The Congressional Record is a unique source of public documentation. It started in 1873, documenting nearly all the major and minor policies being discussed and debated.
“STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS” mentioning the Department of Interior was published in the Senate section on pages S18100-S18102 on Dec. 6, 1995.
The publication is reproduced in full below:
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
By Mr. BREAUX:
S. 1450. A bill to provide that certain gaming contracts shall remain in effect, notwithstanding filing for bankruptcy, and for other purposes; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
the gaming contracts compliance act
Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation that is intended to protect State and local governments from the financial crises caused when a casino declares bankruptcy and shuts down. I believe that gaming corporations should not be allowed to use Federal bankruptcy laws as leverage to gain more concessions from the city and State in which they are operating.
On November 22, 1995, Harrah's casino in New Orleans declared bankruptcy and shut its doors--laying off 2,500 workers and leaving city and State officials facing multimillion-dollar budget shortfalls. As a result, the city may have to lay off as many as 1,000 city workers and substantially curtail city services. It is also estimated that the Louisiana Legislature faces a deficit of between $88.5 and $97.5 million this fiscal year if Harrah's remains closed.
The Gaming Contracts Compliance Act would protect the city of New Orleans and the State of Louisiana, and other cities and State governments in the future, by prohibiting gambling establishments from getting out of their original contracts with city, county (parish), and State governments by declaring bankruptcy. These corporations would be obligated to fulfill the original contracts even as they undergo the reorganization afforded them by bankruptcy protection. Casinos in bankruptcy would be allowed to renegotiate their contracts only if government officials agree.
This legislation would prevent casinos like Harrah's from closing down to force a better deal from State and local governments--all at the expense of local taxpayers and casino workers. State and local officials cannot be left holding an open bag of broken promises given by international gaming operations simply because gambling revenue estimates are off the mark. The welfare of our cities and its citizens must come first.
______
By Mr. McCAIN (for himself and Mr. Kyl):
S. 1451. A bill to authorize an agreement between the Secretary of the Interior and a State providing for the continued operation by State employees of national parks in the State during any period in which the National Park Service is unable to maintain the normal level of park operations, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
NATIONAL PARKS LEGISLATION
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, today, I am pleased to join Senator Kyl in introducing legislation to ensure that Grand Canyon National Park and other national park units remain open during Federal budget impasses which result in Government closures.
The bill would authorize the Secretary of the Interior to enter into agreements allowing State and local governments to operate essential park facilities when Federal personnel are furloughed.
As my colleagues are aware, during the recent budget crisis, the Clinton administration decided to shut visitors out of the Grand Canyon and other national parks. This decision hurt countless tourists, many of whom traveled great distances at enormous expense to experience the canyon. And it harmed local businesses that depend upon tourism.
I continue to believe that the decision to close the Grand Canyon was unnecessary. I was interested to note that the administration did not restrict visitation to national forests or BLM lands, nor to the Mall in Washington--an area administered by the Park Service. Such restrictions, of course, would have been unnecessary, just as shutting visitors out of the Grand Canyon, while politically expedient, was unnecessary.
Nevertheless, I appreciate the willingness of the administration to examine methods of ensuring that such park closure need not occur in the future. Enacting legislation empowering States to operate park units during temporary Federal furloughs, would help us to achieve that end.
Mr. President, my fervent hope is that in the future we can avoid Government shutdowns which penalize not only national park visitors but many others seeking Government services.
However, I trust that my colleagues and the administration will agree, we have an obligation to mitigate the impact on innocent people if and when such crises do occur. In the case of national parks, the State of Arizona and other States as well, are willing to offer their manpower and expertise to avoid the closure of these areas which are so essential to State and local economies. There is no reason the Federal Government should not take them up on that offer, even as we work to make sure that no vital Federal operation is cut off because of the failings of politicians in Washington, DC.
Mr. President, often, our constituents are far better than we at expressing the real-life impact of Government decisions. During the park shutdown I received an open letter from Susan Morely, a constituent of mine from Flagstaff, AZ who relayed a very sad and distressing story about the impact of the closure on her family. She makes the case in favor of this legislation better than anyone else.
I ask unanimous consent that a copy of Susan Morley's letter be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows:
To: President Clinton, Members of Congress, Governor
Symington, House Speaker Mark Killian, The Media
In 1992, my husband died of cancer at age 41, his dying request was for his ashes to be distributed at Ribbon Falls in the Grand Canyon. This was done shortly after his death.
For the past three years, his brothers and sisters and I and my children have planned a memorial hike so that we could all visit this special site. Family members from Connecticut, New Jersey and California and friends from Washington, D.C. and Arizona came to join us in what was to be an important part of our emotional healing.
Instead, Congress and the President have turned this into an emotional nightmare.
