[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 155 (Friday, December 15, 2000)]
[Senate]
[Pages S11878-S11885]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
the commodity futures modernization act of 2000
Mr. FITZGERALD. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Commodity
Futures Modernization Act of 2000 (``CFMA''), the proposed legislation
to reauthorize the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (``CFTC'') and
to amend the Commodity Exchange Act (``CEA''). This legislation is the
Senate companion of H.R. 5660, which Congressman Thomas Ewing
introduced yesterday in the House of Representatives and which is part
of the final appropriations measure. As an original co-sponsor of the
CFMA, I am proud to join Chairmen Gramm and Lugar in supporting
legislation to provide much needed regulatory relief to the United
States futures exchanges, to remove the eighteen-year-old ban on single
stock futures, and to bring legal certainty in the multi-trillion
dollar derivatives markets.
The CFMA gives a substantial boost to Chicago's futures industry and
the 200,000 jobs that depend on it. The Chicago futures exchanges will
be given an opportunity to compete on a level playing field with the
world markets. Burdensome federal regulations will be removed and a new
regulatory structure will be implemented that will give our nation's
most important futures exchanges the ability to compete equally with
world markets in product innovation and the ever-changing demands of
the marketplace. Chicago's exchanges will now have the opportunity to
offer single stock futures so that they can compete with global markets
already trading those types of futures. This is potentially an enormous
market for Chicago's exchanges and U.S. investors. It goes without
saying that this market is absolutely necessary for Chicago to remain
the center for world futures trading.
I commend Chairman Lugar on his efforts to act swiftly to modernize
the CEA and to implement the recommendations of the President's Working
Group on Financial Markets (``PWG''). The challenges involved in such
an undertaking are enormous and I appreciate Chairman Lugar's
thoughtful and comprehensive approach to this complex task. As Chairman
of the Subcommittee on Research, Nutrition, and General Legislation, I
have been actively involved in the evolution of the CFMA and am
committed to working closely with Chairman Lugar, Chairman Gramm, and
my other colleagues to ensure that the United States derivatives
markets remain strong, competitive, and viable. The CFMA codifies the
recommendations of the PWG to enhance legal certainty for over-the-
counter (``OTC'') derivatives by excluding from the CEA certain
bilateral swaps entered into on a principal-to-principal basis by
eligible participants. The market for OTC derivatives has exploded over
the past two decades into a multi-trillion dollar industry. These large
and sophisticated markets play an important role in the global economy
and legal certainty is a critical consideration for parties to OTC
derivative contracts. Accordingly, the CFMA recognizes that legal
certainty for OTC derivatives is vital to the continued competitiveness
of the United States markets and achieves this certainty by excluding
these transactions from the CEA.
The provisions of the CFMA also address the problem that federal
regulation has not adapted to the rapid growth of the financial markets
and today serves as a substantial restriction on market competitiveness
and modernization. In order for the United States to maintain the most
efficient markets in the world, regulatory barriers to fair competition
must be removed. The CFMA reduces the inefficiencies of the CEA by
removing constraints on innovation and competitiveness and by
transforming the CFTC into an oversight agency with less front-line
regulatory functions. The provisions for three kinds of trading
facilities with varying levels of regulation provide needed flexibility
to both traditional exchanges and electronic trading facilities by
basing oversight of the futures markets on the types of products they
trade and on the investors they serve.
Finally, the CFMA removes the Accord's prohibitions on the trading of
single stock futures and small indices. Stock index futures have
matured into vital financial management tools that enable a wide
variety of investment concerns to manage their risk of adverse price
movements. The options markets and swaps dealers offer customers risk
management tools and investment alternatives involving both sector
indexes and single stock derivatives. It seems only fair that futures
exchanges be allowed to compete in this important market.
The CFMA lifts the ban on single and index stock futures restrictions
to allow the marketplace to decide whether these instruments would be
useful risk management tools and to enhance the ability of the U.S.
financial markets to compete in the global marketplace. The bill
reforms the Accord to allow both futures and securities exchanges to
trade these products under the jurisdiction of their current
regulators. The CFMA also allows both the
[[Page S11879]]
SEC and the CFTC to enforce violations of their respective laws
regardless of whether the products are traded on a futures or
securities exchange and requires that the agencies share necessary
information for enforcement purposes.
The CFMA represents an arduous effort to remove burdensome regulatory
structures and provide much needed legal certainty to the United States
derivatives markets. This effort has produced comprehensive legislation
that is designed to remove impediments to innovation and regulatory
barriers to fair competition for the United States financial markets.
The positive impact of this legislation on Chicago's futures markets
cannot be overstated. The CFMA is vital to Chicago remaining the
derivatives capital of the world and gives Chicago's futures exchanges
the ability to lead the way in the potentially explosive single-stock
futures market.
restricting cruise ship gambling
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I would like to engage the Senator from
Hawaii in a colloquy regarding a provision of interest to him, that
would restrict cruise ships from gambling in the State of Hawaii. For
the benefit of our colleagues, I would like to ask the Senator if he
would explain the clear intent of this provision.
Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I would be happy to have a brief
discussion with Chairman Stevens on this matter. As he knows, on many
occasions I have expressed to my colleagues in this Chamber my strong
opposition to gambling in the Hawaiian Islands. Our State of Hawaii is
one of only two states in the entire country that prohibits gambling of
all kinds. When Federal laws, including the Gambling Devices
Transportation Act, more commonly known as the Johnson Act, affecting
the ability of cruise ships to conduct gambling operations were relaxed
over the past decade, I was involved in drafting those provisions to be
sure that the longstanding Federal prohibition against the possession
and operation of gambling devices be maintained with respect to the
State of Hawaii. Unfortunately, I understand that a foreign cruise line
seeks to exploit a loophole in Federal law and circumvent this long
standing prohibition. This legislation closes this loophole.
This recent announcement by a foreign cruise line--that is
substantially owned by foreign gambling interests--to permanently based
a large cruise ship with an extensive casino on board in Hawaii for
year-round operation on cruises that will begin and end in Honolulu has
prompted this amendment. This amendment ensure that there is no
ambiguity in the intent of the Johnson Act's application to the State
of Hawaii by expressly preserving the act's original prohibition of the
transportation, possession, repair, and use of any gambling devices
aboard vessels that embark and disembark passengers in the State of
Hawaii, as defined in 19 C.F.R. 4.80a(a)4.
