[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 90 (Tuesday, June 26, 2001)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6921-S6929]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
By Mr. SMITH of Oregon (for himself and Mr. Bingaman):
S. 1098. A bill to amend the Food Stamp Act of 1977 to improve food
stamp informational activities in those States with the greatest rate
of hunger; to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.
Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the
State Hunger Assistance in Response to Emergency or SHARE Act of 2001.
I introduce this bill because it is a tragedy, that in this land of
plenty, people across America go to bed hungry. It is high time that
Congress do something to combat this tragedy.
Over the past few years, my home State of Oregon has seen an
unprecedented economic boom--as has much of the country. Our silicon
forest has grown by leaps and bounds; unemployment has dropped, and our
welfare rolls have been reduced by half. But this prosperity has not
reached all Oregonians. Oregon has the appalling distinction of having
the highest rate of hunger in the nation, according to the USDA. That
means that per capita, more people in Oregon go without meals than in
any other State. I think that it may surprise some of my colleagues to
learn that many of their home States suffer from severe hunger problems
as well.
Perhaps the most tragic aspect of America's hunger problem is that it
can be prevented. Federal programs,
[[Page S6922]]
like Food Stamps and WIC, can help families fill the gap between the
size of their food bill and the size of their paycheck, but too many
people don't know that they qualify for the help available to them
through these programs. This is especially true in the rural areas of
Oregon, which is also home to most of my State's hungry citizens. Help
exists for hungry people, and I want to make sure every American knows
about the resources the Federal Government has already made available
to them.
The Food Stamp Act of 1977 authorized the Secretary of Agriculture to
provide states with up to 50 percent of the costs of informational
activities related to program outreach; however, because the remaining
50 percent of the funds for these limited outreach activities must be
supplied by the State, most States do not participate.
To ensure that more Oregonians and hungry people across the country
take advantage of the resources available to them, the SHARE Act will
provide additional funds to the 10 hungriest states, as named by the
USDA, to help those in need learn about and sign up for federal food
assistance programs. The SHARE bill authorizes the Secretary of
Agriculture to make grants of up to $1 million to these states for 3
years. States can use these flexible funds for outreach--anything from
distributing informational flyers at community health clinics to
funding staff to help people fill out application forms. In addition,
the bill will allow the Secretary of Agriculture to make grants
available to States with particularly innovative outreach demonstration
projects, so that we can find the best ways to combat hunger.
In a country as blessed with abundance as ours, no family should go
hungry simply because they lack the information they need to get help.
When passed, the SHARE Act will give Oregon and other states an
opportunity to devise new and innovative programs that will allow the
needy in our states to get the help they so desperately need. The idea
behind this legislation is not very complicated--I simply want to make
people aware of the food assistance already available to them--but I
believe that this bill is as important as any we will consider in the
Senate this year. With the help of my colleagues, we can stem the tide
of this very preventable tragedy.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, extreme forms of hunger in American
households have virtually been eliminated, in part due to the Nation's
nutrition-assistance safety net. Less severe forms of food insecurity
and hunger, however, are still found within the United States and
remain a cause for concern. The Food Stamp Program provides benefits to
low-income people to assist with their purchase of foods that will
enhance their nutritional status. Food stamp recipients spend their
benefits, in the form of paper coupons or electronic benefits on debit
cards, to buy eligible food in authorized retail food stores. Food
stamp recipients, or those eligible for food stamps, cross the life
cycle. They include individuals of all ages, races and ethnicity in
both urban and rural settings.
As a result of the National Nutrition Monitoring and Related Research
Act of 1990, the nutritional state of the American people has been
closely monitored at State and local levels. We know that food
insecurity is a complex, multidimensional phenomenon which varies
through a continuum of successive stages as the condition becomes more
severe. As the stage of food insecurity and hunger progresses, the
number of affected individuals decreases. It is important for us to
identify the stages of food insecurity and hunger as early as possible
and, thus, continue to avoid the more severe stages of hunger. This
means that we will need to focus on a much larger population base with
a less dramatic stage of the condition which may be more difficult to
identify. Fortunately, current tools to document the extent of food
insecurity and hunger caused by income limitations are sensitive and
reliable.
We must continue developing tools to document the extent of poor
nutrition attributable to factors other than income limitations, like
inadequate consumption of fruits and vegetables and overconsumption of
sugar, fat, and empty calories. In the meantime, The State Hunger
Assistance in Response to Emergency Act of 2001 (SHARE) would take
information which is already being collected by the Department of
Agriculture and allow the 10 States with the greatest rate of hunger to
access funds to perform enhanced outreach activities for the food stamp
program.
The goal of the food stamp nutrition education program is to provide
educational programs that increase the likelihood of all food stamp
recipients making healthy food choices consistent with the most recent
dietary advice. States are encouraged to provide nutrition education
messages that focus on strengthening and reinforcing the link between
food security and a healthy diet. Currently USDA matches the dollars a
State is able to spend on its Food Stamp nutrition education program.
This nutrition education plan is optional but participation has
increased from five State plans in 1992 to 48 State plans in FY 2000.
This bill expands the allowable outreach activities for the States
with the worst statistics and would allow up to $1 million per State
with 0 percent match requirement. In exchange for this unmatched money,
the State must submit a report that measures the outcomes of food stamp
informational activities carried out by the State over the 3 years of
the grant. In addition, up to five States with innovative proposals for
food stamp outreach could be selected by the Secretary of Agriculture
for a demonstration project to receive the same amount of money over 3
years.
I have always been proud to represent my home State of New Mexico in
the United States Senate. Unfortunately New Mexico has one of the worst
hunger statistics in the nation. I think it is my duty to advocate for
the New Mexicans that I represent as well as all Americans who are at
risk for experiencing hunger, including those from Oregon, Texas,
Arkansas and Washington who share similar statistics.
______
By Mr. SMITH of Oregon (for himself and Mr. Leahy):
S. 1099. A bill to increase the criminal penalties for assaulting or
threatening Federal judges, their family members, and other public
servants, and for other purposes; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, one of the important tasks we
have in Congress is to ensure that our laws effectively deter violence
and provide protection to those whose careers are dedicated to
protecting our families and also our communities.
