[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 22 (Tuesday, March 5, 2002)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1537-S1542]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
By Ms. COLLINS:
S. 1985. A bill to allow Federal securities enforcement actions to be
predicated on State securities enforcement actions, to prevent
migration of rogue securities brokers between and among financial
services industries, and for other purposes; to the Committee on
Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.
Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Microcap Fraud
Prevention Act of 2001. This bill will close loopholes in the
enforcement of our securities laws and furnish Federal authorities with
the tools they need to combat growing fraud in the microcap securities
market. While the Enron debacle has focused attention on the need for
tougher and fuller financial disclosure standards to protect small
investors, microcap fraud costs investors an estimated $6 billion every
year.
I first introduced this bill in the 106th Congress after extensive
examination by the Senate's Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations,
which I chaired. I am pleased that the North American Securities
Administrators Association, which is made up of our Nation's State
securities regulators, has once again sent me a letter of strong
support and has made passage of legislation such as this one of its top
legislative priorities.
Today's securities markets are much different than they were even a
decade ago. Many more people own securities than ever before. The rise
of the Internet has allowed investors greater access to market
information and investment advice. Unfortunately, not all of this
information and advice has been sound, or even honest.
These problems are exacerbated in the microcap market. Microcap
stocks are those of smaller, thinly capitalized companies. Because the
individual share prices may be higher than a certain threshold,
however, they may avoid regulation as ``penny stocks.'' Because
investors typically know little of these companies, their share prices
are easier to manipulate due to the small amount of total capital. They
are often less regulated than the securities of larger companies and,
therefore, they can pose difficult challenges for law enforcement and
unique opportunities for dishonest brokers.
It is this combination of a microcap company's low capitalization,
making its share price more easily manipulable, and obscurity, along
with high-pressure sales tactics, that make microcap stocks so
appealing to the more dishonest elements in our securities markets.
Frequently, salesmen will call customers, pitching these
investments with high pressure sales tactics. More sophisticated scams
involve a practice known as the ``pump and dump'' where a securities
firm that has purchased a large block of a microcap company's stock
will market it aggressively and quickly to investors. As a result of
the surge in demand, the share's price will rise sharply but
temporarily, despite the unchanged fundamentals underlying the stock's
price.
After a short time, investors will realize that the company's
performance does not merit its new share price. The stock's share price
will then plummet, but the firm will by then have unloaded its shares,
leaving investors holding the bag. In other cases, however, dishonest
brokers and firms simply fail to execute sales orders or otherwise
commit garden variety theft masquerading as securities transactions,
such as churning or making unsuitable recommendations.
States prosecute these criminals activities with some success and
often obtain orders prohibiting further securities activities by bad
actors within their jurisdiction. Because such an order ends at a
State's borders, however, the defendants can simply pick up, move to a
new State, and begin their schemes anew. In contrast, a Federal order
would have effect nationwide. Because Federal law enforcement resources
are limited, however, there is only so much it can do, and many smaller
time criminals can continue to operate below the federal government's
radar screen. My bill would institute several reforms to address these
problems.
First, it would allow the SEC to take enforcement actions against
brokers and firms on the basis of those already concluded by state
agencies. Although States may base their actions on Federal actions,
the reverse is not true. As a result, the SEC must duplicate the
State's efforts to provide nationwide protection to investors. By
allowing the SEC to base disciplinary actions on those concluded by
states, the State's disciplinary actions can be given effect
nationwide, when appropriate, without the SEC's having to commit
significant amounts of additional resources.
Second, the bill would allow the SEC to keep those who commit any
type of financial fraud from participating in the microcap market.
Currently, the SEC can ban those who commit securities violations. But
the SEC should have the poser to discipline those who commit other
types of financial services offenses as well.
Third, this bill would broaden provisions designed to prevent fraud
in the penny stock market. Under current law, the SEC can suspend or
bar those who commit fraud in this market. However, brokers so barred
can turn around and commit the same types of offenses in the microcap
market because their individual share prices might exceed $5 per share,
even though the total capitalization amount is small enough to lend
itself to easy manipulation. The penny stock market ban needs to be
expanded to the microcap market as well.