I want to make clear to my colleagues that this provision would not
affect any State other than Hawaii. Moreover, it would not prohibit
current gambling operations on board cruise ships that, for example,
begin or end their cruises on the mainland or in foreign countries,
even if they call at multiple ports in Hawaii, so long as the gambling
facilities are closed when the vessel is in Hawaii and the passengers
do not begin and end their trip in Hawaii. Passengers could either
begin or end their trip in the State, but could not do both. A vessel
that is operating in dedicated service in Hawaii, however, cannot
escape the Johnson Act's broad prohibitions simply by calling at
Christmas Island or some other similar foreign port.
I have made clear that I do not want gambling in Hawaii many time and
in particular on the occasions that we have debated the Johnson Act and
gambling on cruise ships. I have been unwavering in my position that
gambling on voyages beginning and ending in Hawaii will not be accepted
practice. This provision should clarify any ambiguity in the Johnson
Act as to what types of gambling operations on board vessels are
allowed and not allowed in Hawaii. I can assure my colleagues that if
gambling interests believe they can exploit and circumvent the spirit
and intent of Federal laws prohibiting gambling in Hawaii, I will be
back in this Chamber to attempt to make the necessary changes to
continue our State's longstanding prohibition on such activities.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, we all recognize the Senator's diligence
in keeping the gambling industry out of Hawaii. Would I be correct then
saying this provision would not have any impact on those cruise ships
that begin or end their voyages in a foreign port or on the mainland so
long as they don't gamble while in Hawaii?
Mr. INOUYE. The Senator is correct.
Mr. STEVENS. I thank the Senator for his explanation.
Mr. INOUYE. I appreciate the opportunity to explain this matter for
our colleagues.
coal waste impoundment study clarification
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, conference report language has been added to
H.R. 4577, the fiscal year 2001 Labor/HHS Appropriations bill to
address concerns about the safety of coal waste impoundments. A study,
which is to be completed by the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) in
nine months, will be funded by monies included in the Mine Safety and
Health Administration's (MSHA) Fiscal Year 2001 appropriations. Because
MSHA has regulatory authority for coal waste impoundment oversight, I
hope that MSHA officials will play an active role throughout the course
of the study. The NAS study is intended to review the coal waste
impoundments and report on viable methods and alternatives to prevent
another dam failure like the one that occurred in Martin County,
Kentucky, in October of this year.
I would like to clarify the understanding of the chairman and ranking
member of the Senate Labor/HHS Appropriations subcommittee regarding
this conference report language. Is it their understanding that the NAS
study should involve the participation of experts to include, but not
be limited to, members of relevant state and federal agencies, such as
the Mine Safety and Health Administration, the Office of Surface Mining
and Enforcement, the Environmental Protection Agency, as well as
industry, labor, citizen, and environmental groups, which have either
been, or may be, impacted by impoundments in their areas? Further, in
addition to addressing how best to assure the stability of existing
impoundments, is it the understanding of my distinguished colleagues
that this NAS study should also address alternative methods of coal
mine waste disposal and placement in the future?
Mr. SPECTER. As I, too, have had a long-running interest in coal
mining and health and safety matters, I thank the Senator for his
interest in this important coal matter. Yes, I believe that it is
important for a range of stakeholders to be involved in this study as
well as to look at both the current and future issues related to coal
waste impoundments.
Mr. HARKIN. I would like to thank the Senator from West Virginia for
his leadership on this subject. It is also my understanding that
relevant federal, state, industry, labor, citizen, and environmental
parties should participate in this study so as to gain a broader range
of views and recommendations on the current problem and future
solutions in order to prevent such problems as he has described from
occurring again.
Swan Lake-Tyee Intertie
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I would like to engage the distinguished
chairman of the Senate Interior Appropriations subcommittee in a short
discussion on an item which is included on page 171 of the conference
report on the recently passed Interior appropriations bill, H.R. 4578.
In that bill, there is a reference to utilizing the Alaska ``Job in the
Woods'' program for projects ``that enhance the southeast Alaska
economy, such as the southeast Alaska intertie.'' May I inquire of the
distinguished chairman if that language refers specifically to the
currently proposed Swan Lake-Lake Tyee Intertie project for which the
Forest Service completed its final environmental impact statement and
issued its record of decision on August 29, 1997?
Mr. GORTON. The distinguished chairman of the Appropriations
Committee is correct. That reference is specifically intended to refer
to the Swan Lake-Tyee Intertie project and was inadvertently referred
to as the southeast Alaska intertie. I hope the Record
[[Page S11880]]
will reflect this clarification and will result in an expeditious use
of the funds.
liheap
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. Chairman, as you know, many members on both sides of
the aisle have concerns about the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance
Program (LIHEAP) and the lack of an advance appropriation for that
program in fiscal year 2002. As you know, home heating costs have
skyrocketed over the past year in many areas of the country. The LIHEAP
program helps over four million low-income households with their
heating bills. Usually this appropriations bill includes advance
funding for LIHEAP so that states have time to plan their program, but
due to a provision in the budget resolution capping advance
appropriations we were not able to do so this year.
I hope, as I know you do, that we finish our work on this bill before
October 1 next year. But if we do not, I think we should do everything
we can to see that any continuing resolution for fiscal year 2002 would
include sufficient funds for States to properly run their LIHEAP
programs.
Mr. SPECTER. As you know, I have been a strong supporter of the
LIHEAP program and I am aware of how essential the program becomes in
times of high fuel prices. While I hope that a continuing resolution
will not be necessary next year, I would certainly support including
funding for the full winter season in the first continuing resolution
for fiscal year 2002, if that is necessary.
catholic social services
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I would like to engage the distinguished
chairman of the Senate VA-HUD Appropriations subcommittee in a short
discussion on an item which is included on page 79 of the Conference
Report H. Rept. 106-988 (H.R. 4635) for the VA-HUD appropriations bill.
In that bill, there is funding available for Catholic Community
Services. I am told that reference is incorrect and that the funding
should actually be made available for Catholic Social Services for
renovations and construction at the Brother Francis Shelter and AWAIC's
transitional housing. I would ask the distinguished subcommittee
chairman whether it was his understanding that Catholic Social Services
was the intended recipient of this funding rather than Catholic
Community Services, and if so, would the chairman make note of this for
the Record?
