[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 94 (Tuesday, June 28, 2011)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4158-S4161]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
By Mr. DURBIN (for himself, Mr. Sanders, Mr. Merkley, Mr.
Whitehouse, Mr. Blumenthal, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Kerry, Mrs.
Gillibrand, Mr. Coons, Mr. Akaka, and Mr. Lautenberg):
S. 1283. A bill to amend the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 to
permit leave to care for a same-sex spouse, domestic partner, parent-
in-law, adult child, sibling, grandchild, or grandparent who has a
serious health condition; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor,
and Pensions.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Family and
Medical Leave Inclusion Act. This bill, which I also introduced in the
111th Congress, would extend the important protections of the Family
and Medical Leave Act to same-sex couples in America.
I am pleased to introduce this bill with a coalition of Senators who
are committed to ensuring justice and equality for all Americans. I
would like to thank Senators Akaka, Blumenthal, Coons, Gillibrand,
Kerry, Lautenberg, Leahy, Merkley, Sanders, and Whitehouse for standing
with me in support of the Family and Medical Leave Inclusion Act.
In 1993, Congress passed the Family and Medical Leave Act to, among
other things, protect American workers facing either a personal health
crisis, or that of a close family member.
People in the workforce who suffer a serious illness or significant
injury should be able to take time to heal, recover, follow their
doctors' orders, and return to their jobs strong, healthy, and ready to
be productive again. Thanks to the FMLA, they can take that time
knowing that their jobs will be there when they recover.
As we all know well, most employees are not only concerned about
their own health and wellbeing. They are concerned about the health and
wellbeing of those that they love. The FMLA gave workers with a child,
parent, or spouse that was sick or injured, an opportunity to provide
the needed care and support, knowing that their jobs would be there
when they returned.
When it was passed, the FMLA was an important and historic expansion
of our nation's laws. Unfortunately, as families have evolved and
expanded, we've learned that the FMLA does not provide the same level
of protection to all American families. Under current law, it is
impossible for many employees to be with their partners during times of
medical need.
As I stated when I introduced this bill last year, Congress followed
the lead of many large and small businesses when it enacted the FMLA.
Almost 20 years ago, many of these businesses had already recognized
and addressed the need for employees to take time off to care for
themselves or a loved one that was battling a serious health condition.
These companies had put in place systems that gave their employees time
to heal themselves or their family members, and ensured that those
employees would return to work as soon as they could.
The FMLA took the model these companies provided and brought the
majority of the American workforce under the same protections.
We once again have an opportunity to learn from the best practices of
American businesses who have adjusted their personnel policies and
benefit packages to better meet the needs of American families, as we
find them today. These businesses have assessed the composition of
their workforces and realized that, in order to meet the evolving needs
of their employees and enhance productivity, they needed to go one step
further than the protections provided by the FMLA.
The Human Rights Campaign, leading civil rights organization that
strongly supports the Family and Medical Leave Inclusion Act, reports
that 502 major American corporations, 10 states, and the District of
Columbia now extend FMLA benefits to include leave on behalf of a same-
sex partner. Moreover, as of March of this year, 58 percent of Fortune
500 companies provided health benefits to same-sex partners, a 13 fold
increase since 1995.
When the FMLA was signed into law, it was narrowly tailored to cover
individuals caring for a very close family member. The law sought to
cover that inner circle of people, where the family member assuming the
caretaker role would be one of very few, if not the only person, who
could do so. That idea has not changed.
What has changed are the people who might be in that inner circle.
The nuclear American family has grown, sometimes by design, and
sometimes by necessity. More and more, that inner circle of close
family might include a grandparent or grandchild, siblings, or same-sex
domestic partners in loving and committed relationships.
As the law stands right now, too many of these people are excluded
from the protections of the FMLA.
In these tough economic times, when unemployment is high and those
with jobs are doing everything they can to keep them, we all know the
value of job security. Hardworking Americans should not have to make
the impossible choice between keeping their jobs and providing care and
support for loved ones in their time of need. Almost 20 years ago, the
FMLA ensured that millions of Americans did not have to make that
choice. Now, the time has come to ensure that the security afforded by
the FMLA is available to a broader range of American workers.