With this in mind, today I rise to reintroduce the Federal Judiciary
Protection Act with my esteemed colleague, Senator Leahy. This bill
will provide greater protection to Federal law enforcement officials
and their families. Under current law, a person who assaults, attempts
to assault, or who threatens to kidnap or murder a member of the
immediate family of a U.S. official, a U.S. judge, or a Federal law
enforcement official, is subject to a punishment of a fine or
imprisonment of up to 5 years, or both. This legislation seeks to
expand these penalties in instances of assault with a weapon and a
prior criminal history. In such cases, an individual could face up to
20 years in prison.
This legislation would also strengthen the penalties for individuals
who communicate threats through the mail. Currently, individuals who
knowingly use the U.S. Postal Service to deliver any communication
containing any threat are subject to a fine of up to $1,000 or
imprisonment of up to 5 years. Under this legislation, anyone who
communicates a threat could face imprisonment of up to 10 years.
Briefly, I would like to share several examples illustrating the need
for this legislation. In my State of Oregon, Chief Judge Michael Hogan
and his family were subjected to frightening, threatening phone calls,
letters, and messages from an individual who had been convicted of
previous crimes in Judge Hogan's courtroom. For months, he and his
family lived with the fear that these threats to the lives of his wife
and children could become reality, and, equally disturbing, that the
individual could be back out on the street again in a matter of a few
months, or a few years.
Judge Hogan and his family are not alone. In 1995, Mr. Melvin Lee
Davis threatened two judges in Oregon, one judge in Nevada, and the
Clerk of the
[[Page S6923]]
Court in Oregon. The threat was carried out to the point that the front
door of the residence of a Mr. John Cooney was shot up in a drive-by
shooting. Unfortunately for Mr. Cooney, he had the same name as one of
the Oregon judges who was threatened.
In September 1996, Lawrence County Judge Dominick Motto was stalked,
harassed, and subjected to terrorist threats by Milton C. Reiguert, who
was upset by a verdict in a case that Judge Motto had heard in his
courtroom. After hearing the verdict, Reiguert stated his intention to
``point a rifle at his head and get what he wanted.''
These are just several examples of vicious acts focused at our
Federal law enforcement officials. As a member of the legislative
branch, I believe it is our responsibility to provide adequate
protection to all Americans who serve to protect the life and liberty
of every citizen in this Nation. I encourage my colleagues to join us
in sponsoring this important legislation.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my friend from Oregon
to introduce the Federal Judiciary Protection Act. In the last two
Congresses, I was pleased to cosponsor nearly identical legislation
introduced by Senator Gordon Smith, which unanimously passed the Senate
Judiciary Committee and the Senate, but was not acted upon by the House
of Representatives. I commend the Senator from Oregon for his continued
leadership in protecting public servants in our Federal Government.
Our bipartisan legislation would provide greater protection to
Federal judges, law enforcement officers, and United States officials
and their families. United States officials, under our bill, include
the President, Vice President, Cabinet Secretaries, and Members of
Congress.
Specifically, our legislation would: increase the maximum prison term
for forcible assaults, resistance, opposition, intimidation or
interference with a Federal judge, law enforcement officer or United
States official from 3 years imprisonment to 8 years; increase the
maximum prison term for use of a deadly weapon or infliction of bodily
injury against a Federal judge, law enforcement officer or United
States official from 10 years imprisonment to 20 years; and increase
the maximum prison term for threatening murder or kidnaping of a member
of the immediate family of a Federal judge or law enforcement officer
from 5 years imprisonment to 10 years. It has the support of the
Department of Justice, the United States Judicial Conference, the
United States Sentencing Commission and the United States Marshal
Service.
It is most troubling that the greatest democracy in the world needs
this legislation to protect the hard working men and women who serve in
our Federal Government. Just last week, I was saddened to read about
death threats against my colleague from Vermont after his act of
conscience in declaring himself an Independent. Senator Jeffords
received multiple threats against his life, which forced around-the-
clock police protection. These unfortunate threats made a difficult
time even more difficult for Senator Jeffords and his family.
We are seeing more violence and threats of violence against officials
of our Federal Government. For example, a courtroom in Urbana, Illinois
was firebombed recently, apparently by a disgruntled litigant. This
follows the horrible tragedy of the bombing of the federal office
building in Oklahoma City in 1995. In my home state during the summer
of 1997, a Vermont border patrol officer, John Pfeiffer, was seriously
wounded by Carl Drega, during a shootout with Vermont and New Hampshire
law enforcement officers in which Drega lost his life. Earlier that
day, Drega shot and killed two state troopers and a local judge in New
Hampshire. Apparently, Drega was bent on settling a grudge against the
judge who had ruled against him in a land dispute.
I had a chance to visit John Pfeiffer in the hospital and met his
wife and young daughter. Thankfully, Agent Pfeiffer has returned to
work along the Vermont border. As a Federal law enforcement officer,
Agent Pfeiffer and his family will receive greater protection under our
bill.
There is, of course, no excuse or justification for someone taking
the law into their own hands and attacking or threatening a judge, law
enforcement officer or U.S. official. Still, the U.S. Marshal Service
is concerned with more and more threats of harm to our judges, law
enforcement officers and Federal officials.
The extreme rhetoric that some have used in the past to attack the
judiciary only feeds into this hysteria. For example, one of the
Republican leaders in the House of Representatives was quoted as
saying: ``The judges need to be intimidated,'' and if they do not
behave, ``we're going to go after them in a big way.'' I know that this
official did not intend to encourage violence against any Federal
official, but this extreme rhetoric only serves to degrade Federal
judges in the eyes of the public.
Let none of us in the Congress contribute to the atmosphere of hate
and violence. Let us treat the judicial branch and those who serve
within it with the respect that is essential to preserving its public
standing.
We have the greatest judicial system in the world, the envy of people
around the globe who are struggling for freedom. It is the independence
of our third, co-equal branch of government that gives it the ability
to act fairly and impartially. It is our judiciary that has for so long
protected our fundamental rights and freedoms and served as a necessary
check on overreaching by the other two branches, those more susceptible
to the gusts of the political winds of the moment.
We are fortunate to have dedicated women and men throughout the
Federal Judiciary and Federal Government in this country who do a
tremendous job under difficult circumstances. They are examples of the
hard-working public servants that make up the Federal Government, who
are too often maligned and unfairly disparaged. It is unfortunate that
it takes acts or threats of violence to put a human face on the Federal
Judiciary, law enforcement officers or U.S. officials, to remind
everyone that these are people with children and parents and cousins
and friends. They deserve our respect and our protection.