Mr. BOND. The distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Committee
is correct. That reference is specifically intended to refer to
Catholic Social Services for renovations and construction at the
Brother Francis Shelter and AWAIC's transitional housing and was
inadvertently referred to as Catholic Community Services. I hope the
Record will reflect this clarification and will result in an
expeditious use of the funds.
Mr. STEVENS. I thank my colleague.
authoritative root server
Mr. BURNS. Will the chairman yield for purposes of a colloquy?
Mr. GREGG. I yield to the Senator from Montana.
Mr. BURNS. I understand that the Internet Corporation for Assigned
Names and Numbers, ICANN, intends to request that the Department of
Commerce transfer the Internet's authoritative root server to ICANN's
control. The authoritative root server is the foundation of the
Internet, which cannot function without it. Would the chairman agree
that the Department of Commerce should retain control of the
authoritative root server until the appropriate committees of Congress
have reviewed the legality, appropriateness and implications of such a
transfer?
Mr. GREGG. I agree with the Senator from Montana that Congress should
be given the opportunity to exercise its oversight responsibility over
this important issue.
Mr. HOLLINGS. Will the chairman yield to me on this issue?
Mr. GREGG. I yield to the Senator from South Carolina.
Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. Chairman, I would like to join you in supporting
the statements made by the Senator from Montana. As managers of the
Commerce, Justice, State bill, you and I have the responsibility and
expectation of providing agencies under our jurisdiction with
congressional input and guidance. On an issue of this great
importance--transferring the a-root server to ICANN--it is critical we
carefully look at the implications a decision like this would have.
Mrs. MURRAY. Will the chairman yield to me on this issue?
Mr. GREGG. I yield to the Senator from Washington.
Mrs. MURRY. I share the concerns expressed by the Senators from
Montana and South Carolina about the premature transfer of the
authoritative root server to ICANN. Control of this root server
includes the power to dramatically affect all aspects of Internet
activity, including e-commerce and our national security. The
Department of Commerce should not transfer the root server to ICANN
until Congress has had the opportunity to review the wisdom of such a
transfer.
Mr. GREGG. I agree with the views expressed by my ranking member,
Senator Hollings, and the Senators from Washington and Montana on this
matter.
Antidumping duties
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I would like to commend the chairman of
the Finance Committee for his bipartisan efforts which resulted in the
passage of section 1425 of H.R. 4868, the Miscellaneous Tariff Act.
This section is intended to address an unfortunate situation involving
the imposition of antidumping duties on a number of entries of conveyor
chain from Japan. At the time of these entries, the applicable
antidumping duty cash deposit rate was 0 percent. As a result, no cash
deposits were made on these entries by the U.S. importer. Through no
fault of the U.S. Customs Service, the antidumping duties and interest
subsequently imposed when these entries were liquidated as a result of
the Department of Commerce administrative review process now represents
a severe and unanticipated hardship on the U.S. importer, Drives, Inc.,
based in Fulton, Illinois. This legislation is intended to address this
situation by having the Customs Service reliquidate the entries at the
antidumping duty cash deposit rate in effect at the time of entry.
Mr. ROTH. The senior Senator from Illinois is correct and I thank him
for his kind words. He is correct with regard to the purpose and
intended effect of this section. My understanding is that the
antidumping duty order covering these entries has recently been
revoked. I also understand that the domestic industry association that
was the complainant in the dumping proceedings is aware of this
legislation and does not object.
Mr. DURBIN. That is correct. In accordance with this legislation, the
identified entries will be re-liquidated with no antidumping duties
assessed. Moreover, no interest charges which relate in any way to
antidumping duties will be assessed. Since the deposit rate at the time
of entry of all of the identified entries was 0 percent, this will have
the effect of liquidating the entries at the cash deposit rate in
effect at the time of entry.
Mr. ROTH. We should note for the record that during the drafting of
this legislation, a few words were inadvertently left out, with the
unintended consequence of the language being not as clear as we would
like for Customs' interpretation. It was our intent with this
legislation that re-liquidation should occur within 90 days of
enactment. This was the intent of the Congress when it reviewed and
passed this section.
Mr. DURBIN. The senior Senator from Delaware is correct. There was a
mistake made in drafting the language. Regardless, the intent of the
original legislation, and the intent that can still be interpreted from
the law as enacted, is to have the Customs Service re-liquidate the
entries at the antidumping duty cash deposit rate in effect at the time
of entry. I thank the Senator from Delaware for his guidance and
appreciate working with him on a bipartisan basis.
Mr. ROTH. I thank the Senator from Illinois.
asbestos victims
Mr. DeWINE. I notice my colleague from Ohio, Senator Voinovich is on
the floor as well as the majority leader. I think I speak for my
colleague when I say we are extremely disappointed that our bill, S.
2955, was not able to be passed in this Congress. That bill is very
important to asbestos victims and two of our State's largest employers.
[[Page S11881]]
As we all probably know, our nation is facing an asbestos litigation
crisis. A crisis for which the federal government, in my opinion,
shares responsibility. From World War II through the Vietnam war, the
government mandated the use of asbestos to insulate our naval fleet
from secondary fires. This mandate is the cause of many tragic
disabilities. Unfortunately, while the federal government would be one
of the largest asbestos defenders due to this mandate, an aggressive
and successful litigation strategy to assert sovereign immunity has
allowed them to evade any monetary culpability.
Since the federal government is not paying their fair share of the
costs, the former asbestos manufacturers are burdened with asbestos
claims. Of the approximately 30 original core defendants, over two
dozen have gone bankrupt, in large part due to asbestos claims. The
situation has reached the crisis stage. Good companies, providing good
jobs, and providing payments to victims, are in significant peril. The
recent bankruptcies of several former asbestos manufacturers have
placed an even more overwhelming burden on the remaining defendants.
Due to joint and several liability, the remaining defendant companies
are now paying an even higher share of asbestos claims. The markets
have taken note. Stock market values are declining, making it more and
more difficult for these companies to receive the financing they need
to survive. The very future of these companies, the very future of
these jobs are at stake.
But, it is not just the companies who are suffering. Asbestos victims
are also suffering greatly. They are not receiving the awards to which
they are entitled. If something is not done to correct this situation,
good companies will continue to go bankrupt, good jobs will continue to
be lost, and asbestos victims will not receive any compensation.