There are many who would understandably question what this kind of
change in the law would cost the business community. As I have stated
in the past, the FMLA is already a very good law; it is already in
place and it is working. It provides unpaid leave when the need arises,
and it only applies to businesses that have enough employees on hand to
handle the absence of a single worker without too great a burden.
Ninety percent of the leave time that has been taken under the FMLA
has been so that employees can care for themselves or for a child in
their care, and those situations are already covered under the law as
it stands. What the Family and Medical Leave Inclusion Act would do is
provide a little more flexibility, and recognize that there are a few
more people in that inner circle of family who we might call upon, or
who might call upon us.
We can all agree that family is the first and best safety net in
times of personal crisis. Families need to be given the realistic
ability to provide that assistance. What the Family and Medical Leave
Inclusion Act does is give those family members the ability to help
their loved ones in ways that only they can, without fear of losing
their jobs in the process.
The Family and Medical Leave Inclusion Act enhances the FMLA. The
Family and Medical Leave Inclusion Act, like the FMLA when it was
passed almost 20 years ago, is long overdue. Our bill contains
reasonable changes that reflect what many businesses have already done
and accurately capture the modem American family.
The Family Medical Leave Inclusion Act is supported by over 80
organizations from the business, civil rights, LGBT, and labor
communities, including: the National Association of Working Women;
AFSCME; American Pediatrics Association; ACLU; Families USA; Gay and
Lesbian Advocates and Defenders, GLAD; Human Rights Campaign; People
for the American Way;
[[Page S4159]]
SEIU; and The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights.
The Family and Medical Leave Inclusion Act is the right thing to do,
and I hope we can join together and pass it on a bipartisan basis.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be
printed in the Record, as follows:
S. 1283
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Family and Medical Leave
Inclusion Act''.
SEC. 2. LEAVE TO CARE FOR A SAME-SEX SPOUSE, DOMESTIC
PARTNER, PARENT-IN-LAW, ADULT CHILD, SIBLING,
GRANDCHILD, OR GRANDPARENT.
(a) Definitions.--
(1) Inclusion of adult children and children of a domestic
partner.--Section 101(12) of such Act (29 U.S.C. 2611(12)) is
amended--
(A) by inserting ``a child of an individual's domestic
partner,'' after ``a legal ward,''; and
(B) by striking ``who is--'' and all that follows and
inserting ``and includes an adult child.''.
(2) Inclusion of grandchildren, grandparents, parents-in-
law, siblings, and domestic partners.--Section 101 of such
Act (29 U.S.C. 2611) is further amended by adding at the end
the following:
``(20) Domestic partner.--The term `domestic partner', used
with respect to an employee, means--
``(A) the person recognized as the domestic partner of the
employee under any domestic partner registry or civil union
law of the State or political subdivision of a State where
the employee resides, or the person who is lawfully married
to the employee under the law of the State where the employee
resides and who is the same sex as the employee; or
``(B) in the case of an unmarried employee who lives in a
State where a person cannot marry a person of the same sex
under the laws of the State, a single, unmarried adult person
of the same sex as the employee who is in a committed,
personal (as defined in regulations issued by the Secretary)
relationship with the employee, who is not a domestic partner
to any other person, and who is designated to the employer by
such employee as that employee's domestic partner.
``(21) Grandchild.--The term `grandchild', used with
respect to an employee, means any person who is a son or
daughter of a son or daughter of the employee.
``(22) Grandparent.--The term `grandparent', used with
respect to an employee, means a parent of a parent of the
employee.
``(23) Parent-in-law.--The term `parent-in-law', used with
respect to an employee, means a parent of the spouse or
domestic partner of the employee.
``(24) Sibling.--The term `sibling', used with respect to
an employee, means any person who is a son or daughter of the
employee's parent.
``(25) Son-in-law or daughter-in-law.--The term `son-in-law
or daughter-in-law', used with respect to an employee, means
any person who is a spouse or domestic partner of a son or
daughter of the employee.''.
