any changes recommended
in the report, to the Commission and Congress.
(4) Final report after disapproval.--The Commission shall
consider any issues or objections raised by the President and
may modify the report based on such issues and objections. No
later than 30 calendar days after receipt of the President's
disapproval under paragraph (3), the Commission shall submit
the final report (as modified if modified) to the President
and to Congress.
SEC. 6. CONGRESSIONAL CONSIDERATION OF REFORM PROPOSALS.
(a) Definitions.--For purposes of this section--
(1) the term ``implementation bill'' means only a bill
which is introduced as provided under subsection (b), and
contains the proposed legislation included in the final
report submitted to the Congress under section 5(d) (1)(B),
(2), or (4), without modification; and
(2) the term ``calendar day'' means a calendar day other
than one on which either House is not in session because of
an adjournment of more than three days to a date certain.
(b) Introduction, Referral, and Report or Discharge.--
(1) Introduction.--On the first calendar day on which both
Houses are in session, on or immediately following the date
on which a final report is submitted to the Congress under
section 5(d) (1)(B), (2), or (4), a single implementation
bill shall be introduced (by request)--
(A) in the Senate by the Majority Leader of the Senate, for
himself and the Minority Leader of the Senate, or by Members
of the Senate designated by the Majority Leader and Minority
Leader of the Senate; and
(B) in the House of Representatives by the Majority Leader
of the House of Representatives, for himself and the Minority
Leader of the House of Representatives, or by Members of the
House of Representatives designated by the Majority Leader
and Minority Leader of the House of Representatives.
(2) Referral.--The implementation bills introduced under
paragraph (1) shall be referred to the appropriate committee
of jurisdiction in the Senate and the appropriate committee
of jurisdiction in the House of Representatives. A committee
to which an implementation bill is referred under this
paragraph may report such bill to the respective House with
amendments proposed to be adopted. No such amendment may be
proposed unless such proposed amendment is relevant to such
bill.
(3) Report or discharge.--If a committee to which an
implementation bill is referred has not reported such bill by
the end of the 30th calendar day after the date of the
introduction of such bill, such committee shall be
immediately discharged from further consideration of such
bill, and upon being reported or discharged from the
committee, such bill shall be placed on the appropriate
calendar.
(c) Senate Consideration.--
(1) In general.--On or after the fifth calendar day after
the date on which an implementation bill is placed on the
Senate calendar under subsection (b)(3), it is in order (even
if a previous motion to the same effect has been disagreed
to) for any Senator to make a motion to proceed to the
consideration of the implementation bill. The motion is not
debatable. All points of order against the implementation
bill (and against consideration of the implementation bill)
other than points of order under Senate Rule 15, 16, or for
failure to comply with requirements of this section are
waived. The motion is not subject to a motion to postpone. A
motion to reconsider the vote by which the motion to proceed
is agreed to or disagreed to shall not be in order. If a
motion to proceed to the consideration of the implementation
bill is agreed to, the Senate shall immediately proceed to
consideration of the implementation bill.
(2) Debate.--In the Senate, no amendment which is not
relevant to the bill shall be in order. A motion to postpone
is not in order. A motion to recommit the implementation bill
is not in order. A motion to reconsider the vote by which the
implementation bill is agreed to or disagreed to is not in
order.
(3) Appeals from chair.--Appeals from the decisions of the
Chair relating to the application of the rules of the Senate
to the procedure relating to an implementation bill shall be
decided without debate.
(d) Consideration in the House of Representatives.--
(1) In general.--At any time on or after the fifth calendar
day after the date on which each committee of the House of
Representatives to which an implementation bill is referred
has reported that bill, or has been discharged under
subsection (b)(3) from further consideration of that bill,
the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 1(b) of rule XXIII,
declare the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole
House on the State of the Union for the consideration of that
bill. All points of order against the bill, the consideration
of the bill, and provisions of the bill shall be waived, and
the first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. After
general debate, which shall be confined to the bill and which
shall not exceed 10 hours, to be equally divided and
controlled by the Majority Leader and the Minority Leader,
the bill shall be considered for amendment by title under the
five-minute rule and each title shall be considered as having
been read.
(2) Amendments.--Each amendment shall be considered as
having been read, shall not be subject to a demand for a
division of the question in the House or in the Committee of
the Whole, and shall be debatable for not to exceed 30
minutes, equally divided and controlled by the proponent and
a Member opposed thereto, except that the time for
consideration, including debate and disposition, of all
amendments to the bill shall not exceed 20 hours.
(3) Final passage.--At the conclusion of the consideration
of the bill, the Committee shall rise and report the bill to
the House with such amendments as may have been agreed to,
and the previous question shall be considered as ordered on
the bill and amendments thereto to final passage without
intervening motion except one motion to recommit.
(e) Conference.--
(1) Appointment of conferees.--In the Senate, a motion to
elect or to authorize the appointment of conferees by the
presiding officer shall not be debatable.
(2) Conference report.--No later than 20 calendar days
after the appointment of conferees, the conferees shall
report to their respective Houses.
(f) Rules of the Senate and House.--This section is enacted
by Congress--
(1) as an exercise of the rulemaking power of the Senate
and House of Representatives, respectively, and as such it is
deemed a part of the rules of each House, respectively, but
applicable only with respect to the procedure to be followed
in that House in the case of an implementation bill described
in subsection (a), and it supersedes other rules only to the
extent that it is inconsistent with such rules; and
(2) with full recognition of the constitutional right of
either House to change the rules (so far as relating to the
procedure of that House) at any time, in the same manner, and
to the same extent as in the case of any other rule of that
House.
SEC. 7. IMPLEMENTATION.
(a) Responsibility for Implementation.--The Director of the
Office of Management and Budget shall have primary
responsibility for implementation of the Commission's report
and the Act enacted under section 6 (unless such Act provides
otherwise). The Director of the Office of Management and
Budget shall notify and provide direction to heads of
affected departments, agencies, and programs. The head of an
affected department, agency, or program shall be responsible
for implementation and shall proceed with the recommendations
contained in the report as provided under subsection (b).