We must act now to do this. I understand the majority leader
understands and appreciates the urgency of this situation. I would ask
that the bill that Senator Voinovich and I have introduced would be one
of the first bills considered when we return for the 107th.
Mr. VOINOVICH. I wholeheartedly agree with my colleague, Senator
DeWine. I do not think we can stress enough that this really is a
matter of survival for these companies and their employees. The
government bears some responsibility here, we simply must get this bill
done as soon as possible. The companies, their workers, and asbestos
victims--after all when the companies go bankrupt it affects payments
to victims--need certainty that this will be brought to the Senate
floor at the earliest possible date next year. We need to work to keep
these companies afloat.
Mr. LOTT. I appreciate the concerns of the two Senators from Ohio.
They have made a very strong and convincing case on the need for a
solution to this problem. I pledge to work with them to see that this
issue is addressed as early as possible in the 107th Congress.
disaster-resistant wood construction program
Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, as you know, natural disasters exact a
tremendous toll on our nation. In just two decades (1975-1994), 24,000
individuals nationwide lost their lives to natural disasters. An
additional 100,000 were injured, and the resulting property damage
reached a staggering $500 billion.
Hurricanes are responsible for 80 percent of these $500 billion in
damages. The continued rapid building of homes and commercial
facilities along our coastlines increases the potential for even higher
natural disaster costs in the future. Since Congress often responds to
these disasters with emergency supplemental appropriations, it makes
sense to also support the development of technologies and building
techniques to mitigate damage resulting from hurricanes and other
natural disasters.
Mr. GREGG. I agree with my distinguished colleague from Maine that we
need to do what we can to mitigate the devastation caused each year by
natural disasters. Exciting new building techniques and technologies
hold promise in this regard.
Ms. COLLINS. They certainly do. And one of the most exciting
technologies involve wood composites. The fact is, most natural
disasters directly affect wood construction, which is used for 99
percent of houses constructed nationally. The University of Maine
Advanced Engineered Wood Composites Center (AEWC) has developed new
technologies to reinforce wood construction materials with fiberglass
material. These fiberglass-reinforced wood composites are two to three
times stronger, more impact resistant and more ductile than their
unreinforced counterparts. Homes and buildings constructed with these
advanced materials should greatly enhance occupant protection from
hurricanes, earthquakes, tornadic missiles, and other natural threats.
In addition to their benefits in new construction, these technologies
can be used to retrofit and strengthen existing wood buildings. The
University of Maine and its industry partners require $4 million in
fiscal year 2001 funds to complete material and wood panel testing on
these technologies, and to start developing building code provisions to
transition the new disaster resistant panels into residential and
commercial construction.
I commend my good friends, Chairman Gregg and the subcommittee's
ranking member, Senator Hollings, for their efforts thus far to
allocate additional funds to the National Institute of Standards
Scientific and Technical Research Services programs. I am particularly
pleased with the additional funds that have been allocated to the NIST
Building and Fire Research Laboratory, which is ideally suited to
develop improved building technologies resistant to natural disaster.
I would strongly encourage the NIST Building and Fire Research Lab to
support development work on advanced wood composites, demonstrate the
performance of reinforced-wood composites under simulated hurricane
wind conditions, and introduce the new construction materials into
national building codes and standards.
Mr. HOLLINGS. I thank my good friend and colleague, Senator Collins,
for her kind remarks regarding this subcommittee's work on the FY '01
Commerce, Justice, State, and judiciary appropriations bill. I
recognize the importance of investing in advanced building technologies
that can resist damage from hurricanes. As you know, South Carolina has
experienced several costly and disastrous hurricanes. Yet our coastal
economy continues to expand and to serve as a commercial and recreation
resource to our State and the Nation.
I agree with my colleague that development of fiberglass-reinforced
wood composites is important, and I also encourage the National
Institute of Standards and Technology to support the development and
deployment of these materials. Improvements to wood building materials
will result in direct benefits to the people of South Carolina and all
other coastal communities in the United States.
Mr. GREGG. I thank my distinguished colleague from Maine as well and
share her concerns about the impact of natural disasters on the lives
of people and on the economy. In the past, government has worked
effectively with the building industry to make homes and commercial
buildings better and safer through building codes and standards, and by
supporting improvements in building technology.
The subcommittee is very interested in the contributions that the
NIST Building and Fire Research Laboratory can make to improve the
quality of building products. Fiberglass-reinforced wood composites can
greatly increase the safety of homes subjected to natural disasters. I
agree that the National Institute of Standards should pursue with the
University of Maine the development and demonstration of fiberglass-
reinforced wood composites for improved building materials.
expansion of a successful executive mba program
Mr. L. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I would like to clarify the intent of
the conferees regarding a provision in the conference report
accompanying H.R. 4576, FY01 Defense appropriations bill (H. Rept. 106-
754). Within this legislation is $2 million for the expansion of a
successful Executive MBA program, jointly administered by the Naval
Undersea Warfare Center (NUWC), Newport, Rhode Island and Bryant
College, Smithfield, Rhode Island. The funding
[[Page S11882]]
will be used to expand the current student enrollment from 30 to 60
Navy personnel and to expand and upgrade Bryant's technical
capabilities. Specifically, funds will be used to expand and upgrade
Bryant's network bandwidth to gigabit speed, as well as fund
technological enhancements to Bryant's new Bello Center for Information
and Technology, allowing Executive MBA students better access to
valuable information resources. This, in turn, will assist them in
their studies at Bryant. The $2 million for the expansion of this
program will not only allow 30 more military/government personnel to
earn an MBA at Bryant, but will link those students with expanded
technical resources at Bryant. This linkage will allow Executive MBA
students access to all information available within Bryant's resources
and create the capability to interact with each other and with other
students on and off campus.
Is this description what the conferees intend?
Mr. STEVENS. Yes, that is correct.
Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I do not mean to be the skunk at the
picnic party, but I believe there are some realities to be faced. Those
realities are that we are establishing on the last evening of the 106th
Congress some standards that are going to be either positive paths
towards greater cooperation in the next Congress or will be impediments
to achieving success in what will be the most divided National
Government in our Nation's history.