(b) Leave Requirement.--Section 102 of the Family and
Medical Leave Act of 1993 (29 U.S.C. 2612) is amended--
(1) in subsection (a)(1)--
(A) in subparagraph (C), by striking ``spouse, or a son,
daughter, or parent, of the employee, if such spouse, son,
daughter, or parent'' and inserting ``spouse or domestic
partner, or a son, daughter, parent, parent-in-law,
grandparent, or sibling, of the employee if such spouse,
domestic partner, son, daughter, parent, parent-in-law,
grandparent, or sibling''; and
(B) in subparagraph (E), by striking ``spouse, or a son,
daughter, or parent'' and inserting ``spouse or domestic
partner, or a son, daughter, parent, parent-in-law,
grandchild, or sibling,'';
(2) in subsection (a)(3), by striking ``spouse, son,
daughter, parent,'' and inserting ``spouse or domestic
partner, son, daughter, parent, son-in-law or daughter-in-
law, grandparent, sibling,'';
(3) in subsection (e)--
(A) in paragraph (2)(A), by striking ``spouse, parent,''
and inserting ``spouse, domestic partner, parent, parent-in-
law, grandchild, grandparent, sibling,''; and
(B) in paragraph (3), by striking ``spouse, or a son,
daughter, or parent,'' and inserting ``spouse or domestic
partner, or a son, daughter, parent, parent-in-law,
grandchild, or sibling,''; and
(4) in subsection (f)--
(A) in paragraph (1), by striking ``a husband and wife''
and inserting ``2 spouses or 2 domestic partners''; and
(B) in paragraph (2)--
(i) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``that husband and
wife'' and inserting ``those spouses or those domestic
partners''; and
(ii) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``the husband and
wife'' and inserting ``those spouses or those domestic
partners''.
(c) Certification.--Section 103 of the Family and Medical
Leave Act of 1993 (29 U.S.C. 2613) is amended--
(1) in subsection (a), by striking ``spouse, or parent''
and inserting ``spouse, domestic partner, parent, parent-in-
law, grandchild, grandparent, or sibling''; and
(2) in subsection (b)--
(A) in paragraph (4)(A), by striking ``spouse, or parent
and an estimate of the amount of time that such employee is
needed to care for the son, daughter, spouse, or parent'' and
inserting ``spouse, domestic partner, parent, parent-in-law,
grandparent, or sibling and an estimate of the amount of time
that such employee is needed to care for such son, daughter,
spouse, domestic partner, parent, parent-in-law, grandparent,
or sibling''; and
(B) in paragraph (7), by striking ``parent, or spouse'' and
inserting ``spouse, domestic partner, parent, parent-in-law,
grandparent, or sibling''.
(d) Employment and Benefits Protection.--Section 104(c)(3)
of the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 (29 U.S.C.
2614(c)(3)) is amended--
(1) in subparagraph (A)(i), by striking ``spouse, or
parent'' and inserting ``spouse, domestic partner, parent,
parent-in-law, grandparent, or sibling''; and
(2) in subparagraph (C)(ii), by striking ``spouse, or
parent'' and inserting ``spouse, domestic partner, parent,
parent-in-law, grandparent, or sibling''.
SEC. 3. FEDERAL EMPLOYEES.
(a) Definitions.--
(1) Inclusion of adult children and children of a domestic
partner.--Section 6381(6) of title 5, United States Code, is
amended--
(A) by inserting ``a child of an individual's domestic
partner,'' after ``a legal ward,''; and
(B) by striking ``who is--'' and all that follows and
inserting ``and includes an adult child.''.