(b) Departments and Agencies.--After the enactment of an
Act under section 6, each affected Federal department and
agency as a part of its annual budget request shall transmit
to the appropriate committees of Congress its schedule for
implementation of the provisions of the Act for each fiscal
year. In addition, the report shall contain an estimate of
the total expenditures required and the cost savings to be
achieved by each action, along with the Secretary's
assessment of the effect of the action. The report shall also
include a report of any activities that have been eliminated,
consolidated, or transferred to other departments or
agencies.
(c) GAO Oversight.--The Comptroller General shall
periodically report to Congress and the President regarding
the accomplishment, the costs, the timetable, and the
effectiveness of the implementation of any Act enacted under
section 6.
SEC. 8. DISTRIBUTION OF ASSETS.
Any proceeds from the sale of assets of any department or
agency resulting from the enactment of an Act under section 6
shall be--
(1) applied to reduce the Federal deficit; and
(2) deposited in the Treasury and treated as general
receipts.
____
Government for the 21st Century Act--Brief Summary
This legislation will reduce the cost and increase the
effectiveness of the Federal government. It achieves this by
establishing a commission to submit to Congress and the
President a plan to bring the structure and operations of the
Federal government in line with the needs of Americans in the
new century.
Duties of the Commission: The Commission is authorized
under this legislation to propose the reorganization of
Federal departments and agencies, the elimination of
activities not essential to fulfilling agency missions, the
streamlining of government operations, and the consolidation
of redundant activities.
The Commission would not be authorized to continue any
agency or function beyond its current life, authorize
functions not performed already by the Federal government,
eliminate enforcement functions, or change the rules of
Congress.
[[Page S1821]]
Composition of the Commission: The Commission would consist
of 9 members appointed by the President and the Congressional
leadership of both parties.
How the Commission works: The process established in this
legislation is bipartisan, allows input by the President, and
is fully open and public.
The Commission report: By July 1, 2001, the President may
submit his recommendations to the Commission. By December 1,
2002, the Commission shall submit to the President and
Congress a preliminary report containing recommendations on
restructuring the Federal Government. After a public comment
period, the Commission shall prepare a final report and
submit it to the President for review and comment.
Presidential review and comment: The President has 30 days
to approve or disapprove the Commission's report. The
Commission decides whether or not to modify its report based
on the President's comments, and shall issue a final report
to Congress.
Congressional consideration: The final report shall be
introduced in both Houses by request and referred to the
appropriate committee(s). After 30 days, the bills may be
considered by the full House and Senate and are subject to
amendment.
Implementation: Once legislation effecting the Commission's
recommendations is enacted, the Office of Management and
Budget shall be responsible for implementing it. The General
Accounting Office shall report to Congress on the progress of
implementation.
____
Government for the 21st Century Act--Section-by-Section Analysis
seciton 1. short title and purpose
This act may be cited as the ``Government for the 21st
Century Act.'' Its purpose is to reduce the cost and increase
the effectiveness of the Executive Branch. It achieves this
by creating a commission to propose to Congress and the
President a plan to reorganize departments and agencies,
consolidate redundant activities, streamline operations, and
decentralize service delivery in a manner that promotes
economy, efficiency, and accountability in government
programs.
section 2. definitions
This section defines ``agency'' to include all Federal
departments, independent agencies, government-sponsored
enterprises and government corporations, and defines
``private sector'' as any business, partnership, association,
corporation, educational institution, nonprofit organization,
or individual.
section 3. the commission
This section establishes a commission, known as the
Commission on Government Restructuring and Reform, to make
recommendations to reform and restructure the Executive
Branch. The Commission shall make proposals to consolidate,
reorganize or eliminate Executive Branch agencies and
programs in order to improve effectiveness, efficiency,
consistency and accountability in government. The Commission
shall also recommend criteria by which to determine which
functions of government should be privatized. The Commission
may not propose to continue agencies or functions beyond
their current legal authorization, nor may the Commission
propose to eliminate enforcement functions entirely or change
the rules of either House of Congress.
The Commission shall be composed of 9 members appointed as
follows: Three by the President, two by the Majority Leader
of the Senate, two by the Speaker of the House of
Representatives, and one each by the Minority Leaders of the
Senate and House.
The Commission shall be managed by a Director and shall
have a staff, which may include detailees. The Office of
Management and Budget shall provide support services and the
Comptroller General may provide assistance to the Commission.
This section authorizes $2.5 million to be appropriated in
fiscal year 2000 and $5 million each for fiscal years 2001
through 2003 for the Commission to carry out its duties. It
also provides that the Commission shall terminate no later
than September 30, 2003.
section 4. procedures for making recommendations
By July 1, 2001, the President may submit his
recommendations on government reorganization to the
Commission. The President's recommendations must be
consistent with the duties and limitations given to the
Commission in formulating its recommendations and must be
transmitted to the Commission as a single legislative
proposal.
By December 1, 2002, the commission shall prepare and
submit a single preliminary report to the President and
Congress. That report must include a description of the
Commission's findings and recommendations and the reasons for
such recommendations. The proposal must be approved by at
lest 6 members of the Commission.
This section also provides that all Federal departments and
agencies must cooperate fully with requests for information
from the Commission.
section 5. procedures for implementation of reports
This section provides that any preliminary report submitted
to the President and the Congress under section 4 be made
available immediately to the public. During the 60-day period
after the submission of the preliminary report, the
Commission shall hold public hearings to receive comments on
the report.
Six months after the conclusion of the period for public
comments, the Commission shall submit a final report to the
President. this report shall be made a available to the
public and shall include a description of the Commission's
findings and recommendations, the reasons for such
recommendations, and a single legislative proposal to
implement the recommendations.
The President shall then approve or disapprove the report
within 30 days. If he fails to act after 30 days, the report
is immediately submitted to Congress. If the President
approves the report, he then shall submit the report to
Congress for legislative action under section 6.