Fourth, the statutory officer and director bar would be expanded to
cover all publicly traded companies. Currently, this bar only applies
to companies that report to the SEC, leaving open the possibility that
those who have been barred from serving in these companies could serve
in others that are exempt from reporting. Companies involved in
microcap schemes are frequently traded over the counter and are not
covered by the bar. Under my bill, this bar would extend to all
publicly traded companies.
Finally, the bill would allow the SEC to enforce its own orders and
court injunctions against repeat offenders directly rather than waiting
for the Justice Department to initiate contempt proceedings. Instead
the SEC would be able to seek immediate civil penalties for repeat
violations without the delay that can occur from the initiation of
contempt proceedings.
These are common sense, measured steps that can make a real
difference in the level of protection that we provide to investors,
many of whom are new to our capital markets. I would urge the Senate to
consider and pass the
[[Page S1538]]
Microcap Fraud Prevention Act quickly. Mr. President, I ask unanimous
consent that the letter of support from the NASAA be printed in the
Record.
There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
NASAA,
Washington, DC, November 15, 2001.
Hon. Susan M. Collins,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Collins: On behalf of the membership of North
American Securities Administrators Association, Inc. (NASAA),
I commend you for recognizing and confronting the problem of
fraud in the microcap securities market. We appreciate your
efforts to protect the investing public from frauds in low-
priced securities, and for your plans to introduce
legislation to enhance enforcement efforts in this area.
As you know, several years ago, state securities
administrators recognized the problem of fraud in the
microcap market. Since then the states have led enforcement
efforts and filed numerous actions against microcap firms.
There are systematic problems in this area, but they can be
addressed effectively if state and federal regulators and
policymakers work together on meaningful solutions.
NASAA wholeheartedly supports the intent of The Microcap
Fraud Prevention Act of 2001. It would be an important step
in combating abuses in the microcap market and maintaining
continued public confidence in our markets.
We applaud your leadership in the fight against microcap
fraud, and I pledge the support of NASAA's membership to
continue to work with you to secure passage of this important
legislation.
Sincerely,
Joseph P. Borg,
Alabama Securities Director,
NASAA President.
______
By Mr. BINGAMAN (for himself and Mr. Roberts):
S. 1986. A bill to amend the Intermodal Surface Transportation
Efficiency Act of 1991 to identify a route that passes through the
States of Texas, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Kansas as a high priority
corridor on the National Highway System; to the Committee on
Environment and Public Works.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation
that will enhance the future economic vitality of communities in Otero,
Lincoln, Torrance, Guadalupe, and Quay Counties. By improving the
transportation infrastructure, I believe this legislation will help
attract good jobs to South, Central, and Eastern New Mexico.
The bill we are introducing today designates U.S. Highway 54 from the
border with Mexico at El Paso, TX, through New Mexico, and Oklahoma to
Wichita, KS, as the Southwest Passage Initiative for the Regional and
Interstate Transportation, or the Southwest Passage, corridor. Congress
has already included Highway 54 as part of the National Highway System.
The bill designates the Southwest Passage as a High Priority Corridor
on the National Highway System.
I am honored to have my good friend and colleague, Senator Roberts,
as a cosponsor of the bill. Our goal with this designation is to
promote the development of this 700-mile route into a full four-lane
divided highway. About half of the SPIRIT corridor is in New Mexico and
another 200 miles of it are in Kansas.
I continue to believe strongly in the importance of highway
infrastructure for economic development in my state. Even in this age
of the new economy and high-speed digital communications, roads
continue to link our communities together and to carry the commercial
goods and products our citizens need. Safe and efficient highways are
especially important to citizens in the rural parts of New Mexico.
It is well known that regions with four-lane highways more readily
attract out-of-state visitors and new jobs. Truck drivers and the
traveling public prefer the safety of a four-lane divided highway.
In New Mexico, US 54 is a fairly level route, bypassing New Mexico's
major mountain ranges. The route also traverses some of New Mexico's
most dramatic scenery, including one of the State's popular designated
Scenic Byways. The Mesalands Scenic Byway is located in Guadalupe, San
Miguel and Quay Counties, incorporating the beautiful tablelands known
as El Llano Estacado. The SPIRIT corridor also passes through
Alamogordo, home of the New Mexico Museum of Space History, and gateway
to the stunning White Sands National Monument.