I am afraid what we are doing tonight will not make a positive
contribution. The fact is that at 7:08 p.m. on a Friday evening, we are
taking up in one enormous piece of legislation--a piece of legislation
which dwarfs the New York City telephone directory in size, a piece of
legislation which not one single Member of this body or the House of
Representatives has ever had an opportunity to read.
The fact that we are about to adopt this legislation without the
normal debate and opportunity to understand what is in this bill is not
a positive sign because, in my judgment, the kinds of bipartisan
cooperation that we will require in the future are going to be based
upon respect, understanding, and a due regard for our constituents who
also deserve to be served better than we are doing this evening.
It also, frankly, has to be based on a level of trust among Members
when commitments are made, that there is a sense of a solemn
obligation. This body cannot function, as no human institution can
function, unless there is a fundamental level of trust and regard among
its membership. This document does not reflect that trust.
My fundamental concern about this appropriations bill, which will
expend approximately $180 billion of our taxpayers' money, is that it
takes the wrong fundamental path.
Contrary to myth, the 21st century has not begun. The new century
will actually commence at 12:01 a.m. on January 1, 2001. The first
Congress of the new millennium, the 107th Congress, will convene on
January 3. This historic Congress will find itself at the proverbial
commencement of the century and a fork in the road. Two very different
fiscal paths will lie in front of it.
The path we select will play a major role in shaping our country's
future in the 21st century. One path maintains the fiscal discipline
that has marked the latter half of this decade. It has played an
integral part in creating the longest economic expansion in U.S.
history. This expansion has created over 20 million jobs since 1993. It
has reduced unemployment to a 30-year low of 3.9 percent in October of
this year. During all of this, inflation has remained at its lowest
core rate since 1965. Those are all achievements for which we can take
considerable pride.
This first path views the projected budget surplus as a means to
continue this economic success by continuing to pay down the national
debt.
This first path also recognizes that a portion of the surplus should
be used to address some of the long-time intergenerational challenges
which are confronting our Nation--securing Social Security's future and
modernizing Medicaid. Social Security is in fine shape today. Payroll
tax revenues exceed the funds needed to pay current benefits by record
amounts.
This positive cash-flow, however, will not last long. In just 15
years, payroll tax revenue will no longer be sufficient to pay
benefits. We need to act now to strengthen the program's finances so
that today's workers and tomorrow's retirees will have the security of
knowing that their Social Security benefits will also be paid.
Medicare faces a similar long-term funding shortfall, only it begins
5 years earlier, in 2010. In addition, Medicare has one substantial
deficiency. That is its focus on sickness rather than wellness. Thus,
Medicare needs to be fundamentally reformed to conform with modern
medicine and the desires of its beneficiaries. That will require the
inclusion in Medicare of a prescription drug benefit. Virtually every
preventive program currently in use has prescription drugs as a
substantial component of its treatment modality. A portion of the
surplus should be devoted to fixing these deficiencies in Social
Security and Medicare.
I just described the first path. There is a second path. That
alternate path veers off to a far different destination. That path
focuses on short-term desires, the here and now, and foregoes fiscal
discipline in favor of new spending programs and tax cuts. It views the
surplus as a giant windfall to be doled out to favored constituencies
as if Christmas lasted 365 days. In short, this is a path back to the
past.
This final bill of the 106th Congress represents another step down
the wrong path, the path to the past. The Senate is considering the
final 2001 appropriations bill, a bill that combines the Department of
Labor and HHS, the Departments of Treasury, Postal, and the legislative
branch. This agreement also clears the Department of Commerce,
Department of State, and Department of Justice bill for signature.
Discretionary spending in these combined bills totals nearly $182
billion. This bill follows the pattern established by most of the
previous appropriations bills considered by the Senate. Its total
spending greatly exceeds the standard established by the Senate in the
budget resolution adopted in April of this year. Section 206 of the
budget resolution proposed a cap on discretionary appropriation
spending for the fiscal year 2001 at $600 billion. That level would
have allowed discretionary spending to grow at a rate that was above
inflation, a rate of approximately 3.5 percent. What do we have before
the Senate at 7:15 in the evening of December 15? We have a bill which
allows spending to grow by 8 percent, more than twice that tolerated
under the budget resolution.
I admit I support many of the programs funded in this bill, but we
must exercise restraint. We must establish some sense of priorities. I
have spoken on the Senate floor on several occasions earlier this year
to decry specific appropriations bills as they were being considered.
The common complaint I have had with each of these bills has been that
they have been crafted in a vacuum without a clearly defined blueprint
to give Congress the full picture of the implications of its actions
before it acts. It is as if a carpenter about to build a home would
start to build the living room without any awareness of what the rest
of the house was going to look like.
The budget resolution should have provided exactly such a blueprint.
But it has failed to do so. A good part of the reason it has failed to
do so is that it was developed without the full participation of all
Members of the Senate. It was a partisan document, representing one
point of view but not providing the context around which all Members of
this body as reflective of the public of the United States could give
their support. In addition, it was crafted with wholly unrealistic
expectations of where we were headed.
Let me demonstrate in this chart back to the year 1997. In 1997, we
passed a budget resolution that capped discretionary spending at $528
billion; we actually spent $538 billion. By 1998, our commitment to
fiscal discipline had grown stronger and we only exceeded the budget
resolution by $2 billion. Since that year, every year, we have had
substantial deviations from our budget resolution. In every year, we
have spent substantially more than we had committed ourselves to do in
our budget resolution.
To go back to that example of the carpenter and the house, it is as
if the family said: we have a budget. We can afford, based on our
income, to build a
[[Page S11883]]
$100,000 house. But they build a $125,000 house which stretches their
financial capability.
This year we had a resolution that said we spent $600 billion; with
this legislation tonight, we will spend $634 billion. We have overspent
our budget by $34 billion. This chart exposes the failure of our
current budget process. Each year we pass a budget resolution which
establishes limits, and each year we break the resolution.
The fiscal year 1999 budget resolution which was supposed to be a
spending limit of $533 billion had a final tally of $583 billion. In
the year 2000, the limit was supposed to be $540 billion and the final
tally was $587 billion. As I indicated, this year was supposed to be
$600 billion and we have concluded now at $634 billion.
The last 3 years highlight the dangers of considering spending bills
without a credible budget, one that establishes reasonable parameters
and results from the participation of both parties.