I thank Senator Smith for his leadership on protecting our Federal
judiciary and other public servants in our Federal Government. I urge
my colleagues to support the Federal Judiciary Protection Act.
______
By Mr. WARNER (for himself and Mr. Allen):
S. 1101. A bill to name the engineering and management building at
Norfolk Naval Shipyard, Portsmouth, Virginia, after Norman Sisisky; to
the Committee on Armed Services.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill that will
redesignate Building 1500 at the Norfolk Naval Shipyard, Portsmouth,
Virginia, as the Norman Sisisky Engineering and Management Building. I
am joined by my Virginia Senate colleague, George Allen.
As a Navy veteran of World War II, Congressman Sisisky was proud to
be a part of one of the most extraordinary chapters in American
history, when America was totally united at home in support of our 16
million men and women in uniform on battlefields in Europe and on the
high seas in the Pacific, all, at home and abroad, fighting to preserve
freedom.
During our 18 years serving together, Congressman Sisisky's goal, our
goal, was to provide for the men and women in uniform and their
families.
The last 50 years have proven time and again that one of America's
greatest investments was the G.I. Bill of Rights, originated during
World War II, which enabled service men and women to gain an education
such that they could rebuild America's economy. The G.I. Bill was but
one of the many benefits that Congressman Sisisky fought for and made a
reality for today's soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines.
His strength in public life was supported by his wonderful family;
his lovely wife Rhoda and four accomplished children. They were always
by his side offering their love, support, and counsel.
He worked tirelessly throughout Virginia's 4th District, however,
there was always a special bond to the military installations under his
charge. As a former sailor, the Norfolk Naval Shipyard was high among
his priorities. He
[[Page S6924]]
knew the workers by name and the monthly workload in the yard. In
consultation with his family and delegation members, we chose this
building at the shipyard as a most appropriate memorial to our friend
and colleague.
I waited until the special election was concluded so the entire
Virginia delegation could join together on this legislation.
Norman Sisisky was always a leader for the delegation on matters of
national security. We are honored to join in this bi-partisan effort to
remember Congressman Norman Sisisky and his life's work; ensuring the
nation's security and the welfare of the men and women in uniform and
their families.
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. 1101
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION. 1. DESIGNATION OF ENGINEERING AND MANAGEMENT
BUILDING AT NORFOLK NAVAL SHIPYARD, VIRGINIA,
AFTER NORMAN SISISKY.
The engineering and management building (also known as
Building 1500) at Norfolk Naval Shipyard, Portsmouth,
Virginia, shall be known as the Norman Sisisky Engineering
and Management Building. Any reference to that building in
any law, regulation, map, document, record, or other paper of
the United States shall be considered to be a reference to
the Norman Sisisky Engineering and Management Building.
______
By Mr. CONRAD (for himself, Mr. Grassley, Mr. Baucus, Mr.
Daschle, Mr. Murkowski, Mrs. Lincoln, and Mr. Kerry):
S. 1100. A bill to amend the Trade Act of 1974 to provide trade
adjustment assistance to farmers; to the Committee on Finance.
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to
bring fairness to farmers in an important element of our trade policy.
I am very pleased to be joined in this effort by the ranking member of
the Finance Committee, Senator Grassley, who has been a true champion
of this effort over the past several years.
The legislation we are introducing today would amend the Trade Act of
1974 to make farmers eligible for Trade Adjustment Assistance, TAA, so
that they can get assistance similar to that provided to workers in
other industries who suffer economic injury as a result of increased
imports.
When imports cause layoffs in manufacturing industries, workers
become eligible for TAA. Under TAA, a portion of the income these
workers lose is restored to them in the form of extended unemployment
insurance benefits while they adjust to import competition and seek
other employment. When imports of agricultural commodities increase,
though, farmers do not lose their jobs. Instead, the increased imports
drive down the prices farmers receive for the crops they have grown.
This drop in prices can have an impact that is every bit as devastating
to the income of a family farmer as a layoff is to a manufacturing
worker. In fact, it can be even more devastating. In many cases, the
check that farmers get for all the hard work of growing crops or
livestock for the year may not only leave the farmer with no net
income, it may not even cover all the input costs associated with
producing the commodity, leaving the farmer with thousands of dollars
in losses. But, because job loss is a requirement for getting cash
assistance under TAA, farmers generally don't get benefits from TAA
when imports cause their income to plummet.
Trade is very important to our overall economy, and trade is
especially important to our agricultural economy. For example, we
export over half the wheat grown in the United States. That is why,
historically, agriculture has been among the leading supporters of
trade liberalization. However, today many farmers believe their incomes
are hurt by free trade, and they have nowhere to turn for assistance
when this happens.
Trade Adjustment Assistance for Farmers can not only provide badly
needed cash assistance to the devastated agricultural economy, it can
re-ignite support for trade among many family farmers. By giving
farmers some protection against precipitous income losses from imports,
this legislation will strengthen support for trade agreements.
The Conrad-Grassley TAA for Farmers Act would assist farmers who lose
income because of imports. Farmers would get a payment to compensate
them for some, but not all, of the income they lose if increased
imports affect commodity prices.
The eligibility criteria are designed to be analogous to those that
apply currently to manufacturing workers. First, just as the Secretary
of Labor now decides whether there has been economic injury to workers
in a given manufacturing firm by determining whether production has
declined and significant layoffs have occurred, the Secretary of
Agriculture would decide whether there has been economic injury to
producers of a commodity by determining if the price of the commodity
had dropped more than 20 percent compared to the average price in the
previous five years. Second, just as the Secretary of Labor determines
whether imports ``contributed importantly'' to the layoffs, the
Secretary of Agriculture would determine whether imports ``contributed
importantly'' to the commodity price drop.
In order to be eligible for benefits under this program, individual
farmers would have to demonstrate that their net farm income had
declined from the previous year, and farmers would need to meet with
the USDA's extension service to plan how to adjust to the import
competition. This adjustment could take the form of improving the
efficiency of the operation or switching to different crops.
Farmers who are eligible for benefits under the program would receive
a cash assistance payment equal to half the difference between the
national average price for the year (as determined by USDA) and 80
percent of the average price in the previous 5 years (the price trigger
level), multiplied by the number of units the farmer had produced, up
to a maximum of $10,000 per year.