The route of the Southwest Passage starts at Juarez, Chihuahua,
Mexico, home of one the largest concentrations of manufacturing in the
border region. As a result of increased trade under NAFTA, commercial
border traffic is already increasing at the border crossings in El
Paso, TX, and Santa Teresa, NM. In New Mexico, truck traffic from the
border has risen to over 1000 per day and is expected to triple in the
next twenty years. The SPIRIT corridor is perfectly situated to serve
international trade and promote economic development along its entire
route. The route provides direct connections to four major Interstate
Highways: I-10, I-35, I-40, and I-70. SPIRIT is also the shortest route
between Chicago and El Paso, shaving 137 miles off the major
alternative.
Though much of US 54 is currently only two lanes, traffic has been
rising dramatically along the entire route since NAFTA was implemented.
In New Mexico, total daily traffic levels are nearing 10,000 and are
projected to rise to 30,000, with trucks making up 35 percent of the
total. In Oklahoma, traffic levels are up to 6,500 per day, 40 percent
of which are commercial trucks. These traffic statistics clearly
reflect the SPIRIT corridor's attraction to commercial and passenger
drivers.
New Mexicans recognize the importance of efficient roads to economic
development and safety. I have long supported my State's efforts to
complete the four-lane upgrade of US 54. The State Highway and
Transportation Department now rates the project a high priority for New
Mexico. The four-lane upgrade of the first 56-mile segment from the
Texas border to Alamogordo is underway and will be completed in the
next year. Two more sections in New Mexico remain to be upgraded: 163
miles from Tularosa, north through Carrizozo, Corona, and Vaughn to
Santa Rosa and 50 miles from Tucumcari to the Texas border near Nara
Vista in Quay County. The cost to four-lane these two segments is
estimated at $329 million and $85 million, respectively. I am committed
to working to help secure the funding required to complete New Mexico's
four-lane upgrade as soon as possible. I am pleased the other States
are also moving quickly to four-lane their portion of the route. I hope
designating SPIRIT as a High Priority Corridor on the National Highway
System will help spur the completion of this project.
Once the SPIRIT corridor is designated, New Mexico will have four
high-priority corridors on the National Highway System. The other three
are the Ports-to-Plains corridor, the Camino Real Corridor, and the
East West Transamerica Corridor. These four trade corridors, as well as
our close proximity to the border, strongly underscore the vital role
New Mexico plays in our Nation's international transportation network.
The SPIRIT project has broad grassroots support. Most of the cities,
counties, and chambers of commerce all the way from Wichita to El Paso
have passed resolutions of support for the four-lane upgrade of US 54
along the entire corridor.
I do believe the four-lane upgrade of Highway 54 is vital to the
continued economic development for all of the communities along the
SPIRIT corridor in New Mexico.
I again thank Senator Roberts for cosponsoring the bill, and I hope
all Senators will join us in support of this important legislation.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 1986
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SOUTHWEST PASSAGE INITIATIVE FOR REGIONAL AND
INTERSTATE TRANSPORTATION.
Section 1105(c) of the Intermodal Surface Transportation
Efficiency Act of 1991 (105 Stat. 2032) is amended by adding
at the end the following:
``(45) The corridor extending from the point on the border
between the United States and Mexico in the State of Texas at
which United States Route 54 begins, along United States
Route 54 through the States of Texas, New Mexico, Oklahoma,
and Kansas, and ending in Wichita, Kansas, to be known as the
`Southwest Passage Initiative for Regional and Interstate
Transportation Corridor' or `SPIRIT Corridor'.''.
[[Page S1539]]
______
By Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire (for himself, Mr. Feingold, and Mr.
McCain):
S. 1987. A bill to provide for reform of the Corps of Engineers, and
for other purposes; to the Committee on Environmental and Public Works.
Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, together with my friend
from Arizona, Mr. McCain, and my friend from Wisconsin, Mr. Feingold, I
am introducing the Corps of Engineers Modernization and Improvement Act
of 2002. ``Corps Reform'', as it is frequently billed, has been the
subject of much heated debate over the last two years. In fact, the
Water Resources Development Act of 2000 included a provision on
independent peer review, requested by Senator Feingold.