While that is my fundamental objection to this budget and why I will
request to be counted as voting no when we take the final voice vote on
this matter, this legislation also includes changes to the Medicare
program that will result in greater payments to providers. This bill
increases payments to Medicare providers by $35 billion over the next 5
years, $85 billion over the next 10 years. My primary objection to
these changes is that too much of the $35 billion for the first 5 years
and $85 billion for the next decade is funneled into one aspect of the
Medicare program--health maintenance organizations, HMOs. In my
opinion, and more importantly, in the opinion of the experts, the HMOs
do not need and cannot justify the level of additional appropriations
which they are about to receive.
While I appreciate the modest improvements for beneficiaries which
are included in this bill, the fact remains that HMOs, which enroll
less than one out of six Medicare beneficiaries, will receive almost
one-third of the overall funding. I am alarmed by increasing payments
to HMOs because we are told by the experts that the payments are
already too high. The General Accounting Office says under current law:
Medicare's overly generous payment rates to HMOs well
exceed what Medicare would have paid had these individuals
remained in the traditional fee-for-service program.
The General Accounting Office concluded that Medicare HMOs have never
been a bargain for the taxpayers. Increasing HMO payments will not keep
them from leaving the markets where they are most needed.
One of the several outrages in this area is the requests that were
made that if we were going to provide this generous additional payment
to HMOs, one-third of the money for less than one-sixth of the Medicare
beneficiaries, that they would have to commit they would not, as they
have done in many areas in my State and virtually every other State,
pack up leaving beneficiaries without coverage.
Or in other areas, as I recently experienced in the city of
Jacksonville, HMOs have been driving down the benefits within their
plans. I found while working at a pharmacy in Jacksonville earlier this
year, most of the HMOs in that city have now put a cap on the annual
payments of prescription drugs, and that cap is $500. As anyone who
knows about the cost of prescription drugs, a $500 annual limit,
particularly for an elderly population, is a very meager benefit. If
you take this overly generous additional payment, you have to make some
commitments to the beneficiaries relative to your willingness to stay
and serve in the communities where you are currently providing services
and to maintain your service benefit level. None of that is in this
final bill. This is a check being written with no response, in terms of
protection for beneficiaries.
According to the testimony from Gail Wilensky, chair of the Medicare
Payment Advisory Commission, she states that plan withdrawals--that is,
withdrawals from HMOs:
. . . have been disproportionately lower in counties where
payment growth has been the most constrained.
What Ms. Wilensky is saying is that where you have constrained
reimbursements to HMOs, you have less withdrawals than you do where you
are, as we proposed to be in this legislation, excessively generous.
It comes down to priorities. Should we spend billions on HMOs or try
to help frail and low-income seniors, people with disabilities and
children?
The managed care industry and its advocates in Congress have thwarted
every effort to reform the Medicare+Choice Program so that it does what
it was designed to do--save money while providing reliable, effective
health care services.
A prime example of this occurred almost a year ago in this Chamber.
In 1997, under the Balanced Budget Act, we provided for two
demonstration projects to provide for the outrageous idea that there be
competitive bidding among HMOs, to let the marketplace--which we all
laud as being the best distributor of resources--let the marketplace
decide what should an HMO be paid. This happens to be the same practice
which is used in the private sector in its selection of HMOs and in
some of the largest public employee HMO plans. Implementation of such a
process had the potential of saving taxpayers and the Medicare program
millions of dollars. It could have ensured that HMOs with the best bids
were awarded contracts. It would have eliminated the discrimination
against rural and smaller communities vis-a-vis the large communities
which now get the largest HMO reimbursement.
Unfortunately for the American public, last year the managed care
industry convinced their friends in Congress to beat back even these
two demonstration projects. In so doing, they assured that we would not
have a competitive system, a system that based contracts on merit. In
fact, they would not have to compete at all. In fact, there would be no
basis by demonstration of what would be the potential benefits to
competition.
This year the HMOs have launched a multimillion-dollar lobbying
effort to pressure Congress to increase their payment rates, and they
have been successful. The HMOs are claiming that their current rates
are too low, yet these are the same HMOs that committed congressional
homicide when they killed a proposal that would have allowed a more
market oriented system which would have resulted in higher
reimbursement rates if the market indicated that was appropriate. This
is the equivalent of a man shooting his mother and father and throwing
himself on the mercy of the court because he is an orphan.
Worse yet, the bill fails to provide adequate accountability
requirements for these plans. The House bill, when it was originally
passed, required that any new funds be used for beneficiary
improvements. This bill, this conference bill, contains no such
requirement.
To be honest, there are some high points in this bill, as few and far
between as they might be. I was pleased to learn the bill being
considered added new preventive benefits for Medicare beneficiaries.
I strongly believe Medicare must be reformed from a system based on
illness to one based on maintaining the highest standard of health. I
have introduced legislation to this effect. The benefits I included
were based on recommendations made by the experts in the field: the
United States Preventive Services Task Force. Therefore, I was
disappointed to find that this bill fails to provide Medicare coverage
for hypertension screening and smoking cessation counseling, which are
the highest two priorities as identified by the United States
Prevention Services Task Force in its ``Guide to Clinical Preventive
Services.''
This bill also provides access to nutrition therapy for people with
renal disease and diabetes, but leaves out the largest group of
individuals for whom the Institute of Medicine recommends nutrition
therapy, people with cardiovascular disease. This is the recommendation
of the Institute of Medicine, a recommendation which has been
politically rejected.
I believe strongly that additions to the Medicare program must be
based on scientific evidence and medical science, not on the power of a
particular lobbying group or the bias of a single Member. It appears to
me that instead of taking a rational, scientific approach to
prevention, the Members who constructed this Medicare add-back
provision used a ``disease of the month'' philosophy, leaving those who
[[Page S11884]]
need help the most without relevant new Medicare services.
When I asked why did the authors of this bill ignore the expert
recommendations, why did they provide that seniors with cardiovascular
disease could not take advantage of the nutrition therapy, what was the
answer? I was told that it was excluded because it was too expensive.
It does not take a Sherlock Holmes, or even a Dr. Watson, to
understand what is happening. This bill provides $1.5 billion over 5
years for prevention services to our older citizens. It provides a
whopping $11.1 billion for the HMO industry. Clearly, the money is
there but the real goal is not to direct it to the greatest need. It
is, rather, to herd seniors into HMOs as a means of avoiding the
addition of a meaningful Medicare prescription drug benefit for our
Nation's seniors.