In most years, the program would have a modest cost, as few
commodities, if any, would be eligible. But in a year when surging
imports cause prices to drop precipitously, this program would offer a
cash lifeline to give farmers the opportunity to adjust to this import
competition. This legislation sends a strong signal to farmers that
they will not be left behind in our trade policy, that agriculture must
be a priority.
We need to be sure that we don't leave American farmers behind. I
hope my colleagues will join me in supporting American family farmers
as they compete in the global market place.
______
By Mr. WELLSTONE:
S. 1102. A bill to strengthen the rights of workers to associate,
organize and strike, and for other purposes; to the Committee on
Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation
to strengthen the basic rights of workers to organize and to join a
union. This legislation, the ``Right-to-Organize Act of 2001,''
addresses shortcomings in the National Labor Relations Act, NLRA, that,
over the years, have eroded the framework of worker empowerment the
NLRA was designed to ensure.
The NLRA, also known as the Wagner Act, was enacted to ``protect the
exercise by workers of full freedom of association, self-organization
and designation of representatives of their own choosing for purpose of
negotiating the terms and conditions of their employment or other
mutual aid or protection.'' Its proponents envisioned that the commerce
of the Nation would be aided by workplaces that respected and empowered
workers' voices about the terms and conditions of their own employment.
Its proponents envisioned that supporting workers' right to organize
would help lay the basic platform for healthy economies, healthy
communities, and healthy families.
Grounded in lofty notions of ``full freedom of association'' and
``actual liberty of contract,'' the promise of the NLRA was a
fundamentally democratic one: participatory processes as a way to
guarantee basic protections and to give those affected a role in
decision-making about issues of paramount concern to them.
That was the promise of the NLRA. Unfortunately, today that promise
is far from being realized. Indeed, today
[[Page S6925]]
the democratic foundation we have attempted to erect for our workplaces
is crumbling beyond recognition.
Today, instead of celebrating the participatory voice of workers, we
are faced with the stark reality that in all too many cases, workers
who do participate, workers who choose to organize, workers who choose
to voice their concerns about the terms and conditions of their
workplace live in fear. They live in fear of being harassed, of losing
wages and benefits, of being put on leave without pay, and ultimately
fear of losing their jobs. In a country that celebrates democracy and
freedom, the land of the free, it is unconscionable that hard working
men and women can be placed in fear of losing their livelihood because
they choose to exercise their legal rights to associate for the
purposes of bargaining collectively and participating in decision-
making about their own workplaces.
Today, as one organizer told me, all too many times you have to be a
hero when you try to organize your own workplace. That's true. The men
and women who do this--who step up to take some ownership for what's
going on in their own workplaces--are doing heroic work. But that
shouldn't have to be the case. That wasn't the promise of democracy and
participation--of the associational and liberty of contract values this
Nation endorsed in the National Labor Relations Act.
It's urgent that we take action here. Estimates are that 10,000
working Americans lose their jobs illegally every year just for
supporting union organizing campaigns. The 1994 Dunlop Commission found
that one in four employers illegally fired union activists during
organizing campaigns. Estimates are that one out of 10 activists is
fired.
This is unacceptable. This is truly one of the most urgent civil
rights and human rights issues of the new millennium. Working Americans
are harassed, threatened and fired simply for seeking to have a voice
and be represented in their workplace. According to the Dunlop
Commission, the United States is the only major democratic country in
which the choice of whether workers are to be represented by a union is
subject to such confrontational processes.
As Chair of the Employment, Safety, and Training Subcommittee with
jurisdiction over the National Labor Relations Act, NLRA, I am
introducing the ``Right-to-Organize Act of 2001'' to shore up the
crumbling foundation of democracy in the workplace that the NLRA was
intended to promote. The Act will target some of the most serious
abuses of labor law that unfortunately have become all too common in
recent years.
First, employers routinely monopolize the debates leading up to
certification elections. They distribute written materials in
opposition to collective bargaining. They require workers to attend
meetings where they present their anti-union views. They talk to
employees one-on-one about the dire consequences of unionization, such
as the possibility that the individual employee or all employees could
lose their jobs. All too often, at the same time that this flagrant
coercion, intimidation, and interference is taking place often on a
daily basis--union organizers are barred from work sites and even
public areas.
Second, as noted above, employers too frequently are firing employees
and engaging in other unfair labor practices to discourage union
organizing and union representation. They are doing this sometimes with
near impunity because today's laws simply are not strong enough to
discourage them from doing so. As the report, Unfair Advantage noted
just last year, employers intent on frustrating workers' efforts to
organize can, and do, drag out legal proceedings for years, at the end
of which they receive a slap on the wrist in the form of back pay to
the worker illegally fired and a requirement that they post a written
notice promising not to repeat their illegal behavior. ``Many
employers,'' according to this report `` have come to view remedies,
like back pay for workers fired because of union activity as a routine
cost of doing business, well worth it to get rid of organizing leaders
and derail workers' organizing efforts.'' We need to put teeth into our
ability to enforce the legal rights that are already on the books.
Third, as part of efforts to discourage organizing, employers are
able today to drag out election campaigns, giving themselves more time
in some cases to harass workers through methods such as those I have
described. Their hope may be that the climate of fear and intimidation
will encourage workers to vote against the union seeking certification.
While just across our border in Canada, elections take place on average
within a week of the filing of a petition, here in the United States,
it takes on average 80 days between petition and certification. That is
an enormous amount of time for workers to live in fear of casting a
vote to help empower their voice in the workplace.
Finally, there is a growing problem of employers refusing to bargain
with their employees even after a union has been duly certified.
Achieving so-called ``first contracts'' can often be as harrowing as
the organizing effort itself.
I want to be clear. Most employers do not take advantage of their
workers in this way. Indeed, in tens of thousands of workplaces across
the country, employers are working together with employees and their
unions, to create safe, healthy, productive, and rewarding work
environments. I applaud the efforts these employers and workers are
making.
Unfortunately, however, this is not universally the case. All too
frequently employers are disempowering workers and undermining their
rights to organize, join, and belong to a union. That is why, that I
say this is one of the most urgent civil and human rights issues of the
new millennium. Civil rights and human rights is fundamentally about
protecting the dignity and well-being of the less empowered against
excesses of the more powerful. Nothing could be more important to
protecting workers' rights to advocate for themselves and their
families than securing a meaningful right to organize.