If he disapproves the final report, the President shall
report specific issues and objections, including the reasons
for any changes recommended in the report, to the Commission
and Congress. For 30 days after the President disapproves a
report, the Commission may consider any issues and objections
raised by the President and may modify the report with
respect to these issues and objections. After 30 days, the
Commission must submit its final report (as modified if
modified) to the President and Congress.
section 6. congressional consideration of reform proposals
After a final report is submitted to the Congress, single
implementation bill shall be introduced by request in the
House and Senate by the Majority and Minority Leaders in each
chamber or their designees.
This section stipulates that the implementation bill be
referred to the appropriate committee of jurisdiction in the
House and Senate. Each committee must report the bill to its
respective House chamber within 30 days, with relevant
amendments proposed to be adopted. If a committee fails to
report such a bill within 30 days, that committee is
immediately discharged from further consideration and the
bill is placed on the appropriate calendar.
Section 6(c) outlines procedures for Senate floor
consideration of legislation implementing the Commission's
recommendations. On or after the fifth calendar day after the
date on which the implementation bill is placed on the Senate
calendar, any Senator may make a privileged motion to
consider the implementation bill. Only relevant amendments
shall be in order, and motions to postpone, recommit, or
reconsider the vote by which the bill is agreed to are not in
order.
Section 6(d) outlines procedures for House floor
consideration of legislation implementing the Commission's
recommendations. General debate on the implementation bill is
limited to 10 hours equally divided, and controlled by the
Majority and Minority Leaders. Amendments shall be considered
by title under the five minute rule, and shall be debatable
for 30 minutes equally divided. Debate on all amendments
shall not exceed 20 hours.
This section further states that within 20 calendar days,
conferees shall report to their respective House.
section 7. implementation
The Office of Management and Budget shall have primary
responsibility for implementing the Commission's report and
any legislation that is enacted, unless otherwise specified
in the implementation bill.
Federal departments and agencies are required to include a
schedule for implementation of the provisions of the
implementation legislation as a part of their annual budget
request.
GAO is given oversight responsibility and is required to
report to the Congress and the President regarding the
accomplishments, costs, timetable, and effectiveness of the
implementation process.
section 8. distribution of assets
Any proceeds from the sale of assets of any department or
agency resulting from the implementation legislation shall be
deposited in the treasury and treated as general receipts.
Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with Senators
Thompson, Voinovich, Brownback and Roth today to introduce the
Government for the 21st Century Act. This bill provides an opportunity
to address the challenges our government will face in the new
millennium. Our country is undergoing rapid changes--changes brought
about by technological advancements, by our expanding and increasingly
global economy, and by the new and more diverse threats to our nation
and our world. It is essential for our government to be prepared to
respond effectively to these challenges.
We should take the opportunity now to rethink the structure of our
government to be sure it can meet the needs of our citizens in the
years to come. The Commission that will be established under this bill
will have a critical task--to study the current shape of our government
and to make recommendations about how we can improve its efficiency and
effectiveness, streamline its operations, and eliminate unnecessary
duplication.
I view the bill we are introducing today as a discussion draft. Our
goal is to hear from a wide range of experts on government and
management. I look
[[Page S1822]]
forward to reviewing new ideas that will enhance the value of the
Commission's work. For example, I intend to recommend that the
Commission focuses on the enormous potential benefit of ``E-
government.'' The Commission should consider how government can be
restructured to promote the innovative use of information technology.
American citizens increasingly expect services and information to be
provided electronically through Internet-based technology. While the
federal government is working to take advantage of the opportunities
technology presents to do its job better, more needs to be done to
fully integrate these capabilities and to offer services and
information to Americans in a more accessible and cost-effective way.
I look forward to working with Senators Thompson, Brownback, Roth and
Voinovich on this important legislation.
______
By Mr. DORGAN (for himself, Mr. Daschle, Mr. Baucus, Mr. Johnson,
and Mr. Harkin):
S. 2307. A bill to amend the Communications Act of 1934 to encourage
broadband deployment to rural America, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
rural broadband enhancement act
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, today I am, along with Senator Daschle,
Senator Baucus and Senator Johnson, introducing the Rural Broadband
Enhancement Act to deploy broadband technology to rural America. As the
demand for high speed Internet access grows, numerous companies are
responding in areas of dense population. While urban America is quickly
gaining high speed access, rural America is--once again--being left
behind. Ensuring that all Americans have the technological capability
is essential in this digital age. It is not only an issue of fairness,
but it is also an issue of economic survival.
To remedy the gap between urban and rural America, this legislation
gives new authority to the Rural Utilities Service to make low interest
loans to companies that are deploying broadband technology to rural
America. Loans are made on a company neutral and a technology neutral
basis so that companies that want to serve these areas can do so by
employing technology that is best suited to a particular area. Without
this program, market forces will pass by much of America, and that is
unacceptable.
This issue is not a new one. When we were faced with electrifying all
of the country, we enacted the Rural Electrification Act. When
telephone service was only being provided to well-populated
communities, we expanded the Rural Electrification Act and created the
Rural Utilities Service to oversee rural telephone deployment. The
equitable deployment of broadband services is only the next step in
keeping America connected, and our legislation would ensure that.
If we fail to act, rural America will be left behind once again. As
the economy moves further and further towards online transactions and
communications, rural America must be able to participate.
Historically, our economy has been defined by geography, and we in
Congress were powerless to do anything about it. Where there were
ports, towns and businesses got their start. Where there were railroad
tracks, towns and businesses grew up around them. The highway system
brought the same evolution.
But the Internet is changing all of that. No longer must economic
growth be defined by geographic fiat. Telecommunications industries and
policy-makers are proclaiming, ``Distance is dead!'' But, that's not
quite right: Distance will be dead, as long as Congress ensures that
broadband services are available to all parts of America, urban and
rural.