Whether you believe in the broad Government subsidization of the
managed care industry or in providing benefits to seniors and children,
we should all agree that taxpayers' money should be spent responsibly.
This legislation does not meet that test. Congress has the
responsibility to make certain that the payment increases we offer are
based on actual data rather than anecdotal evidence or speculation. How
can we justify that over the next 10 years the managed care industry--
Mr. President, I ask you and our Members to listen to this startling
fact--over the next 10 years the HMO industry will walk away with
almost the same amount of funding increase as hospitals, home health
care centers, skilled nursing facilities, community health centers, and
the beneficiaries combined. That allocation makes no sense.
One of the most appalling omissions of this bill is the exclusion of
a provision which would have given the States the option, under another
important program, Medicaid and children's health insurance coverage,
to make that coverage available to legal immigrant children and
pregnant women.
Current census data shows us that last year nearly half of low-income
immigrant children in America had no health coverage. Congressional
Republicans and Democrats, Governors--and I am proud to say including
Gov. Jeb Bush of the State of Florida, Christie Todd Whitman of New
Jersey, Paul Cellucci of Massachusetts, and the Clinton
administration--have been advocating for the inclusion of this
commonsense provision in this balanced budget add-back bill. But some
in Congress have opposed the inclusion of a provision that will provide
health care coverage for indigent immigrant women and children, arguing
that the welfare reform law removed legal immigrants from the health
rolls.
There was a reason why they were removed, and that reason was money.
By limiting the number of people eligible for Medicaid and children's
health insurance, the Federal Government was able to save some dollars.
This provision had nothing to do with the overall worthy goals of
welfare reform, which were encouraging self-reliance, self-sufficiency,
and discouraging single parenting. There is no evidence that legal
immigrants come to the United States to secure health benefits. In
fact, in the last decade immigrants have been moving from high benefit
States such as California and New York to low benefit States such as
North Carolina and Virginia.
There is also no denying that the money to cover this population of
approximately 200,000 persons is available if we choose to use it. The
proof is covering children and pregnant women is not only humane, it is
fiscally responsible. The Medicare ``give back'' package is aimed at
keeping strapped hospitals solvent. These same struggling hospitals
bear the brunt of providing uncompensated emergency room care for
children without health insurance whose families cannot afford to pay.
Taxpayers are eventually going to wind up paying the cost of citizen
children born prematurely because their legal immigrant mothers could
not get prenatal care.
This bill is disturbing for both what it has and what it does not
have. As I said, it does not have a clear blueprint towards a path of
sustained fiscal responsibility.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at the conclusion of my
remarks an article written by Dr. Robert Reischauer entitled ``Bye-Bye
Surplus'' be printed in the Record.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(See Exhibit 1.)
Mr. GRAHAM. Dr. Reischauer outlines the four ingredients present in
today's political environment that are likely to lead to a feeding
frenzy that will lay waste to the surplus that we have until now
guarded. Those ingredients are: No. 1, the need for the next President
to affirm his administration's legitimacy; No. 2, even larger budget
provisions; and a compliant Congress, and finally a weakening economy.
Why should we worry about all this? Why should we at this stage, at
7:35 on a Friday evening, suddenly become exercised about the issue of
fiscal discipline? Some budget observers believe the Federal surplus
may be revised upward by as much as $1 trillion when the new budget
estimates are revealed. If that is the case, the unified budget surplus
for the next 10 years will rise to roughly $5.5 trillion.
Given these larger surplus projections, one may ask why Americans
should be concerned with the deterioration of budget discipline.
Americans should worry because Congress is frittering away the hard-won
surplus without a real plan for utilizing those surpluses, without
addressing the long-term, major challenges facing Americans--Social
Security, Medicare, and paying down a $5.5 trillion national debt.
Americans should care because we are sleepwalking through the surplus.
We are denying ourselves the chance to face major national challenges.
We are leaving to our grandchildren the credit card bills that our
generation has accumulated.
The Congressional Budget Office recently released its long-term
budget outlook. The findings in that report are not encouraging, but
they are not surprising. That may explain why the report garnered such
little attention.
What were the Congressional Budget Office findings?
The Federal Government spending on health and retirement programs--
Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security--will dominate the long-term budget
outlook. Spending on major health and retirement programs will more
than double, rising from 7.5 percent of gross domestic product today to
16.7 percent 40 years from now. Why? The retirement of the baby boom
generation will drastically increase the number of Americans receiving
retirement and health care benefits, and the cost of providing health
care is growing faster than the overall economy.
Saving most or all of the budget surpluses that CBO projects over the
next 10 years--using them to pay down the debt--would have a positive
impact on these projections and substantially delay the emergence of a
serious fiscal imbalance.
There could be no more clear delineation of the long-term problem.
Equally clear is the proffered outline of the short-term steps Congress
can take to begin to address this problem: Save the surplus; pay down
the debt.
Yet despite the obvious, Congress seems content to take the easier
path and to fritter away the surplus. We have an obligation not to let
this happen.
The ugly days of deficits taught Congress some very valuable lessons.
One of those lessons was the need to prioritize. We all have
expectations. We all are representing our constituents to the best of
our ability. We all have a sense of our national responsibility. But
the tool that forced us to do what was required was the one that said
that for each additional dollar of spending, a dollar of spending had
to be reduced or a dollar of taxes had to be raised. That is what
discipline is about.
The surplus has eroded that discipline. We are failing the American
public by not having honest, open debate about the tradeoffs that are
necessary if we create programs, build projects, or cut taxes.
Few Congresses in the history of this Nation have squandered their
opportunities as much as the 106th. Few Congresses in the history of
this Nation have had the opportunity of redemption that awaits the
107th Congress. Few Congresses will be judged more harshly for
avoiding, trivializing, and ultimately failing to seize that
opportunity.
[[Page S11885]]
For those reasons, I have asked that I be recorded as ``no'' on the
final vote on the omnibus appropriations bill.
I thank the Chair.
Exhibit 1
[From the Washington Post, Dec. 5, 2000]
Bye-Bye, Surplus
(By Robert D. Reischauer)
A president with no mandate to pursue his campaign
promises. A Congress hardened by four years of partisan
combat, scarred by a bitter election and immobilized by the
lack of a party with a clear majority. Isn't this the recipe
for continued gridlock? Won't legislative paralysis leave the
growing budget surpluses safe from plunder for another two
years?