(2) Inclusion of grandchildren, grandparents, parents-in-
law, siblings, and domestic partners.--Section 6381 of such
title is further amended--
(A) in paragraph (11)(B), by striking ``; and'' and
inserting a semicolon;
(B) in paragraph (12), by striking the period and inserting
a semicolon; and
(C) by adding at the end the following:
``(13) the term `domestic partner', used with respect to an
employee, means--
``(A) the person recognized as the domestic partner of the
employee under any domestic partner registry or civil union
law of the State or political subdivision of a State where
the employee resides, or the person who is lawfully married
to the employee under the law of the State where the employee
resides and who is the same sex as the employee; or
``(B) in the case of an unmarried employee who lives in a
State where a person cannot marry a person of the same sex
under the laws of the State, a single, unmarried adult person
of the same sex as the employee who is in a committed,
personal (as defined in regulations issued by the Office of
Personnel Management) relationship with the employee, who is
not a domestic partner to any other person, and who is
designated to the employer by such employee as that
employee's domestic partner;
``(14) the term `grandchild', used with respect to an
employee, means any person who is a son or daughter of a son
or daughter of the employee;
``(15) the term `grandparent', used with respect to an
employee, means a parent of a parent of the employee;
``(16) the term `parent-in-law', used with respect to an
employee, means a parent of the spouse or domestic partner of
the employee;
``(17) the term `sibling', used with respect to an
employee, means any person who is a son or daughter of the
employee's parent; and
``(18) the term `son-in-law or daughter-in-law', used with
respect to an employee, means any person who is a spouse or
domestic partner of a son or daughter of the employee.''.
(b) Leave Requirement.--Section 6382 of title 5, United
States Code, is amended--
(1) in subsection (a)(1)--
(A) in subparagraph (C), by striking ``spouse, or a son,
daughter, or parent, of the employee, if such spouse, son,
daughter, or parent'' and inserting ``spouse or domestic
partner, or a son, daughter, parent, parent-in-law,
grandparent, or sibling, of the employee, if such spouse,
domestic partner, son, daughter, parent, parent-in-law,
grandparent, or sibling''; and
(B) in subparagraph (E), by striking ``spouse, or a son,
daughter, or parent'' and inserting ``spouse or domestic
partner, or a son, daughter, parent, parent-in-law,
grandchild, or sibling,'';
(2) in subsection (a)(3), by striking ``spouse, son,
daughter, parent,'' and inserting ``spouse or domestic
partner, son, daughter, parent, son-in-law or daughter-in-
law, grandparent, sibling,''; and
(3) in subsection (e)--
(A) in paragraph (2)(A), by striking ``spouse, parent'' and
inserting ``spouse, domestic partner, parent, parent-in-law,
grandchild, grandparent, sibling''; and
(B) in paragraph (3), by striking ``spouse, or a son,
daughter, or parent,'' and inserting ``spouse or domestic
partner, or a son, daughter, parent, parent-in-law,
grandchild, or sibling,''.
(c) Certification.--Section 6383 of title 5, United States
Code, is amended--
(1) in subsection (a), by striking ``spouse, or parent''
and inserting ``spouse, domestic partner, parent, parent-in-
law, grandchild, grandparent, or sibling''; and
(2) in subsection (b)(4)(A), by striking ``spouse, or
parent, and an estimate of the
[[Page S4160]]
amount of time that such employee is needed to care for such
son, daughter, spouse, or parent'' and inserting ``spouse,
domestic partner, parent, parent-in-law, grandparent, or
sibling and an estimate of the amount of time that such
employee is needed to care for such son, daughter, spouse,
domestic partner, parent, parent-in-law, grandparent, or
sibling''.
______
By Mrs. FEINSTEIN:
S. 1284. A bill to amend the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 to
require the Administrator of the Federal Emergency Management Agency to
consider reconstruction and improvement of flood protection systems
when establishing flood insurance rates; to the Committee on Banking,
Housing, and Urban Affairs.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Flood
Protection Fairness Act of 2011.
This legislation will make three common sense changes to the National
Flood Insurance Program, NFIP, to ensure that the program incentivizes
local participation in the funding of flood protection infrastructure.
The bill allows levees paid for with local tax dollars to qualify for
the same discounted flood insurance rates as communities that rely on
Federal tax dollars to build their levees.
The bill allows Federal Emergency Management Agency, FEMA, to
calculate the value of a levee system in current dollars instead of
using the uninflated cost of levee improvements completed years ago.
This encourages local governments to fix problems as they arise.
The bill allows areas protected by coastal levees to qualify for the
same flood insurance rate zones as areas protected by riverine levees,
provided they meet equivalent flood protection standards.