I look forward to working with Senator Daschle, Senator Baucus,
Senator Johnson and my other colleagues in the Senate to pass this
legislation and give rural America a fair chance to survive.
______
By Mr. MOYNIHAN (for himself, Mr. Graham, and Mrs. Feinstein):
S. 2308. A bill to amend title XIX of the Social Security Act to
assure preservation of safety net hospitals through maintenance of the
Medicaid disproportionate share hospital program; to the Committee on
Finance.
the medicaid safety net hospital act of 2000
Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, today, I join with my colleagues,
Senators Graham and Feinstein, in introducing legislation to ensure
that our safety net hospitals continue to be able to care for the poor
and the uninsured.
The Medicaid Disproportionate Share Hospital (DSH) program provides
vital funding to safety net hospitals that primarily serve Medicaid and
uninsured patients. The Balanced Budget Act of 1997 placed declining
state-specified ceilings on federal Medicaid DSH spending from 1998-
2002. In 2003, the limits will begin to be adjusted upwards for
inflation. The Medicaid Safety Net Hospital Act of 2000 would freeze
the state-specific caps at this year's limits (thereby preventing
further declines in the limits) and adjust them for inflation beginning
in 2002.
It is essential to provide much-needed support to our safety net
hospitals. The number of uninsured in the United States increases every
year, in part because of declining Medicaid enrollment as a result of
welfare reform. There are now 44 million Americans without health
insurance who have no choice but to turn to the emergency rooms of
safety net hospitals for care. Yet, even as demands on safety net
hospitals increase, DSH spending per State is being further reduced.
The Medicaid Safety Net Hospital Act of 2000 would maintain significant
savings achieved by prior reductions but would protect safety net
hospitals from further DSH cuts. As a result, hospitals would have
access to the financing they need for achieving their social mission.
Mr. President, Congress should act now to preserve the financial
ability of our safety net hospitals to provide health care to the poor
and uninsured/
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. 2308
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 ``Medicaid Safety Net Hospital
Act of 2000''.
SEC. 2. FREEZING MEDICAID DSH ALLOTMENTS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2001
AT LEVELS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2000.
Section 1923(f) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C.
1396r-4(f)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (2)--
(A) in the heading, by striking ``2002'' and inserting
``2001'';
(B) in the matter preceding the table, by striking ``2002''
and inserting ``2001 (and the DSH allotment for a State for
fiscal year 2001 is the same as the DSH allotment for the
State for fiscal year 2000, as determined under the following
table)''; and
(C) by striking the columns in the table relating to FY 01
and FY 02 (fiscal years 2001 and 2002); and
(2) in paragraph (3)--
(A) in the heading, by striking ``2003'' and inserting
``2002''; and
(B) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``2003'' and inserting
``2002''.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the
Medicaid Safety Net Hospital Act of 2000, a bill that would freeze
Medicaid Disproportionate Share Hospital (DSH) payments to hospitals at
their 2000 level for Fiscal Year 2001 and 2002. I hope the Senate can
act promptly on this bill.
The number of people in our nation who have no medical insurance has
hit some 44 million. This is tragic. More than 100,000 people join the
ranks of the uninsured monthly. We cannot continue to reduce payments
to hospitals that provide care for the uninsured. We cannot balance the
budget on the backs of poor people who show up at emergency rooms with
no insurance or on the backs of the hospitals that tend to them.
California bears a disproportionate burden of uncompensated care.
Twenty-four percent of our population is uninsured. Nationwide, the
rate is 17 percent. Currently, over 7 million Californians are
uninsured. During the past few months, I have met with many California
health care leaders. They fear that the Medicaid cuts contained in the
Balanced Budget Act of 1997 have undermined the financial stability of
California's health care system, which many believe to be on the verge
of collapse.
As a result of Medicaid reductions in the Balanced Budget Act of
1997, California's Medicaid Disproportionate
[[Page S1823]]
Share Hospital program could lose more than $280 million by 2002.
Federal Medicaid DSH payments to California have declined by more than
$116 million in the past two years and are slated to be cut by an
additional $164 million--17 percent--over the next two years.
Without this bill, for example, by Fiscal Year 2002 Los Angeles
County- University of Southern California Medical Center will lose
$13.5 million. San Francisco General will lose $5.2 million. Fresno
Community Hospital will lose $10.5 million. Over 132 California
hospitals, representing rural and urban communities, depend on Medicaid
DSH payments. Under this bill, millions of dollars will be restored to
California public hospitals.
Public hospitals carry a disproportionate share of caring for the
poor and uninsured. Forty percent of all California uninsured hospital
patients were treated at public hospitals in 1998, up from 32 percent
in 1993. The uninsured as a share of all discharges from public
hospitals grew from 22 percent in 1993 to 29 percent in 1998. While
overall public hospital discharges declined from 1993 to 1999 by 15
percent, discharges for uninsured patients increased by 11 percent.
Large numbers of uninsured add huge uncompensated costs to our public
hospitals.
The uninsured often choose public hospitals and frequently wait until
their illnesses or injuries require emergency treatment. This makes
their care even more costly. California's emergency rooms are strained
to the breaking point. Last week at a California State Senate hearing,
Dr. Dan Abbott, an emergency room physician at St. Jude Hospital in
Fullerton, California said: ``We feel that emergency care in California
is overwhelmed, it's underfunded and at times, frankly, it is out-and-
out dangerous.'' Statewide, 19 emergency rooms have closed since 1997
despite an increase in the number of uninsured requiring care. The
burden to provide care is put on those hospitals who have managed to
remain open, and many of those hospitals are currently facing financial
problems of their own.
California's health care system, in the words of a November 15th Wall
Street Journal article, is a ``chaotic and discombobulated
environment.'' It is stretched to the limit:
Thirty-seven California hospitals have closed since 1996, and up to
15 percent more may close by 2005.
Earlier this month, Scripps Memorial Hospital East County closed its
doors due in part to reimbursement problems.
Eighty-six California hospitals operated in the red in 1999.