The Right-to-Organize Act of 2001 is a first step in tackling some of
the most serious barriers to workers' ability to unionize. In
particular, the Act would do the following:
First, it would amend the National Labor Relations Act to provide
equal time to labor organizations to provide information about union
representation. Under this proposal the employer would trigger the
equal time provision by expressing opinions on union representation
during work hours or at the work site. Once the triggering actions
occur, then the union would be entitled to equal time to use the same
media used by the employer to distribute information and be allowed
access to the work site to communicate with employees.
Second, it would toughen penalties for wrongful discharge violations.
In particular, it would require the National Labor Relations Board to
award back pay equal to 3 times the employee's wages when the Board
finds that an employee is discharged as a result of an unfair labor
practice. It also would allow employees to file civil actions to
recover punitive damages when they have been discharged as a result of
an unfair labor practice.
Third, it would require expedited elections in cases where a super
majority of workers have signed union recognition cards designating a
union as the employee's labor organizations. In particular, it would
require elections within 14 days after receipt of signed union
recognition cards from 60 percent of the employees.
Fourth, the bill would put in place mediation and arbitration
procedures to help employers and employees reach mutually agreeable
first-contract collective bargaining agreements. It would require
mediation if the parties cannot reach agreement on their own after 60
days. Should the parties not reach agreement 30 days after a mediator
is selected, then either party could call in the Federal Mediation and
Conciliation Service for binding arbitration. In this way both parties
would have incentives to reach genuine agreement without allowing
either side to hold the other hostage indefinitely to unrealistic
proposals.
The need for these reforms is urgent, not only for workers who seek
to join together and bargain collectively, but for all Americans.
Indeed, one of the most important things we can do to raise the
standard of living and quality
[[Page S6926]]
of life for working Americans, raise wages and benefits, improve health
and safety in the workplace, and give average Americans more control
over their lives is to enforce their right to organize, join, and
belong to a union.
When workers join together to fight for job security, for dignity,
for economic justice and for a fair share of America's prosperity, it
is not a struggle merely for their own benefit. The gains of unionized
workers on basic bread-and-butter issues are key to the economic
security of all working families. Upholding the right to organize is a
way to advance important social objectives, higher wages, better
benefits, more pension coverage, more worker training, more health
insurance coverage, and safer work places, for all Americans without
drawing on any additional government resources.
The right to organize is one of the most important civil and human
rights causes of the new millennium. I urge my colleagues to join me in
helping to restore that right to its proper place.
______
By Mr. ROCKEFELLER (for himself, Mr. Dorgan, and Mr. Burns):
S. 1103. A bill to amend title 49, United States Code, to enhance
competition among and between rail carriers in order to ensure
efficient rail service and reasonable rail rates in any case in which
there is an absence of effective competition, and for other purposes;
to the Committee on Commerce Science, and Transportation.
Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I am happy today to join with my
colleagues Senator Dorgan and Senator Burns, in introducing the Rail
Competition Act of 2001. Very simply, the purpose of this legislation
is to encourage a bare minimum of competitive practices among
participants in the freight rail industry, which has undergone
unprecedented concentration in recent years, to the detriment of
virtually all rail customers.
This legislation is a renewed effort on the part of my colleagues and
me to address an issue that has amazed and shocked us for years. The
monopoly power of the railroads places pervasive burdens on so many
industries important to our states and to the national economy. No
other industry in this country wields as much power over its customers
as the railroad industry, and no other industry has as close an ally in
the agency charged with its oversight as the railroad industry has with
the Surface Transportation Board, known by the abbreviation STB. In
fact, no other formerly regulated industry in this country continues to
maintain this level of market dominance over its customers and
essential infrastructure.
Shippers of bulk commodities, like coal from mines in West Virginia
and grain from the Plains states, must routinely deal with shipments
that move more slowly, and at rates much higher than would normally be
charged in a truly competitive market. Every company that ships its
product by rail has a trove of horror stories regarding how high prices
and poor service attributable to the lack of meaningful competition in
the freight rail industry has affected their ability to compete in
their own industries. I know this because these companies have been
telling me the same types of stories since I came to Congress.
I know that other members of Congress have heard the stories, too. As
many of my colleagues will remember, the point was driven home last
year when more than 280 CEOs from companies covering the broadest
possible spectrum of the American economy wrote to Senators McCain and
Hollings asking them to do something to insert real competition in the
freight rail industry. For the record, the STB has also heard the
complaints. However, the Board's focus has been the railroads' still-
weak financial health, rather than the continued service problems that
are its root cause.
I want to give my colleagues an example from an industry that is very
important to my State and the rest of the Nation, the chemical
industry. Throughout the country, approximately 80 percent of
individual chemical operations are ``captive'' to one railroad, meaning
they are served by only one railroad, and are subject to whatever
pricing scheme the railroad chooses to use. In my home State of West
Virginia, where the chemical industry is one of the pillars of the
State's economy, 100 percent of chemical plants are captive. Some might
be tempted to just write this off as the cost of doing business, but
let me impart another view: These plants produce bulk chemicals that
other companies buy and turn into countless products in use in every
home and business in America.
Make no mistake, while the immediate beneficiary of this legislation
will be the Rail Shipper who will have the opportunity to operate with
the confidence that they are getting a fair deal the true beneficiary
of this legislation is the retail shopper. Every purchase of every
product that began its life in a chemical plant will be cheaper when
that chemical plant receives competitive rail service because of this
bill. Every ingredient in your families' dinners will go down in price
when the shippers of agricultural commodities see their costs go down
because this bill has produced efficiencies that benefit both shipper
and railroad. Every time you flip the switch, and the lights turn on at
a lower kilowatt-per-hour rate, it will happen because utilities
throughout the nation have a more reliable and inexpensive supply of
coal because of the Railroad Competition Act of 2001.
Congress deregulated the railroad industry with the passage of the
Staggers Rail Act in 1980. Many of the predicted results of
deregulation came to pass in relatively short order. The major freight
railroads, which were in pretty bad financial shape at the end of the
1970's, put their fiscal houses in order. In the course of these
improvements, some weaker railroads were swallowed up by stronger
corporations. Our Nation's rail network, which was extensive but
inefficient in some respects, became more streamlined. Unfortunately,
some of the benefits of competition that Congress was led to expect
most notably improved service at lower cost have simply not
materialized for many shippers in several parts of the country.