Since that time, it has become clear to me that we need to
aggressively address a broad range of issue endemic in the Corps. That
is why I am before you today, introducing this bill. The Corps has been
the subject of ``the Fleecing of America'' too many times. My primary
goal is to ensure that Federal taxpayer dollars are spent wisely, on
sound investments that are in the national interest. Our bill achieves
this goal by addressing the mammoth backlog of projects that plagues
the Corps; changing the cost-benefit ratio that a project must meet in
order to be economically justified; updating of the Principles and
Guidelines; instituting independent review of certain projects;
amending some of the cost-share requirements; and limiting the waivers
of non-Federal cost-shares often granted to communities.
It has been projected that there is currently a construction backlog
of well over $40 billion in authorized projects, with annual
appropriations for the construction account of the civil works mission
averaging around $1.8 billion. As such, the majority of the projects in
the backlog will never see a Federal dime. While a great number of
these projects are meritorious and deserve funding, others are not in
the Corps mission, are no longer economically justified, or violate
non-Federal cost-share requirements.
Our bill would require the Corps to provide a list of projects in the
backlog, categorizing each project as ``active,'' ``deferred,''
``inactive.'' There would be a deauthorization mechanism, more
stringent than current law, for projects that have never received
construction funds, for projects that have been suspended, and for
those that don't pass economic muster.
In addition, there are projects ``on the books'' that are more than
25 years old, which have never received construction funds. These
projects should be deauthorized immediately. The Environment and Public
Works Committee can authorize a restudy if any of these projects are
thought to have modern benefits and meet the requisite standards.
Currently, projects are only required to meet a 1:1 cost-benefit
ratio. I find this appalling. No one would invest in the stock market
at such a return. According to the Taxpayers for Common Sense, 36
percent of the 310 major projects authorized since 1986 have been
authorized with a benefit-to-cost ratio of less than 1.5. Construction
of these projects would cost more than $7 billion. Especially in these
times of war and deficit spending, taxpayers cannot afford, nor should
be asked to fund such projects. My bill would require that projects
return benefits that are one and a half times the project costs, a vast
improvement over current practice.
My friends, do not fear deauthorization. It is a cleansing process,
getting the inactive projects off the books will only serve to better
the chances of completed funding for those projects that remain.
I would also like to highlight the independent review provision in my
bill. WRDA 2000 required the National Academy of Sciences to issue a
report making recommendations on the effectiveness of independent peer
review. Many will ask, why not wait until the Academy's report is
issued before addressing this issue in legislation. I would like to
explain to my colleagues, if the Academy makes recommendations that
differ from what I have included in this bill, I am open to making
refinements as this bill moves through the legislative process. But I
wanted to include a provision on independent review to highlight the
importance of the issue, as well as my belief that such review will
help restore integrity to the Corps and its study processes.
Let me say a word about cost-shares. I think it is important that a
non-Federal sponsor partner with the Federal Government in the
advancement of Corps of Engineers projects. The landmark WRDA 1986
established most of the modern cost-share formulas. But some of these
cost share arrangements could be stronger. For example, the benefits
realized by beach replenishment projects are highly localized. The non-
Federal interests should thus be responsible for a larger portion of
the replenishment costs. I also believe that there should be a
financial incentive, in the form of a better cost share, for non-
structural flood damage reduction projects. This only seems logical
from a financial sense, as well as an environmental standpoint. And as
for the costs associated with the Inland Waterways system, IWS, there
should be a distinction between those segments of the System that carry
most of the traffic and those that are underutilized. Approximately 30
percent of the Operations and Maintenance funds are devoted to segments
of the IWS that realize a mere 3 percent of the traffic. My bill
attempts to address this issue by reformulating how O&M costs are paid.
I say to my friends, my intention here is not to beat up on the Corps
of Engineers. As the ranking Republican on the Senate Environment and
Public Works Committee, I have a great deal of respect for the Chief of
Engineers and the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works. This
bill should not be interpreted as a statement on their effectiveness. I
merely want to implement mechanisms to make the Agency more fiscally
responsible. The taxpayers deserve our attention to this matter.