The effect of these provisions is simple: local governments will be
incentivized to help pay for the flood protection systems in their back
yards.
In this time of shrinking budgets we simply can't afford to ask the
federal taxpayer to foot the entire bill for flood protection. Federal
investments must be leveraged by local and private contributions.
Current policy discourages this; so it's time to change the policy.
In some areas of the country, homeowners are told that because their
local government built the levee protecting their home, not the Federal
Government, that they owe an additional $700 dollars on their flood
insurance bill.
These homeowners are not being charged more because they are at
greater risk. They are being charged more because the wrong money paid
to build their levee. That is not sound policy.
Yet, this is the case in Sacramento, California.
A flood insurance rate map change in Sacramento has classified the
area as an AE. This means that many residents living in the area will
be forced to pay a rate of $2,187 per year for $250,000 worth of
insurance.
However, if the levees protecting these homes were owned by the
Federal Government instead of the local reclamation districts and the
State or if the Corps of Engineers' approved report was authorized by
Congress, the area would be eligible for an A99 zone designation by the
middle of 2012. This would mean that the same $250,000 of flood
insurance coverage would pay a rate of $1,472 per year.
That is a $715 dollar difference. That is a lot of money regardless
of your economic situation.
I want to make clear that this bill is not just some gimmick to
undermine the National Flood Insurance Program.
I firmly believe in the strong and rigorous regulations that limit
development in flood plains. Development in an unprotected flood plain
is dangerous, and I do not support legislation that encourages new
construction in hazardous areas.
But the regulations that prohibit local investments from being
counted, and prevent coastal communities from having full access to the
NFIP are antiquated.
To understand the scope of the problem, it is important to have a
little bit of context. FEMA is currently undertaking an extensive Map
Modernization effort and examining levees around the country for
safety. As FEMA does this, the Agency is learning that many levees do
not provide an acceptable level of flood protection. This means that
the people living behind these levees are in real danger of flooding,
and until recently, were unaware of it.
Fortunately, the Map Modernization effort is bringing all of this
information to homeowners and consumers. With this information they are
able to protect themselves with flood insurance from the National Flood
Insurance Program.
But as I have said, there is actually a disincentive for local
governments to pitch in and help build flood control systems; if the
locals build the levee, the National Flood Insurance Program won't give
homeowners the same discounts they would receive if the levee were
built by the Federal Government.
The program does this by limiting which communities can qualify for
reduced rate flood insurance zones.
FEMA created the reduced rate AR and A99 zones to reflect a reduced
flood risk as the result of an existing or partially completed levee
system. But this designation only applies to communities protected by
federally funded levees.
Even in Sacramento where residents have approved two property
assessment increases to help pay for levee repairs, the homeowners are
still hit with higher insurance rates because the improvements are not
being paid for by the Federal Government.
The original idea behind this requirement was that information on
non-federal levees was unreliable, and we did not know how safe they
really were.
That was 30 years ago. Now we have better information, and better
science, and FEMA has sufficient data to make sound judgments on levee
safety. The rule is antiquated, and it needs to be modernized.
Not surprisingly, other agencies also recognized the need for a
change. In California, the Sacramento and West Sacramento Flood Control
Agencies, as well as the California Department of Water Resources are
seeking this change.
At the Federal level, FEMA has worked with my office and the office
of Representative Doris Matsui to develop these common sense
modifications.
I commend each of the agencies that worked on this project and I hope
to see these changes enacted quickly.
There are already positive signs in the House of Representatives.
Just a few weeks ago, Financial Services Chairman Spencer Bachus
included text of this legislation in a version of the National Flood
Insurance Reauthorization bill. I want to commend Mr. Bachus for
agreeing to make this important change, and thank Ms. Matsui for her
effective advocacy on this issue.
On the whole, the National Flood Insurance Program and the Map
Modernization effort each have taken our nation in the right direction.
As a result of their successes, Americans are safer, and have the means
and ability to insure their homes even in risky areas. These are not
trivial accomplishments.
But a little fine tuning is in order.