Academic medical centers, which incur added costs unique to their
mission, are facing margins reduced to zero and below.
Sixty-two percent of California hospitals are now losing money. Due
to the large number of Medicare and Medicaid patients, sixty-nine
percent of California's rural hospitals lost money in 1998, according
to the California Healthcare Association.
Hospitals have laid off staff, limited hours of operation, and
discontinued services.
California physician groups are failing at the rate of one a week,
with 115 bankruptcies or closures since 1996.
In short, restoring Medicaid cuts is crucial to stabilizing
California's health delivery system.
Circumstances have changed since 1997 when we passed the Balanced
Budget Act. We have eliminated the federal deficit. Because we have a
robust economy, lower inflation, higher GDP growth and lower
unemployment, we also have lowered Medicaid spending growth more than
anticipated. This climate provides us an opportunity to revisit the
reductions contained in the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 and to
strengthen the stability of health care services, a system that in my
State is on the verge of unraveling.
We need to pass this bill. Without it, we could have a more severe
health care crisis on our hands, especially in California. I urge my
colleagues to join me in passing this bill.
______
By Mr. DASCHLE:
S. 2309. A bill to establish a commission to assess the performance
of the civil works function of the Secretary of the Army; to the
Committee on Environment and Public Works.
Corps of Engineers Civil Works Independent Investigation and Review Act
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, over the last couple of months the
Washington Post has published a number of very troubling articles about
the operations of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
These stories expose the existence of independent agendas within the
Corps. They suggest cost-benefit analyses rigged to justify billion
dollar projects; disregard for environmental laws, and a pattern of
catering to special interests.
The actions described in the Post articles raise serious questions
about the accountability of the Corps. And they present a compelling
case for a thorough review of the agency's operations and management.
And it is not only the Post articles that cause me to believe this.
The Corps' current effort to update the Missouri River Master Control
Manual--the policy document that governs the Corps' management of the
river from Montana to Missouri--illustrates not only that the Corps can
be indifferent to the environment. Too often, it actually erects
institutional barriers that make achieving certain critical ecological
goals difficult or impossible.
This ought to be a concern to all Americans. It is a deep concern to
South Dakotans. The Missouri runs down the center of our state and is a
major source of income, recreation and pride for us.
More than 40 years ago, the Corps built dams up and down the Missouri
River in order to harness hydroelectric power. In return, it promised
to manage the river wisely and efficiently.
That promise has not been kept.
Silt has built up, choking the river in several spots.
In recent years, studies have been done to determine how to restore
the river to health. An overwhelming amount of scientific and technical
data all point to the same conclusion.
The flow of the river should more closely mimic nature. Flows should
be higher in the spring, and lower in the summer--just as they are in
nature.
Yet the Corps proposes to continue doing largely what it has been
doing all these years--knowing the consequences, knowing exactly what
the practices have produced now for the last 50-plus years.
The agency's refusal to change will further jeopardize endangered
species. And, it will continue to erode the recreational value of the
river, which is 12 times more important to the economy than its
navigational value.
Why does the Corps insist--despite all the evidence--on this course?
It does it to protect the barge industry--a $7 million-a-year
industry that American taxpayers already spend $8 million a year to
support. $8 million. That's how much American taxpayers pay each year
for channel maintenance, to accommodate the barge industry.
The Washington Post suggests that the Corps handling of the Missouri
River Master Manual is not an isolated case.
The Post articles contain allegations by a Corps whistleblower who
says that a study of proposed upper-Mississippi lock expansions was
rigged to provide an economic justification for that billion-dollar
project.
In response to these allegations, the Corps' own Office of Special
Counsel concluded that the agency--quote-- ``probably broke laws and
engaged in a gross waste of funds.''
In my own dealings with the Corps of Engineers, I too have
experienced the institutional problems recorded so starkly in the Post
series.
In South Dakota, where the Corps operates four hydroelectric dams, we
have fought for more than 40 years to force the agency to meet its
responsibilities under the 1958 Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act and
mitigate the loss of wildlife habitat resulting from the construction
of those dams.
For 40 years, the Corps has failed to meet those responsibilities.
That is why I have worked closely with the Governor of my state, Bill
Janklow, and with many other South Dakotans, to come up with a plan to
transfer of Corps lands back to the state of South Dakota and two
Indian tribes.
Unfortunately, instead of attempting to work with us, the Corps is
fighting us.
[[Page S1824]]
The litany of excuses, scare tactics and misinformation the Corps
employed to try to defeat our proposal is outrageous. It appears Corps
officials are not nearly as concerned with preserving the river as they
are with preserving their own bureaucracy.
After the legislation was enacted, the Chief of the Engineers,
General Joseph Ballard continued to resist its implementation. In fact,
my own experiences with the Corps, and the experiences of other
members, repeatedly demonstrates General Ballard's unwillingness to
follow civilian direction and ensure the faithful implementation of the
law.
When considered in the context of the litany of problems that have
come to light in the Post series, Congress has no choice but to
consider seriously moving the responsibilities of the Corps from the
Army and placing them within the Department of the Interior. Too much
power now is concentrated in the hands of the Chief of the Engineers,
and that power too often has been abused.
General Ballard's lack of responsiveness to the law, to meeting
environmental objectives and to civilian direction, has serious
consequences for individual projects.
Beyond that, it raises very troubling questions about the lack of
meaningful civilian control over this federal agency.
In a democracy, institutions of government must be held accountable.
That is the job of Congress--to hold them responsible.
The existence of separate agendas within the Corps bureaucracy cannot
be tolerated if our democracy is to succeed in representing the will of
the people. Its elected representatives and the civil servants
appointed by them must maintain control of the apparatus of government.
Moreover, contempt for environmental laws and self-serving economic
analyses simply cannot be tolerated if Congress is to make well-
informed decisions regarding the authorization of expensive projects,
and if the American taxpayer is to be assured that federal monies are
being spent wisely.