I realize that many of my distinguished colleagues will oppose our
efforts to improve and modernize the Corps of Engineers. I daresay,
part of the problem is that any meaningful reform of the Corps will
require a reform of the practices of Congress, as well. If your project
is meritorious, if it has local support and adheres to cost-sharing
requirements and cost-benefit ratio, if your project is in the Corps
mission, you need not worry. This bill is about clearing the way for
projects that warrant the taxpayers' investment.
As for where we go from here, the Senate Environment and Public Works
Committee will hold a hearing on the issue of Corps Reform in the
upcoming months. I expect this bill to be part of the debate of the
hearing.
Average Americans toil all day long, and some, all night, trying to
make meager ends meet. How can I look these Americans in the eye and
say, your tax dollars pay to maintain a waterway that sees two barges a
year or to replenish the sand on a beach where the median home price is
$1.5 million? Taxpayers' hard-earned money should not be devoted to
pouring sand on the beaches of the wealthy. Taxpayer dollars should be
spent more wisely than to maintain deadbeat waterways. Particularly
during this time of belt-cinching, we should show more fiscal
restraint!
I would like to quote another Mr. Smith, that is, Mr. Smith of Maine,
who served on the House Committee of Ways and Means in the days before
this country was embroiled in Civil War. Mr. Smith, in a Report of the
Ways and Means Committee dated February 10, 1836 wisely counseled:
``Heedless and useless or unavailable expenditure of the public
treasury are alike to be avoided in all legislation.'' He further
noted: ``Every Government . . . is susceptible of acquiring habits of
lavish expenditure and extravagance in its operations.'' Every
Government ``requires constant watching to preserve its own purity.''
Well, folks, I am here to say, our government's practices are not pure.
But there is something that we can do about it.
Corps Reform. It's going to be an uphill battle, but it's a start. I
challenge, not just my fiscally conservative friends, but all my
colleagues, to put aside their parochial interests for the general good
of the taxpayers' hard-earned money.
As we move forward, please understand that I am open to suggestions
as to how to improve upon the ideas embodied in this bill. I want to
work together with my colleagues to make
[[Page S1540]]
this bill as meaningful, responsive, and responsible as possible.
Please join me in advancing this fiscally responsible legislation.
Our bill is supported by taxpayer advocacy groups such as the
Taxpayers for Common Sense, National Taxpayers Union, Citizens Against
Government Waste, as well as environmental groups, for example,
National Wildlife Federation and Environmental Defense. I have some
letters of support and ask unanimous consent that they be printed in
the Record.
There being no objection, the letters were ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Environmental Defense,
March 5, 2002.
Senator Bob Smith,
Ranking Member, Senate Committee on Environment and Public
Works, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Smith: Environmental Defense strongly supports
the Corps of Engineers Modernization and Improvement Act of
2002 and applauds your efforts to restore trust in the Corps'
planning process and to focus scarce federal funds on
economically and environmentally sound civil works projects.
The Corps has an important role to play in the management
of the nation's water resources, including the restoration of
ecosystems like the Everglades, Coastal Louisiana, and the
Columbia, Snake, Mississippi and Missouri rivers.
Unfortunately, scarce federal funds are frequently wasted on
projects with few economic benefits and high environmental
costs.
We believe the Corps of Engineers Modernization and
Improvement Act of 2002 will move to accelerate the
construction of nationally critical projects by prioritizing
and shrinking the Corps' $52 million backlog, subjecting
questionable projects to greater review, and by asking cost-
sharing partners to share a larger portion of project costs.
Too many Corps projects have failed to generate predicted
benefits--including many segments of the inland waterway
system--and too many projects with questionable economic
benefits continue to be constructed.
We are aware that powerful special interests will oppose
these changes to bring basic fiscal sense to federal funding
for water projects. It takes an exceptional degree of
principal and courage to take on these interests. We are
confident, however, that your leadership on this issue can
make a big difference.
We applaud your efforts to restore trust in the Corps'
planning process and to focus scarce federal funds on
economically and environmentally sound projects.
Sincerely,
Scott Faber,
Water Resources Specialist.
Timothy Searchinger,
Senior Attorney.