My 13 year old has been crying because she was looking forward to visiting Ribbon Falls with family and friends. How do I explain to her what is happening in Washington?
Family members paid hundreds of dollars for plane tickets, car rentals and hiking gear. People have arranged time off from work. For some, this is their only vacation this year. One teacher had to get special permission from the school superintendent to be here.
We have looked forward to being together as family and friends to celebrate Michael's life in a place he loved, at the bottom of the Grand Canyon.
Instead, we are stranded at the top because the President and our elected representatives in Congress didn't do their jobs.
The Grand Canyon didn't have to close.
American workers didn't have to be furloughed.
Political agendas have brought us to this.
It's time to stop ``playing politics'' and start running the country.
Susan Morley,
Flagstaff, Arizona.
Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I rise today to talk about a piece of legislation introduced by Senator McCain and myself. This bill is significant, not only for Arizona, but for every State. It would authorize a cooperative arrangement between the Secretary of the Interior and a State under which State employees would be able to maintain continued operation of national parks in the State during any period in which the National Park Service is unable to. The bill is intended to mitigate the effects of a Government shutdown, or any other situation which could prevent the national parks from continuing normal operations.
The recent Government shutdown affected all of us in various ways. As many of you may have heard on CNN, the administration chose to close the Grand Canyon National Park in Arizona. This was the first time this has happened since the park opened 76 years ago. The closure had very significant and widespread effects, not just for Arizona businesses but for visitors who had come a great distance--some as far as New Zealand--to see this crown jewel of our National Park System.
Governor Symington of Arizona made an offer to assist the National Park Service in keeping the park open. On behalf of the State, he offered to supply the temporary funds and make State personnel available to keep the park functioning and open to visitors. The Department of the Interior refused his offer, citing a number of legal impediments to the State's plan. The purpose of the legislation that Senator McCain and I are introducing today is to overcome these impediments and provide for the legal authorization for the Department and an interested State to enter into an intergovernmental agreement that would allow a State to temporarily assume operations of a national park.
I hope that others will join Senator McCain and myself in sponsoring this legislation.
______
By Mr. GRAMS (for himself, Mr. McCain, and Mr. Coats):
S. 1452. A bill to establish procedures to provide for a taxpayer protection lock-box and related downward adjustment of discretionary spending limits and to provide for additional deficit reduction with funds resulting from the stimulative effect of revenue reductions; read the first time.
the taxpayer protection lockbox act
Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Taxpayer Protection Lockbox Act. I am pleased to be joined by my good friend and colleague from Arizona, Senator McCain.
Mr. President, in light of what is happening today at the White House--with President Clinton carrying out his threat to veto our plan to balance the Federal budget--this legislation could not be introduced at a more appropriate time.
The American people ought to be disgusted that the President would turn his back on their wishes and veto the Balanced Budget Act of 1995.
After all, the people have called repeatedly on the Federal Government to get its spending under control. The President says he wants to eliminate the wasteful spending, too. Our plan delivers, and yet, our bill is being vetoed.
The people want relief from a Federal tax burden that's consuming 26 percent of their family's monthly income. The President says he wants to provide tax relief too, and even says he supports the child tax credit. Our plan delivers, and yet, our bill is being vetoed.
The people have asked us to reform a welfare system that sucks up tax dollars yet offers few incentives for welfare recipients to move from dependency to independence. The President says he wants welfare reform, too, in fact, he made it a major part of his Presidential campaign. Our plan delivers, and yet, our bill is being vetoed.
Most important, the people are calling on us to balance the Federal budget by the year 2002. The President says he wants a balanced budget, too, and agrees that we can get there in 7 years. Our plan delivers, and yet again, the President is stopping it in its tracks with today's veto.
``I want a budget that includes all of that,'' says the President--
``the spending cuts, tax relief, welfare reform, while it balances in 7 years using honest numbers. I just do not want your budget.''
And somehow the President manages to say it with a straight face, even though he has bogged down the budget negotiations by refusing to offer a comprehensive, 7-year plan of his own.
Mr. President, despite all the rhetoric and all the campaign promises, this administration has no real interest in eliminating the Federal deficit and changing the status quo in Washington--they would have to curtail their spending to do it. Today's veto clearly demonstrates the President is not ready to cut spending. And that has been the pattern in Washington for a very long time--once the Government has gotten its hands on the taxpayers' dollars and squirreled them away into the Federal Treasury, Congress, and the President will spend them.
My legislation, the Taxpayer Protection Lockbox Act, will help ensure that when pork-barrel spending is trimmed from the budget, it is the taxpayers--not the big spenders on Capitol Hill--who will benefit.