Don't bet on it. A torrent of legislation that squanders
much of the projected surplus is much more likely than
continued gridlock, because four key ingredients needed to
cook up a fiscal feast of historic proportions will all be
present next year.
First, there will be the new president's desperate need to
affirm his administration's legitimacy. There's no better way
to do this than to quickly build a solid record of
legislative accomplishment, one that convinces Americans that
the era of partisan gridlock is over and the new occupant of
the Oval Office deserves to be president of all the people,
even if he didn't win a convincing majority of the popular
vote.
The second ingredient will be new and even larger
projections of future surpluses. These will make the
president's legislative agenda look like the well-deserved
reward for a decade of fiscal fasting rather than a return to
reckless budget profligacy. During the presidential campaign,
the two candidates debated how best to divide an estimated
$2.2 trillion 10-year surplus among tax cuts, spending
increases and debt reduction. The budget offices' new
projections, which will be released early next year, will
almost certainly promise even fatter, juicier surpluses,
surpluses that will boost the expectations of all of the
greedy supplicants.
Rather than being bound by gridlock, the 107th Congress
will be poised for a feeding frenzy, the third ingredient for
the fiscal feast. Nervously eyeing the 2002 election, when
each party will have a reasonable shot at gaining effective
control of Congress, Democrats and Republicans will curry
favor with all important--and many not so important--interest
groups. While the election campaign underscored the different
priorities of the two parties, it also revealed many areas
where there was bipartisan agreement that more should be
spent. Education, the top priority of both candidates and the
public's primary concern, could benefit from a bidding war if
each side tries to prove that it is the ``Education Party.''
Increases in defense spending also have broad bipartisan
support. And then there is the irresistible impulse to shower
resources on health research (NIH), Medicare providers and
farmers, to name but a few.
The size of the projected surpluses, the uncertain
political environment, and the argument that those surpluses
are ``the hardworking people of America's money . . . not the
government's money'' will make a large tax cut almost
inevitable. No one will stop to ask whose money it was when
the hard-working people's representatives racked up $3.7
trillion in deficits between 1980 and 1998 or whether we owe
it to our kids to pay down the increased public debt these
deficits generated. Instead, large bipartisan majorities will
rally around and add to a presidential proposal that includes
marriage penalty relief, rate cuts, tax credits for health
insurance, new incentives for retirement saving, and an
easing of the estate tax for struggling millionaires who have
had to suffer through a period of unprecedented prosperity
and soaring stock values.
A weakening economy--the final ingredient--will wipe away
any lingering qualms lawmakers may have about wallowing again
in waters of fiscal excess. No matter that the vast majority
of economists welcome slower growth because they believe that
the current 4 percent unemployment rate is incompatible with
price stability. If the unemployment rate drifts up close to
5 percent--a level that labor, business and the Fed
considered unattainable as recently as 1995--the summer
soldiers of fiscal prudence will cut and run, slashing taxes
and boosting spending, claiming as they retreat that these
actions are the only way to save the nation from another
Great Depression.
The current fiscal year will be the third consecutive one
in which the budget, excluding Social Security, has been in
surplus. The last time such a record was achieved was 1928 to
1930. If the new president and the 107th Congress do what
comes most naturally, we may have to wait another 70 years to
celebrate such an accomplishment. Worse yet, we will wake up
after the fiscal feast to discover that the surplus has been
squandered while the nation's foremost fiscal challenge--
providing for the baby boomers' retirement--has not been
addressed because that required difficult choices and
political courage.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the conference
report is agreed to.
Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, the Appalachian National Scenic Trail is
a treasure that thousands of Americans enjoy every year. From day
hikers to adventures making the 2,167 mile trip from Georgia to Maine,
all who travel the footpath enjoy a remarkable wilderness experience.
The National Trails System Act of 1968 designated the Appalachian
Trail as one of our nation's first scenic trails and authorized the
Secretary of Interior to protect the trail through the acquisition of
land along the trail or by other means. Over the years, Congress has
supported this important effort through appropriations that have
enabled the National Park Service to acquire more than 3000 parcels of
land, protecting ninety-nine percent of the trail for future
generations.
Despite the success of the last thirty years, more work needs to be
done to ensure that the trail is preserved in its entirety. The longest
remaining unprotected segment of the Appalachian Trail crosses
Saddleback Mountain, in the Rangeley Region of western Maine. The 3.1
miles that traverse the Saddleback Mountain range is one of the trail's
highest stretches, offering hikers an alpine wilderness trek and
extraordinary vistas. The mountain is also home to Saddleback Ski Area,
which draws skiers to an area of Maine where many are employed in the
tourism industry.
For nearly twenty years, the National Park Service and the owners of
the ski area have sought an agreement that balances the preservation of
the trail experience as it exists today and development opportunities
at the mountain that would draw additional skiers to the resort and the
region. Some have been inclined to suggest that skiers and hikers
cannot share Saddleback Mountain, but I have always maintained that
with careful planning, preservation and economic development can
coexist. Consequently, I have long urged both sides to work together to
find a resolution that satisfies the interests of those who cherish the
Appalachian Trail, as well as those who live and work in the Rangeley
Region.
Mr. President, the impasse between the National Park Service and the
owners of Saddleback Mountain is drawing to a close. The agreement so
many have labored to achieve has been all but finalized, and with the
passage of the bill before us today, Congress will establish the
framework by which this matter can be resolved. Included in the bill is
a provision proposed by me and Senator Snowe directing the Secretary of
Interior to acquire the land necessary to protect the Appalachian Trail
as agreed to by both the Department and the owners of Saddleback
Mountain. The language also directs the Secretary to convey the land to
the State of Maine.
I would like to express my appreciation to Appropriations Committee
Chairman Stevens and Subcommittee Chairman Specter for working with
Senator Snowe and I on this matter of importance to our State. I would
also like to thank Interior Subcommittee Chairman Gorton for including
the Saddleback acquisition in the list of projects approved for Title
VIII funds in the FY 2001 Interior Appropriations bill. Their support,
along with the dedication of many others who have been involved in the
negotiations, will ensure that skiers and hikers can share in the
enjoyment of the natural beauty and wonders of Saddleback Mountain for
generation to come.
____________________