____
March 5, 2002.
Senator Robert Smith,
Ranking Member, Environment and Public Works Committee,
Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
Senator Russell Feingold,
Hart Senate Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Senator John McCain,
Russell Senate Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senators Smith, Feingold, and McCain: Taxpayers for
Common Sense commends you for introducing the Corps of
Engineers Modernization and Improvement Act of 2002.
This legislation could stop more than $15 billion of
wasteful spending at the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers by
deauthorizing wasteful and outdated projects, limiting the
Corps to only building projects within its mission, requiring
greater accountability in its project planning process, and
increasing the non-Federal contributions to project costs.
With the return of budget deficits the timing and need for
this legislation could not be greater.
As early as 1836, Members of Congress started raising
questions about cost overruns and mismanagement by the Corps
in constructing water projects. Back then, Congressman
Francis O. Smith from Maine, Chairman of the House Ways and
Means Committee, rebuked the Corps for a host of problems in
constructing 25 wasteful projects in the committee report on
the Harbors and Rivers Act.
More than 160 years later, Taxpayers for Common Sense and
National Wildlife Federation published a report criticizing
the Corps for pursuing 25 other projects that would waste
more than $6 billion of federal taxpayer money.
A steady stream of Congressional authorizations of new
projects over the last two decades has swelled the Corps'
construction backlog to $52 billion. However, despite a 50%
increase in the Crops' construction backlog over the last six
years, it would still take the agency more than 25 years to
construct all of those projects at current funding levels
assuming no new projects were authorized.
The reluctance of many Members of Congress to criticize
wasteful spending has created this enormous backlog, leading
to a situation where everyone loses because no projects are
getting built. A Taxpayers for Common Sense analysis of the
backlog found that the typical Corps project was only 24%
completed, based upon the median rate of completion.
Legitimate projects, like operation and maintenance of
high-volume waterways, are suffering at the hands of
``mission creep'' projects like the $311 million Grand
Prairie Irrigation project in east Arkansas, a project
that even the farmers who the Corps identified as the
beneficiaries oppose.
Unfortunately, the Corps has not taken measures to
alleviate these problems. Instead, last week at Senate Budget
Committee hearings, Assistant Secretary of the Army Mike
Parker and Lt. Gen. Robert Flowers half-heartedly defended
President Bush's FY03 budget request while testifying that
the way to reduce the backlog was to give the Corps a raise
this year from $4 billion to $6.4 billion, a 60% increase
over the President's request.
The Corps has become embroiled in several scandals over the
manipulated and shoddy evaluation of project studies. In the
most infamous case, the Army Inspector General reprimanded
three senior Corps officials for ``cooking the books'' to
bias a study of lock expansions on the Upper Mississippi and
Illinois Rivers so that the results favored a $1.2 billion
project alternative. In the last two years, five other major
Corps projects have been found through independent economic
analyses to be unjustified: the $360 million Delaware River
deepening project, the $188 million Columbia River deepening
project, the $127 million Dallas Floodway Extension project,
the $108 million Oregon Inlet Jetties project, and the $40
million Chesapeake and Delaware Canal deepening project.
Clearly, the Corps is incapable of producing objective
analyses of projects. This is why the independent peer review
provisions of your bill are so critical. Taxpayers deserve
better accountability for how their hard earned tax dollars
are being spent.
The Corps doesn't need a raise, it just needs a good dose
of common sense. Like all taxpayers faced with a tight
budget, the Corps must be forced to prioritize and focus on
the projects it does best within its mission.
With pursuit of the reforms in this bill, you will be
building upon a notable legacy left by President Reagan in
1986. That year, Congress agreed to his landmark cost sharing
rules that required local beneficiaries to pay a share of
each project. Not only will you be following in Reagan's
footsteps, but you are charting a new course for the further
of water resources development in America. On behalf of
taxpayers, thank you for your leadership on this important
matter.
Sincerely,
Joe Theissen,
Executive Director.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise today to join the Senator from
New Hampshire, Mr. Smith, in introducing the Corps of Engineers
Modernization and Improvement Act of 2002. I am very pleased to be
working with him on this issue, and admire his dedication to fiscal
responsibility as embodied in this measure.