The Corps of Engineers provides a valuable national service. It
constructs and manages needed projects throughout the country.
The size and scope of the biannual Water Resources Development Act is
clear evidence of the importance of the Corps' civil works mission.
Because the Corps' work is so critical, it is essential that steps be
taken immediately to determine the extent of the problems within the
agency--and to design meaningful and lasting reforms to correct them.
Our nation needs a civil works program we can depend on. We need a
Corps of Engineers that conducts credible analysis.
We need a Corps that balances economic development and environmental
protection as required by its mandate--not one that ignores
environmental laws as it chooses.
History does not offer much room for confidence that the Army Corps
of Engineers can meet these standards under its current management
structure. Therefore, I am introducing legislation today to establish
an independent Corps of Engineers Investigation and Review Commission.
The commission will take a hard and systemic look at the agency and
make recommendations to Congress on needed reforms.
It will examine a number of issues, including:
The effectiveness of civilian control in the Corps, particularly the
effectiveness of the relationship between uniformed officers and the
Assistant Secretary for civil works with regard to responsiveness,
lines of authority, and coordination;
The Corps' compliance with environmental laws--including the Fish and
Wildlife Coordination Act, the Endangered Species Act and NEPA--in the
design and operation of projects;
The quality and objectivity of the agency's scientific and economic
analysis;
The extent to which the Corps coordinates and cooperates with other
state and federal agencies in designing and implementing projects;
The appropriateness of the agency's size, budget and personnel; and
Whether the civil works program should be transferred from
the Corps to a civilian agency, and whether certain
responsibilities should be privatized.
Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to review this legislation.
It is my hope that all those who care about the integrity of the Army
Corps of Engineers and its mission will support this effort to identify
and implement whatever reforms are necessary to rebuild public support
for its work.
I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the legislation be
printed in the Congressional Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 2309
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 ``Corps of Engineers Civil
Works Independent Investigation and Review Act''.
SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.
In this Act:
(1) Commission.--The term ``Commission'' means the Corps of
Engineers Civil Works Independent Investigation and Review
Commission established under section 3(a).
(2) Session day.--The term ``session day'' means a day on
which both Houses of Congress are in session.
SEC. 3. ESTABLISHMENT OF COMMISSION.
(a) In General.--As soon as practicable after the date of
enactment of this Act, the President shall establish a
commission to be known as the ``Corps of Engineers Civil
Works Independent Investigation and Review Commission''.
(b) Membership.--
(1) In general.--The Commission shall be composed of not to
exceed 18 members, and shall include--
(A) individuals appointed by the President to represent--
(i) the Department of the Army;
(ii) the Department of the Interior;
(iii) the Department of Justice;
(iv) environmental interests;
(v) hydropower interests;
(vi) flood control interests;
(vii) recreational interests;
(viii) navigation interests;
(ix) the Council on Environmental Quality; and
(x) such other affected interests as are determined by the
President to be appropriate; and
(B) 6 governors from States representing different regions
of the United States, as determined by the President.
(2) Date of appointments.--The appointment of a member of
the Commission shall be made not later than 180 days after
the date of enactment of this Act.
(c) Term; Vacancies.--
(1) Term.--A member shall be appointed for the life of the
Commission.
(2) Vacancies.--A vacancy on the Commission--
(A) shall not affect the powers of the Commission; and
(B) shall be filled in the same manner as the original
appointment was made.
(d) Initial Meeting.--Not later than 30 days after the date
on which all members of the Commission have been appointed,
the Commission shall hold the initial meeting of the
Commission.
(e) Meetings.--The Commission shall meet at the call of the
Chairperson.
(f) Quorum.--A majority of the members of the Commission
shall constitute a quorum, but a lesser number of members may
hold hearings.
(g) Chairperson and Vice Chairperson.--
(1) In general.--The President shall select a Chairperson
and Vice Chairperson from among the members of the
Commission.
(2) No corps representative.--The Chairperson and the Vice
Chairperson shall not be representatives of the Department of
the Army (including the Corps of Engineers).
SEC. 4. INVESTIGATION OF CORPS OF ENGINEERS.
Not later than 2 years after the date of enactment of this
Act, the Commission shall complete an investigation and
submit to Congress a report on the Corps of Engineers, with
emphasis on--
(1) the effectiveness of civilian control over the civil
works functions of the Corps of Engineers, particularly the
effectiveness of the relationship between uniformed officers
and the office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army for
Civil Works with respect to--
(A) responsiveness;
(B) lines of authority; and
(C) coordination;
(2) compliance through the civil works functions of the
Corps of Engineers with environmental laws in the design and
operation of projects, including--
(A) the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (16 U.S.C. 661
et seq.);
(B) the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et
seq.); and
(C) the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42
U.S.C. 4321 et seq.);
(3) the quality and objectivity of scientific,
environmental, and economic analyses by the Corps of
Engineers, including the use of independent reviewers of
analyses performed by the Corps;
(4) the extent of coordination and cooperation by the Corps
of Engineers with other Federal and State agencies in
designing and implementing projects;
[[Page S1825]]
(5) whether the size of the Corps of Engineers is
appropriate, including the size of the budget and personnel
of the Corps;
(6) whether the management structure of the Corps of
Engineers should be changed, and, if so, how the management
structure should be changed;
(7) whether any of the civil works functions of the Corps
of Engineers should be transferred from the Department of the
Army to a civilian agency or should be privatized;
(8) whether any segments of the inland water system should
be closed;
(9) whether any planning regulations of the Corps of
Engineers should be revised to give equal consideration to
economic and environmental goals of a project;
(10) whether any currently-authorized projects should be
deauthorized;
(11) whether all studies conducted by the Corps of
Engineers should be subject to independent review; and
(12) the extent to which the benefits of proposed
projects--
(A) exceed the costs of the projects; or
(B) accrue to private interests.
SEC. 5. POWERS.
(a) Hearings.--The Commission may hold such hearings, sit
and act at such times and places, take such testimony, and
receive such evidence as the Commission considers advisable
to carry out this Act.