Indeed, rather than improving over time, the situation has grown
steadily worse. The second half of the 1990's saw an unprecedented
spate of railroad mergers, to the point now that the more than 50 Class
I railroads in existence when I entered the United States Senate has
dwindled to only six with four railroads carrying a staggeringly high
percentage of the freight.
STB has considered these mergers to be ``in the public interest,''
and I will not dispute the possibility that some of them may have been.
I tend to believe that the notion that fueled many of the mergers was
that somehow financially weak corporations with poor track records of
service could be transformed overnight into efficient, businesslike
railroads providing good service at lower costs. Meanwhile, rail
shippers had to contend with newly merged railroads with monopoly power
that did not seem to care any more about customer service than the
separate companies that preceded them.
Before I complete my remarks, I want to address what I predict will
be some of the rhetoric bandied about by the railroad industry. This
bill is not an attempt to re-regulate the industry. When Congress
passed the Staggers Rail Act in 1980, it did not do so with only the
financial health of the railroads in mind. The Interstate Commerce
Commission, and its successor agency, the STB, were supposed to
maintain competition in the rail industry. Both agencies have failed
miserably to contain the anti-competitive behavior of the railroads. My
cosponsors and I only seek to require railroads to quote a price for a
portion of a route on which they carry a company's products. This bill
does not seek to give the STB more regulatory authority over the
railroads, it only serves to remind the Board of the pro-competitive
responsibilities authorized by Congress in the Staggers Act.
Likewise, we do not offer this bill to hasten the demise of the
industry. The companies that have come to us time and again for help in
getting competitive rail service absolutely need a strong railroad
industry. Their products, for the most part, cannot be moved
efficiently via trucks or barges. The competition that will be fostered
by this legislation is intended to help the railroads as much as it is
intended to help shippers. Some may dispute the fundamental economic
logic of this, to
[[Page S6927]]
which I respond: Giving the railroads relatively unfettered regional
monopolies with the right to engage in anti-competitive behavior has
not produced the strong railroad industry the Staggers Act sought to
produce. At the very least, perhaps it is time to give competition a
chance to succeed.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about a bill, the
Railroad Competition Act of 2001, which, along with Senator Burns and
Senator Rockefeller I hope will introduce a bit of competition and
better service in our railroad industry. The truth is that our rail
system is completely broken, deregulation has only led to a system
dominated by regional monopolies and both shippers and consumers are
paying the price.
Since the supposed deregulation of the rail industry in 1980, the
number of major Class I railroads has been allowed to decline from
approximately 42 to only four major U.S. railroads today. Four mega-
railroads overwhelmingly dominate railroad traffic, generating 95
percent of the gross ton-miles and 94 percent of the revenues,
controlling 90 percent of all U.S. coal movement; 70 percent of all
grain movement and 88 percent of all originated chemical movement. This
drastic level of consolidation has left rail customers with only two
major carriers operating in the East and two in the West, and has far
exceeded the industry's need to minimize unit operating costs.
But consolidation has not happened in a vacuum. Over the years,
regulators have systematically adopted polices that so narrowly
interpret the pro-competitive provisions of the 1980 statute that
railroads are essentially protected from ever having to compete with
each other. As a consequence rail users have no power to choose among
carriers either in terminal areas where switching infrastructure makes
such choices feasible, nor can rail users even get a rate quoted to
them over a ``bottleneck'' segment of the monopoly system.
The negative results of this approach have been astonishing. In North
Dakota it costs $2,300 to move one rail car of wheat to Minneapolis
(approx. 400 miles). Yet for a similar 400 mile move between
Minneapolis and Chicago, it costs only $310 to deliver that car. And
move that same car another 600 miles to St. Louis, Missouri and it
costs only $610 per car. Looking at it another way--An elevator in
Minot, North Dakota pays $2.99 to the farmer for a bushel of wheat. The
cost to ship that wheat to the West coast on the BNSF is $1.30 per
bushel. At that rate, rail transportation consumes 43 percent of the
value of that wheat. Not only is that totally unfair to the captive
farmer, but in the long run it is unsustainable.
How has this happened? Since the deregulation of the railroad
industry, it has been the responsibility of the Interstate Commerce
Commission, later renamed, the Surface Transportation Board, to make
sure that the pro-competitive intent of the law was being upheld. It is
the STBs charge to protect captive shippers through ``regulated
competition.''
That clearly hasn't happened. In 1999 the GAO reported on how
complicated it is for a shipper to get rate relief under the
``regulated competition'' approach at the STB. The GAO found that this
process takes up to 500 days to decide, and costs hundreds of thousands
of dollars. Hundreds of thousands of dollars and about approximately
two years--that's hardly a rate relief process. But it's about the only
relief shippers have under the law.
The Railroad Competition Act of 2001 will reaffirm the strong role
the STB should play in protecting shippers by: jump-starting
competition by requiring railroads to quote a rate on any given
segment; facilitating terminal access and the ability to transfer goods
among railroads in terminal areas; simplifying the market dominance
test; eliminating the annual revenue adequacy test; bolstering rail
access by making the rate relief process cheaper, faster and easier
through a streamlined arbitration process, and requiring the railroads
to file monthly service performance reports with the Department of
Transportation, similar to what we require of the airline industry, so
that rail customers have access to the information then need to make
good railroad and transportation choices.
All Americans, whether they are farmers who need to ship their crops
to market, businesses shipping factory goods, or consumers that buy the
finished product, deserve to have a rail transportation system with
prices that are fair. It is time for Congress to stand up for farmers,
businesses, and consumers by making it very clear that the STB has to
be a more aggressive defender of competition and reasonable rates.
______
By Mr. GRAHAM (for himself, Mr. Murkowski, Mr. Gramm, Mr.
Nickles, Mr. Thompson, Mr. Kyl, Mr. Hagel, Mr. Roberts, and Mr.
Chafee):
S. 1104. A bill to establish objectives for negotiating, and
procedures for, implementing certain trade agreements; to the Committee
on Finance.
Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today with Senator Murkowski and
our cosponsors to introduce the Trade Promotion Authority Act of 2001.