As the Senator from New Hampshire, Mr. Smith, and I introduce this
bill, we realize that Corps Reform is a work in progress. Reforming the
Corps of Engineers will be a difficult task for Congress. It involves
restoring credibility and accountability to a Federal agency rocked by
scandals and constrained by endlessly growing authorizations and a
gloomy Federal fiscal picture, and yet an agency that Wisconsin, and
many other States across the country, have come to rely upon. From the
Great Lakes to the mighty Mississippi, the Corps is involved in
providing aids to navigation, environmental remediation, water control
and a variety of other services to my state. My office has strong
working relationships with the Detroit, Rock Island, and St. Paul
District Offices that service Wisconsin, and I want the fiscal and
management cloud over the Corps to dissipate so that the Corps can
continue to contribute to our environment and our economy.
This legislation evolved from my experience in seeking to offer an
amendment to the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 to create
independent review of Army Corps of Engineers' projects. In response to
my initiative, the bill's managers, which included the Senator from New
Hampshire, Mr. Smith, and the then Chairman, the Senator from Montana,
Mr. Baucus, adopted an amendment as part of their Manager's Package
which should help get the Authorizing Committee, the Environment and
Public Works Committee, the additional information it needs to develop
and refine legislation on this issue through a study by the National
Academy of Sciences, NAS, on peer review.
Earlier this Congress, I introduced the Corps of Engineers Reform Act
of 2001, S. 646. The measure the Senator from New Hampshire and I
introduce
[[Page S1541]]
today includes many provisions that were included in my original bill,
and codifies the idea of independent review of the Corps about which we
agreed in the 2000 Water Resources bill. It also provides a mechanism
to speed up completion of construction for good Corps projects with
large public benefits by deauthorizing low priority and economically
wasteful projects. The bill put forward bold concepts. It streamlines
the existing automatic deauthorization process. Under the bill a
project authorized for construction but never started is deauthorized
if it is denied appropriations funds towards completion of construction
for five straight years. In addition, a project that has begun
construction but denied appropriations funds towards completion for
three straight years. The bill also preserves Congressional prerogative
over setting the Corps' construction priorities by allowing Congress a
chance to reauthorize any of these projects before they are
automatically deauthorized. This process will be transparently to all
interests, because the bill requires the Corps to make an annual list
of projects in the construction backlog available to Congress and the
public at large via the Internet. The bill also allows a point of order
to be raised in the Senate against projects included in legislation for
which the Corps has not completed necessary studies determining that a
project is economically justified and in the federal interest.
The Senator from New Hampshire and I came to a meeting of the minds
on the issue of independent review of Corps projects. But the bill we
introduce today is much more than that. It is a comprehensive revision
of the project review and authorization procedures at the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers. Our joint goal is to have the Corps to increase
transparency and accountability, to ensure fiscal responsibility, and
to allow greater stakeholder involvement in their projects. We are
committed to that goal, and to seeing Corps Reform enacted as part of
this year's Water Resources bill.
I also look forward, to the upcoming hearing process, and stand ready
to work with the Senator from New Hampshire in merging the bill we
introduce today with S. 646, my bill from earlier this Congress. My
bill, S. 646, which is sponsored in the other body by my colleague from
Wisconsin, Representative Kind, includes a number of important concepts
that are central to environmental protection and that should be part of
Corps Reform.
The Corps is required to mitigate the environmental impacts of its
projects in a variety of ways, including by avoiding damaging wetlands
in the first place and either holding other lands or constructing
wetlands elsewhere when it cannot avoid destroying them. The Corps
requires private developers to meet this standard when they construct
projects as a condition of receiving a federal permit, and I think the
federal government should live up to the same standards. Too often, the
Corps does not complete required mitigation and enhances environmental
risks. I feel very strongly that mitigation must be completed, that the
true costs of mitigation should be accounted for in Corps projects, and
that the public should be able to track the progress of mitigation
projects. In addition, the concurrent mitigation requirements of S. 646
would actually reduce the total mitigation costs by ensuring the
purchase of mitigation lands as soon as possible. I look forward to
exploring these ideas with the Senator from New Hampshire as we work to
produce a final product.