(b) Information From Federal Agencies.--
(1) In general.--The Commission may secure directly from a
Federal department or agency such information as the
Commission considers necessary to carry out this Act.
(2) Provision of information.--On request of the
Chairperson of the Commission, the head of the department or
agency shall provide the information to the Commission.
(c) Postal Services.--The Commission may use the United
States mails in the same manner and under the same conditions
as other departments and agencies of the Federal Government.
(d) Gifts.--The Commission may accept, use, and dispose of
gifts or donations of services or personal property.
SEC. 6. COMMISSION PERSONNEL MATTERS.
(a) Compensation of Members.--
(1) Non-federal employees.--A member of the Commission who
is not an officer or employee of the Federal Government shall
be compensated at a rate equal to the daily equivalent of the
annual rate of basic pay prescribed for level IV of the
Executive Schedule under section 5315 of title 5, United
States Code, for each day (including travel time) during
which the member is engaged in the performance of the duties
of the Commission.
(2) Federal employees.--A member of the Commission who is
an officer or employee of the Federal Government shall serve
without compensation in addition to the compensation received
for the services of the member as an officer or employee of
the Federal Government.
(b) Travel Expenses.--A member of the Commission shall be
allowed travel expenses, including per diem in lieu of
subsistence, at rates authorized for an employee of an agency
under subchapter I of chapter 57 of title 5, United States
Code, while away from the home or regular place of business
of the member in the performance of the duties of the
Commission.
(c) Staff.--
(1) In general.--The Chairperson of the Commission may,
without regard to the civil service laws (including
regulations), appoint and terminate an executive director and
such other additional personnel as are necessary to enable
the Commission to perform the duties of the Commission.
(2) Confirmation of executive director.--The employment of
an executive director shall be subject to confirmation by the
Commission.
(3) Compensation.--
(A) In general.--Except as provided in subparagraph (B),
the Chairperson of the Commission may fix the compensation of
the executive director and other personnel without regard to
the provisions of chapter 51 and subchapter III of chapter 53
of title 5, United States Code, relating to classification of
positions and General Schedule pay rates.
(B) Maximum rate of pay.--The rate of pay for the executive
director and other personnel may not exceed the rate payable
for level V of the Executive Schedule under section 5316 of
title 5, United States Code.
(d) Detail of Federal Government Employees.--
(1) In general.--An employee of the Federal Government may
be detailed to the Commission without reimbursement.
(2) Civil service status.--The detail of the employee shall
be without interruption or loss of civil service status or
privilege.
(e) Procurement of Temporary and Intermittent Services.--
The Chairperson of the Commission may procure temporary and
intermittent services in accordance with section 3109(b) of
title 5, United States Code, at rates for individuals that do
not exceed the daily equivalent of the annual rate of basic
pay prescribed for level V of the Executive Schedule under
section 5316 of that title.
SEC. 7. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
There is authorized to be appropriated to carry out this
Act $10,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2001 through 2003,
to remain available until expended.
SEC. 8. TERMINATION OF COMMISSION.
The Commission shall terminate on the date on which the
Commission submits the report to Congress under section 4(a).
______
By Mr. COVERDELL (for himself, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Helms, and Mr.
DeWine):
S.J. Res. 43. A joint resolution expressing the sense of Congress
that the President of the United States should encourage free and fair
elections and respect for democracy in Peru; read the first time.
support for elections and democracy in Peru
Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a joint
resolution urging free and fair elections and respect for democratic
principles in Peru. I join with my colleagues, Senator Leahy, Senator
Helms, and Senator DeWine to express concern about the transparency and
fairness of the current electoral campaign in Peru.
Several independent election monitors have issued distressing reports
on the conditions surrounding the upcoming April 9 elections in Peru. A
Carter Center/National Democratic Institute delegation has concluded
that conditions for a free election campaign have not been established.
Their report states that ``the electoral environment in Peru is
characterized by polarization, anxiety and uncertainties . . .
Irreparable damage to the integrity of the electoral process has
already been done.'' The Organization of American States (OAS) has come
to similar conclusions. An OAS special rapporteur recently concluded
that ``Peru lacks that necessary conditions to guarantee the complete
exercise of the right to express political ideas that oppose or
criticize the government.''
These reports, and others, detail the Peruvian Government's control
of key official electoral agencies, systematic restrictions on freedom
of the press, manipulation of the judicial process to stifle
independent news outlets, and harassment or intimidation of opposition
politicians--all with the aim of limiting the ability of opposition
candidates to campaign freely. Such reports raise serious concerns
about the openness in which the electoral campaign is being conducted
and whether free and fair elections will actually occur.
Mr. President, this is a disturbing, though not necessarily
surprising, trend for a government that already has an inconsistent
record on democracy and the rule of law. Despite his many
accomplishments, President Fujimori has often demonstrated little
respect for democratic principles--his infamous ``auto-coup'', or
dissolution of Congress, and his current bid for a third Presidential
term being the best examples. In addition, the current crackdown on
independent media highlights Peru's dismal record on press freedom
under Fujimori. Freedom House rates only two countries in the
Hemisphere, Peru and Cuba, as having a press that is ``not free.''
According to Freedom House, since 1992 media outlets have been
pressured into self-censorship or exile by a government campaign of
intimidation, abductions, death threats, arbitrary detention, and
physical mistreatment. The case of Baruch Ivcher is a good example. In
September 1997, a government-controlled court stripped Ivcher of his
media business and his Peruvian citizenship after the station ran
reports linking the military to torture and corruption. In 1998, Ivcher
was sentenced in absentia to 12 years imprisonment.
The continued intimidation of journalists, and the lack of truly
independent judicial and legislative branches threaten democracy and
the rule of law in Peru. Indeed, Peru, could be said to be undergoing a
``slow-motion coup.'' Though not under attack in a violent or
conspicuous manner, democracy and the rule of law in Peru are
increasingly in question.