Communities looking to improve flood protection in their area should
not be penalized for paying for it themselves.
Residents should be charged the same insurance rates if they face the
same risk--regardless of who owns the levee that protects their home.
The Flood Protection Fairness Act will make these two important
principles clear. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this
bill and look forward to working with you to ensure its speedy passage.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be
printed in the Record, as follows:
S. 1284
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. CONSIDERATION OF RECONSTRUCTION AND IMPROVEMENT OF
FLOOD PROTECTION SYSTEMS IN DETERMINATION OF
FLOOD INSURANCE RATES.
(a) In General.--Section 1307 of the National Flood
Insurance Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 4014) is amended--
(1) in subsection (e)--
(A) in the first sentence, by striking ``construction of a
flood protection system'' and inserting ``construction,
reconstruction, or improvement of a flood protection system
(without respect to the level of Federal investment or
participation)''; and
[[Page S4161]]
(B) in the second sentence--
(i) by striking ``construction of a flood protection
system'' and inserting ``construction, reconstruction, or
improvement of a flood protection system''; and
(ii) by inserting ``based on the present value of the
completed system'' after ``has been expended''; and
(2) in subsection (f)--
(A) in the first sentence in the matter preceding paragraph
(1), by inserting ``(without respect to the level of Federal
investment or participation)'' after ``no longer does'';
(B) in the third sentence in the matter preceding paragraph
(1), by inserting ``, whether coastal or riverine,'' after
``special flood hazard''; and
(C) in paragraph (1), by striking ``a Federal agency in
consultation with the local project sponsor'' and inserting
``the entity or entities that own, operate, maintain, or
repair such system''.
(b) Regulations.--Not later than 30 days after the date of
the enactment of this Act, the Administrator of the Federal
Emergency Management Agency shall promulgate regulations to
carry out the amendments made by subsection (a).
______
By Mrs. McCASKILL (for herself, Mr. Durbin, Mr. Kirk, and Mr.
Blunt):
S.J. Res. 22. A joint resolution to grant the consent of Congress to
an amendment to the compact between the States of Missouri and Illinois
providing that bonds issued by the Bi-State Development Agency may
mature in not to exceed 40 years; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Mrs. McCASKILL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text
of the joint resolution be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the text of the joint resolution was
ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows:
S.J. Res. 22
Whereas to grant the consent of Congress to an amendment to
the compact between the States of Missouri and Illinois
providing that bonds issued by the Bi-State Development
Agency may mature in not to exceed 40 years;
Whereas the Congress in consenting to the compact between
Missouri and Illinois creating the Bi-State Development
Agency and the Bi-State Metropolitan District provided that
no power shall be exercised by the Bi-State Agency until such
power has been conferred upon the Bi-State Agency by the
legislatures of the States to the compact and approved by an
Act of Congress;
Whereas such States previously enacted legislation
providing that the Bi-State Agency had the power to issue
notes, bonds, or other instruments in writing provided they
shall mature in not to exceed 30 years, and Congress
consented to such power; and
Whereas such States have now enacted legislation amending
this power: Now therefore, be it
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. CONSENT.
(a) In General.--The consent of Congress is given to the
amendment of the powers conferred on the Bi-State Development
Agency by Senate Bill 758, Laws of Missouri 2010 and Public
Act 96-1520 (Senate Bill 3342), Laws of Illinois 2010.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment to the powers conferred
by the Acts consented to in subsection (a) shall take effect
on December 17, 2010.
SEC. 2. APPLICATION OF ACT OF AUGUST 31, 1950.
The provisions of the Act of August 31, 1950 (64 Stat. 568)
shall apply to the amendment approved under this joint
resolution to the same extent as if such amendment was
conferred under the provisions of the compact consented to in
such Act.
SEC. 3. RIGHT TO ALTER, AMEND, OR REPEAL.
The right to alter, amend, or repeal this joint resolution
is expressly reserved.
SEC. 4. RESERVATION OF RIGHTS.
The right is reserved to Congress to require the disclosure
and furnishings of such information or data by the Bi-State
Development Agency as is deemed appropriate by Congress.
____________________