I feel that this bill is an important step down the road to a
reformed Corps of Engineers. This bill establishes a framework to catch
mistakes by Corps planners, deter any potential bad behavior by Corps
officials to justify questionable projects, end old unjustified
projects, and provide planners desperately needed support against the
never ending pressure of project boosters. Those boosters, include
Congressional interests, which is why I believe that this body needs to
champion reform--to end the perception that Corps projects are all pork
and no substance.
I wish it were the case, that I could argue that the changes we are
proposing today were not needed, but unfortunately, I see that there is
need for this bill. I want to make sure that future Corps projects no
longer fail to produce predicted benefits, stop costing the taxpayers
more than the Corps estimated, do not have unanticipated environmental
impacts, and are built in an environmentally compatible way. This bill
will help the Corps do a better job which is what the taxpayers and the
environment deserve.
______
By Ms. LANDRIEU:
S. 1988. A bill to authorize the American Battle Monuments Commission
to establish in the State of Louisiana a memorial to honor the Buffalo
Soldiers; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, one hundred and thirty five years ago,
before the term Homeland Security was even coined, a group of men
devoted themselves to securing the frontiers of this Nation. They
protected Americans in their homes; they deterred hostile invaders, and
they secured the blessings of liberty to the people of this land. Even
more remarkable, they secured these blessings for others, while they
could not fully enjoy them themselves.
I am referring to the Buffalo Soldiers. These brave men instituted a
tradition of professional military service for African Americans that
stretches one hundred and thirty five years to our triumphs occurring
this very day. African Americans military service is as old as our
Nation. There were black soldiers during the revolution, a unit of free
black men played a pivotal rule in the Battle of New Orleans, and the
exploits of African Americans during the Civil War have been captured
in novels and on film. However, it was not until the Army
Reorganization Act of 1866 that soldiering and service to country
became a realistic option for African Americans seeking to improve
their quality of life. In so doing, they raised the bar of freedom, and
revealed the injustice of preventing the defenders of democracy from
fully participating in it.
The city of New Orleans, and the State of Louisiana have a rich
history, and have, over the years given more than their fair share of
sons in service to their Nation. Much of this history is commemorated
around the city. Yet these great sons of New Orleans remain
unacknowledged in their home. For in Louisiana's great military
tradition, surely one of its greatest military contributions were the
9th Cavalry Regiment and the 25th Infantry Regiment.
These two forces, recruited and organized in New Orleans, represent
half of all the units of buffalo soldiers. The 9th Cavalry alone
constituted 10 percent of all the American cavalry. Their list of
adversaries reads like a who's who of the Old West, Geronimo, Sitting
Bull, Poncho Villa. In movies, when settlers encounter Apaches, the
cavalry always comes to the rescue. Yet how many times were the cavalry
that rode over the horizon African Americans? Of course, the reality is
that the Buffalo Soldiers comprised some of our Nations most capable
and loyal troops. Despite suffering the worst deprivations known to any
American soldiers of the period, their desertion rates were the lowest
in the Army. The 9th Cavalry was awarded 15 Congressional Medals of
Honor, including two to native Louisianians First Sergeant Moses
Williams and Sergeant Emmanuel Stance.
For these reasons, I am offering legislation that would authorize the
creation of a suitable memorial in New Orleans for these gallant
soldiers. There is an excellent statue to the Buffalo Soldiers at Fort
Leavenworth Kansas. It commemorates the 10th Cavalry Regiment stationed
there. However, I believe that these men deserve to be recognized in
their home city. Furthermore, it should be in a location where
thousands of visitors will have the opportunity to come to appreciate
the legacy of the Buffalo Soldiers. I believe that the city of New
Orleans is the perfect location.
This Nation has sadly found the need to say thank you to its
servicemen and women after the fact on more than one occasion.
Unfortunately, this is another. We are fortunate to have living
memories of the 9th and 10th Cavalry Regiments today. The regiments
were not disbanded until the conclusion of World War Two, where they
served with distinction. We should take this opportunity to honor these
veterans, and in so doing, honor the principles of liberty, freedom,
and democracy for which they fought and sacrificed. They have given so
much to their Nation, we
[[Page S1542]]
owe them this public expression of gratitude.
____________________