Mr. President, if one considers the incredible spread of democracy
around the world over the last century, and in particular over the last
twenty years, such a development is indeed disturbing. Consider the
following: according to Freedom House, of the 192 sovereign states in
existence today, 119 of them are considered true democracies. In 1950,
just 22 countries were democracies, meaning that nearly 100 nations
have made the transition over this half century. Nowhere was there a
more dramatic change than in our own back yard. In 1981, 18 of the 33
nations in the hemisphere were under some
[[Page S1826]]
form of authoritarian rule. By the beginning of the 1990's, all but
one--Castro's Cuba--had freely elected heads of state.
Despite these gains, freedom in the hemisphere remains fragile and
uncertain--Peru being just one example. After 7 years of neglect by the
current administration, some of the hard-fought victories for freedom
in Latin America are weakened and in jeopardy. There is no doubt that
if the elections are not deemed to be free and fair, it will represent
a major setback for the people of Peru and for democracy in the
hemisphere.
Mr. President, we must recommit ourselves to nurturing and protecting
the gains of freedom around the world, but with great attention on our
own hemisphere. A message must be sent to President Fujimori that if
democratic processes are not respected, their economic and diplomatic
relations will suffer. This message should be unanimous from every
nation in the region, and not just from the United States. A breach of
democracy, especially in this hemisphere, must not be allowed to stand.
I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the joint resolution be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the joint resolution was ordered to be
printed in the Record, as follows:
S.J. Res. 43
Whereas presidential and congressional elections are
scheduled to occur in Peru on April 9, 2000;
Whereas independent election monitors have expressed grave
doubts about the fairness of the electoral process due to the
Peruvian Government's control of key official electoral
agencies, systematic restrictions on freedom of the press,
manipulation of the judicial processes to stifle independent
reporting on radio, television, and newspaper outlets, and
harassment and intimidation of opposition politicians, which
have greatly limited the ability of opposing candidates to
campaign freely; and
Whereas the absence of free and fair elections in Peru
would constitute a major setback for the Peruvian people and
for democracy in the hemisphere, could result in instability
in Peru, and could jeopardize United States antinarcotics
objectives in Peru and the region: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved by the Senate and the House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress Assembled, That it
is the sense of Congress that the President of the United
States should promptly convey to the President of Peru that
if the April 9, 2000 elections are not deemed by the
international community to have been free and fair, the
United States will modify its political and economic
relations with Peru, including its support for international
financial institution loans to Peru, and will work with other
democracies in this hemisphere and elsewhere toward a
restoration of democracy in Peru.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today I am joining Senators Coverdell,
DeWine and Helms in introducing a Joint Resolution regarding the
presidential and congressional elections in Peru, which are scheduled
for April 9. I want to thank the other sponsors for their leadership
and concern for these issues.
These elections have generated a great deal of attention and
anticipation, and they have also focused a spotlight on President
Fujimori, who is running for an unprecedented third term. He is doing
so after firing three of the country's Supreme Court judges, who had
determined that a third term was barred by Peru's Constitution.
President Fujimori has often been praised for what he has
accomplished since he first took office in 1990. He success in
defeating the brutal Sendero Luminoso insurgency, combating cocaine
trafficking, and curbing soaring inflation has brought stability and
greater economic opportunities.
These are important achievements. Unfortunately, they have often been
accomplished through the strong arm tactics of a president who has
shown a disturbing willingness to run roughshod over democratic
principles and institutions.
In the run up to the April 9th election, President Fujimori's and his
supporter's disrespect for democratic procedures and the conditions
necessary for free and fair elections has rarely been so blatant.
Journalists and independent election observer groups cite the
Peruvian Government's control of key official electoral agencies,
systematic restrictions on freedom of the press, manipulation of the
judicial process, alleged falsification of electoral petitions and
harassment and intimidation of opposition politicians as just a few of
the problems plaguing this process.
In February, the National Democratic Institute and the Carter Center
concluded that ``extraordinary, immediate and comprehensive measures''
were necessary if the Peruvian elections are to meet international
standards. Those measures have not been taken, and NDI and the Carter
Center recently reported that ``irreparable damage to the integrity of
the election process has already been done.'' The Clinton
administration, to its credit, has expressed grave concerns about the
transparent attempts by President Fujimori and his supporters to
manipulate the election process.
Mr. President, the results of the Peruvian elections will not be
known until the final ballot is counted. But one thing is already
clear. If the elections are not deemed to have been free and fair, it
will be a major setback for the Peruvian people and for democracy in
the hemisphere. And if that happens, the United States must react
strongly. We will have no choice but to modify our economic and
political relations with Peru, and work to restore democracy to that
country.
That is the message of this resolution, and I urge other Senators to
support it so we can send as strong a message as possible to President
Fujimori and the Peruvian people.
Mr. President, I also want to take this opportunity to mention
another matter that has caused me and other Members of Congress great
concern. The Peruvian Government recently brought to the United States
a former Peruvian Army intelligence officer who was responsible for
torturing a woman who was left permanently paralyzed as a result. He
was convicted in Peru, but released after a military tribunal reversed
his conviction. For reasons that I have yet to get a suitable answer
to, the U.S. Embassy granted him a visa to come to the United States to
testify at a hearing before the Inter-American Human Rights Commission.
That was bad enough. But the fact that the Peruvian Government saw fit
to include such a person in its official delegation to appear as a
witness in a human rights forum says a great deal about that
government, and it should be condemned.
Finally, I want to express my personal concern about Lori Berenson,
who was convicted by a Peruvian military court and sentenced to life in
prison. The United States Government, other governments, Amnesty
International and other independent human rights groups, have all
concluded that she was denied due process. I and others have called for
her release or trial by a civilian court in accordance with
international standards. Innocent or guilty, every person deserves a
fair trial, and I would hope that a country that professes to respect
human rights would recognize the obvious--that Ms. Berenson's
conviction was a miscarriage of justice.
____________________