For years, Members of Congress have bragged to their constituents about trying to cut the fat out of the Federal budget. Yet as time has passed, Federal spending has gone up, our annual budget deficits have gone up, and the debt we're leaving our children and grandchildren has gone all the way up to $5 trillion.
How can this be? If all of these claims of cutting the budget are right, should spending not go down, not up?
Well, if you are speaking in plain English, it should--a cut means you spend less money this year than you did last year. But in the language of Congress--``Hill-Speak'' as some call it--a cut is not necessarily a cut.
For example, under our plan to balance the budget, Medicare spending will grow from $181 billion this year to $277 billion in the year 2002--a 53-percent increase over the next 7 years. But because Medicare will not grow at the uncontrolled rates of the past, those who use Hill-Speak call this increase a ``cut.''
It does not make much sense, does it? And yet there is more.
Every year, Congress is required to pass the 13 appropriations bills which fund the Federal Government--everything from the National Highway System and NASA to foreign aid and the Postal Service. While many of these programs are important and worthwhile, too many tax dollars are still being used for wasteful pork-barrel projects, which either benefit certain regions of the country at the expense of others, have not been previously authorized by law, or are simply not worth the tax dollars spent on them.
As a member of the Senate pork busters coalition, I have worked to eliminate this wasteful abuse of the taxpayers' hard-earned dollars. For example, during debate on the energy and water appropriations bill, I offered an amendment that would have eliminated
$40 million from the Appalachian Regional Commission. I did not believe Minnesota taxpayers should be subsidizing so-called economic assistance to the 13 States, located mostly in the Southeast, which make up the ARC. But due to the program's strong support by Senators whose States benefit from ARC, this amendment was rejected by the Senate.
What is worse about our appropriations system is that even if amendments like mine had passed, these funds are not returned to the Treasury or the taxpayers. Instead, they are placed into a slush fund which can be spent on other programs.
In other words, even when we are successful in passing amendments to cut appropriations spending in these areas, these funds are not used for deficit reduction; they are used for additional spending in other areas. As I said before, only in a place like Washington dominated by Hill-Speak is a cut not necessarily a cut--and the result is a $5 trillion debt for our children and grandchildren.
In an effort to end this abuse of taxpayer dollars and to return honesty to the budget process, the Taxpayer Protection Lockbox Act changes the rules of the budget process to ensure that any funds cut in appropriations bills be dedicated back to the Treasury for the purposes of deficit reduction. By replacing the current Congressional slush fund with a taxpayers' lockbox, my legislation guarantees that when Congress cuts funding for wasteful programs, those dollars are returned to their rightful owners--the taxpayers.
In addition, my legislation creates a new revenue lockbox, which is geared toward our 7-year balanced budget plan.
As we all know, when Congress considers a long-term budget, we take into account economic projections which estimate the amount of tax revenue that will come into the Treasury over the next 7 years. We then use these revenue estimates to determine the extent to which Federal spending can grow without resulting in a budget deficit in the year 2002.
While these estimates by the Congressional Budget Office are generally on the mark, they are, of course, simply estimates. It is likely that even more dollars will come into the Treasury as a result of our balanced budget plan, given the fact that we include tax relief designed to stimulate economic growth, create new jobs and turn tax users into productive taxpayers.
These additional dollars, however, should not be used to feed Congress' appetite for spending; instead, any additional revenue that results from our growth plan should be returned to the taxpayers in the form of additional tax relief. After all, these funds were made available because of the hard work and productivity of the American people; it makes sense to give those dollars back to the taxpayers and encourage even greater productivity, rather than handing them to Washington for more pork-barrel spending.
Even now, we can see the very problem my legislation is designed to address. As part of the budget negotiations, President Clinton has already tried to seize more of the dollars we are returning to the taxpayers in the form of tax cuts, to use them for--you guessed it--
more spending.
The bottom line estimates are, the President wants to spend $400 billion more than our Budget Act of 1995 called for--$400 billion more of your money.
Well, the taxpayers cannot afford for us to let him do that today, nor can they afford it in the future. We must ensure that tax dollars are returned to their rightful owners: the taxpayers, not the Government.
And that is just what my revenue lockbox does--it requires that any revenues above and beyond current estimates be used for tax cuts and/or additional deficit reduction. It ensures taxpayers that their hard-
earned dollars will no longer be automatically spent by the Government. It ends the misperception that tax dollars belong to the Government, rather than the taxpayers.
Most importantly, it restores honesty to the budget process and ensures that a spending cut is truly a spending cut, even in Washington.
Mr. President, the Taxpayer Protection Lockbox Act earns its name by locking in real deficit reduction, while protecting the American taxpayers when Congress just cannot seem to say ``no'' on its own. I urge my colleagues to join me in standing up for the taxpayers by supporting this timely legislation.
____________________