We have stepped forward because we believe that international trade is
essential to increase opportunities for U.S. producers, to support U.S.
jobs, and to provide economic opportunities for trading partners who
need development.
Last month the Administration release its 2001 International Trade
Agenda, which outlined the President's principles for renewed trade
promotion authority, TPA. At the same time, I was working with a group
of pro-trade Democrats to identify our key priorities. What we
discovered is that our two sets of principles had much in common.
Over the last few weeks, Senator Murkowski and I have worked together
to translate those two sets of principles into legislative language.
The trade debate has been virtually deadlocked for years, with voices
from the ``end zones'' taking center-stage. In our view, this bill
represents the basic architecture of a bipartisan bill on what we
believe is the ``50 yard line.'' We also look forward to the
contribution that others will make before this bill is signed into law.
The fact that we introduced this bill with bipartisan support is
particularly significant because this is not just a set of ideas that
happened to be popular with both Democrats and Republicans. This bill
took real compromise on both sides.
For my part, my contributions to this bill were based on the trade
principles developed by New Democrats led by Cal Dooley in the House
and several of my colleagues in the Senate. The New Democrat trade
principles we released in May are fully incorporated into this bill.
What we introduce today is not a trade agreement. Trade promotion
authority is an authorization to the President to begin negotiations.
Details of a trade bill will be developed through the process
established by the grant of TPA. At the end of that process, Congress
will review the result of those negotiations and grant approval or
disapproval to the result.
Trade promotion authority puts the will of Congress behind our trade
negotiator, but it cannot and should not mandate a specific result from
negotiations. We must leave it to our negotiators to reach the most
favorable agreement they can.
A trade promotion authority bill is a way for Congress to communicate
its negotiating priorities. Some of the priorities we put forward in
this bill include: negotiating objectives on labor and environment that
receive the same priority as commercial negotiating objectives; a new
negotiating objective on information technologies to reduce trade
barriers on high technology products, enhance and facilitate barriers-
free e-commerce, and provide the same rights and protections for the
electronic delivery of products as are offered to products delivered
physically; adoption of measures in trade agreements to ensure proper
implementation, full compliance and appropriate enforcement mechanisms
that are timely and transparent; and a stronger process for continuous
Congressional involvement in the process before, during, and at the
close of negotiations so that the will of Congress is fully expressed
in the final agreement.
I have been concerned by the views expressed by some Members that it
may be better to delay consideration of TPA until next year. This would
be a ``major league'' mistake. There is a real price to be paid for
delay.
[[Page S6928]]
One hundred years ago the U.S. took an isolationist position with
respect to our economic relations with Latin America. The result of
this was that the Nations of Latin America adopted European technical
standards. This has been a handicap to the U.S. economic position in
Latin America ever since.
We now are in danger of repeating this mistake. The best way to avoid
doing so is to negotiate and enter trade agreement with nations so that
American standards become the norm and American businesses and workers
can benefit.
Nothing is likely to occur in the next 12 to 24 months that will make
reaching a consensus on trade promotion authority more likely. In fact
just the opposite is true.
The best way to move forward is to put TPA in perspective. It seems
the debate on this issue moves quickly to being a referendum on whether
trade and globalization are good or bad. That, frankly, is not the
question. We can't walk away from globalization and we can't shut the
door to international commerce. We can't put the genie back in the
bottle.
What we can do is try to shape these economic forces and define a
trade agenda that addresses our priorities. The real question is, ``can
the United States have more influence in the trade arena with TPA or
without it.''
I am convinced that we will give the President a stronger negotiating
position, and get the country a better result, if we pass a grant of
trade promotion authority as soon as possible. That is not to say that
I advocate giving the President a blank check to cash as he pleases. It
also does not mean that I believe in a ``free trade utopia'' either.
I recognize there will be issues with our trading partners and that
everyone doesn't always play by the rules. The way to address concerns
with our trading partners is at the negotiating table. That makes it
all the more important for us to have a strong negotiating position,
and TPA is central to that.
We encourage others to contribute specific suggestions to enhance the
bill's ability to contribute to its principle objective of opening
markets to U.S. goods, creating new and better jobs for Americans, and
allowing the world to benefit from U.S. goods and services.
Only 4 percent of the world's consumers live in the United States. If
we want to sell our agriculture products, manufactured goods, and
world-class services to the rest of the 96 percent around the world, we
have to do it through trade. Trade promotion authority is the best way
for the President to negotiate trade agreements that will open markets
and improve standards of living at home and abroad.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleague,
Senator Graham, in introducing the Trade Promotion Act of 2001. In my
six and a half years on the Finance Committee, on which Senator Graham
and I both serve, there has always been a strong bi-partisan consensus
in favor of open markets and free trade. In introducing the Trade
Promotion Act of 2001 today, we continue that spirit.
This is a bill to which many members have contributed. Together, we
believe that trade is the single most important catalyst for expanding
jobs and opportunities here at home and encouraging economic
development abroad.
The United States has always been a trading Nation. We learned the
law of comparative advantage very early in our history, and became the
wealthiest Nation in history as a direct result. Economic theory tells
us that trade between markets expands the opportunities and benefits in
both those markets. As far as trade is concerned, the whole is always
greater than the sum of its parts. Our Nation's history has been the
practical embodiment of this theory. Without trade, this Nation would
simply not be the greatest on earth.
Yet no matter how many times we have learned this lesson, we forget
it just as many times. Here we are in 2001, facing the same challenges
on trade we have faced on countless occasions in the past. The
champions of protectionism have become more sophisticated over the
years. Still: their arguments are the same old fear-mongering and
disinformation they have been peddling for 200 years.
Does trade lead to winners and losers? Yes, that's called
competition, the bedrock of our society.
Does economic growth put pressures on underdeveloped societies in
labor and environmental areas? Yes, it can. It did in this country too.
But do the short-term pains of competition and other pressures on
society outweigh the benefits of trade? No, not now, not ever.
The United States can be leaders on trade or we can be followers. We
can either shape the global economy or be shaped by it.
There are 134 free trade agreements in the world today. The United
States is party to only 2 of those. To my mind, that is a shameful
record. We have done a disservice to our farmers, fishermen, businesses
and the working men and women of this country.
I recognize there are those who are concerned about the broader
impacts of globalization. To them I say: you can't influence the
outcome unless you are in the game.
Does government have a role in easing the plight of firms and
individuals negatively affected by trade? Absolutely. Sound economic
policy should ease the transition of individuals and their companies to
more competitive areas.
Can the United States help other countries overcome short-term labor
and environmental problems resulting from rapid growth? No question at
all. Through technology and other means we have many tools to help the
developing world.
But the only way to address these problems is for the United States
to exercise leadership on trade. Without Trade Promotion Authority,
such leadership will be impossible.
Senator Graham and I and our colleagues believe the Graham-Murkowski
Trade Promotion Act of 2001 is the right vehicle to provide those
leadership tools.
______
By Mr. THOMAS (for himself and Mr. Enzi):
S. 1105. A bill to provide for the expeditious completion of the
acquisition of State of Wyoming lands within the boundaries of Grand
Teton National Park, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Energy
and Natural Resources.
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce a bill today to
authorize the exchange of State lands inside Grand Teton National Park.
Grand Teton National Park was established by Congress on February 29,
1929, to protect the natural resources of the Teton range and recognize
the Jackson area's unique beauty. On March 15, 1943, President Franklin
Delano Roosevelt established the Jackson Hole National Monument
adjacent to the park. Congress expanded the Park on September 14, 1950,
by including a portion of the lands from the Jackson Hole National
Monument. The park currently encompasses approximately 310,000 acres of
wilderness and has some of the most amazing mountain scenery anywhere
in our country. This park has become an extremely important element of
the National Park system, drawing almost 2.7 million visitors in 1999.
When Wyoming became a State in 1890, sections of land were set aside
for school revenue purposes. All income from these lands--rents,
grazing fees, sales or other sources--is placed in a special trust fund
for the benefit of students in the State. The establishment of these
sections predates the creation of most national parks or monuments
within our State boundaries, creating several state inholdings on
federal land. The legislation I am introducing today would allow the
Federal Government to remove the state school trust lands from Grand
Teton National Park and allow the State to capture fair value for this
property to benefit Wyoming school children.
This bill, entitled the ``Grand Teton National Park Land Exchange
Act,'' identifies approximately 1406 acres of State lands and mineral
interests within the boundaries of Grand Teton National Park for
exchange for Federal assets. These Federal assets could include mineral
royalties, appropriated dollars, federal lands or combination of any of
these elements.
The bill also identifies an appraisal process for the state and
federal government to determine a fair value of the state property
located within the
[[Page S6929]]
park boundaries. Ninety days after the bill is signed into law, the
land would be valued by one of the following methods: (1) the Interior
Secretary and Governor would mutually agree on a qualified appraiser to
conduct the appraisal of the State lands in the park; (2) if there is
no agreement about the appraiser, the Interior Secretary and Governor
would each designate a qualified appraiser. The two designated
appraisers would select a third appraiser to perform the appraisal with
the advice and assistance of the designated appraisers.
If the Interior Secretary and Governor cannot agree on the
evaluations of the State lands 180 days after the date of enactment,
the Governor may petition the U.S. Court of Federal Claims to determine
the final value. One-hundred-eighty days after the State land value is
determined, the Interior Secretary, in consultation with the Governor,
shall exchange Federal assets of equal value for the State lands.
The management of our public lands and natural resources is often
complicated and requires the coordination of many individuals to
accomplish desired objectives. When western folks discuss Federal land
issues, we do not often have an opportunity to identify proposals that
capture this type of consensus and enjoy the support from a wide array
of interests; however, this land exchange offers just such a unique
prospect.
This legislation is needed to improve the management of Grand Teton
National Park, by protecting the future of these unique lands against
development pressures and allow the State of Wyoming to access their
assets to address public school funding needs.
This bill enjoys the support of many different groups including the
National Park Service, the Wyoming Governor, State officials, as well
as folks from the local community. It is my hope that the Senate will
seize this opportunity to improve upon efforts to provide services to
the American public.
______
By Mr. DOMENICI:
S. 1106. A bill to provide a tax credit for the production of oil or
gas from deposits held in trust for, or held with restrictions against
alienation by, Indian tribes and Indian individuals; to the Committee
on Finance.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, today I am proud to introduce
legislation that would provide a Federal tax credit for oil and natural
gas produced from Indian lands. This legislation will serve two
important purposes. It will provide an immediate boost to tribal
economies, and it will provide additional domestic sources of energy to
ease our growing energy crisis.
Even though Indian lands offer a fertile source of oil and natural
gas, many disincentives to exploration and production exist. For
example, the Supreme Court permits the double taxation of oil and
natural gas produced from tribal lands, which unfairly subjects
producers to both State and tribal taxation. Furthermore, tribal
economies are not sufficiently diversified to allow for tribal tax
incentives for oil and natural gas development. Finally, Congress has
enacted innumerable incentives for energy development on Federal lands,
which has made production from this land far more profitable. As a
result, Indian lands are too often overlooked as a source of domestic
energy.
This legislation would remedy these disadvantages by providing
Federal tax credits for oil and natural gas production on tribal lands.
These tax credits would be available to both the tribe as royalty owner
and the producer. Tribes would benefit in two ways: they could broaden
their tax base from substantially increased oil and gas production; and
they could market their share of the tax credit to generate additional
revenue. These additional revenues would allow tribes to strengthen
their infrastructure and improve the vital services that they provide
to their citizens.
Unfortunately, the recent economic prosperity has not been extended
to many Indian tribes. This is the reason why these tax incentives are
so crucial. They will provide a much-needed shot in the arm to tribal
economic development and will compensate for the discriminatory double
taxation that hinders energy production. In recent years, many people
have criticized the growth of the gaming industry on reservations.
However, these critics have failed to suggest viable alternatives for
tribal economic development. This legislation would supply strong
opportunity for entrepreneurship in a vital national industry and would
bring many more tribes into the economic mainstream.
Finally, this legislation would have the added benefit of creating an
additional source of domestic energy. In our efforts to craft a
comprehensive energy policy for the United States, we have been
searching for additional sources of domestic energy. In this search, we
must not overlook tribal oil and gas production. America's energy
supply is a patchwork of various domestic and international sources,
and the addition of tribal lands will only strengthen the seams of this
patchwork and decrease our risky reliance on foreign sources.
Therefore, I am proud today to introduce this legislation to boost
the production of oil and natural gas on Indian lands and to strengthen
our domestic energy supply.
____________________