Earl Pomeroy

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Reclaiming my time, it is not at all clear to me where the administration is on the part B premium number. But I will tell the gentleman this. The only plan that virtually doubles the part B premium is the GOP-passed budget resolution. Let me tell my colleagues another thing. I used to regulate insurance. I spent a lot of time dealing with the insurance needs of senior citizens in the State that I represent. There is an issue called balanced billing. In the old days, I mean back just now a decade, even less than that, Medicare would pay a portion of the bill, but the physician could bill the senior citizen that amount. Then any amount more, Medicare would pay the Medicare part, but the senior citizen out of pocket would be eligible for the difference. Congress in its wisdom a few years ago in a bipartisan vote voted to say, no, no, no, doctors, you cannot charge unlimited amounts over Medicare. You can only bill in fact when fully implemented, I believe the difference is 15 percent over what Medicare approves as an appropriate charge. If you are in an indemnity plan under the Republican budget, you are again exposed to that virtually unlimited amount over what is a Medicare approved charge. So we can talk differences in part B premium. I believe they are very serious differences, new out-of-pocket costs for seniors. But I think even more serious is this whole business of balanced billing, the physician billing over and above what the Medicare has said is an acceptable charge.

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, that was quite a display we just saw, for all the fire and volume, kind of a temper tantrum really at the rostrum. I think it is very unfortunate that we are not proceeding in more of a thoughtful way reflective of the weighty issues that we have responsibility to resolve. The gentleman hollering, describing how nothing is impacted under the Republican-passed budget regarding Medicare, in point of fact that is simply not the case. The part B premium alone, Mr. Speaker, $46.10 a month today, in the final year of the Republican plan that will be $88.90, compared to $46.10.

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Tanner]. (Mr. TANNER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, this dreadful Christmas budget standoff will only end when Members of the majority work with Members of the minority to bridge the differences that divide us. The scriptures say blessed are the peacemakers, and I congratulate each and every one who is working today to try to find a way to resolve these differences. Now, in contrast to that effort, the resolution before us is a shallow, obviously partisan effort, to preen and posture, rather than tend to substantive business. With portions of the Government shut down and with budget talks at impasse before they have even begun, the American people can expect much more of the House than this silly sideshow today. For those of us looking for a bipartisan agreement, I commend your attention to the coalition budget plan. It reaches a balanced budget, it does so in 7 years, it uses CBO numbers. It protects vital programs. The coalition plan restores $75 billion to the cuts the majority has proposed for Medicare. It adds back $68 billion to Medicaid, reducing by more than 50 percent the devastating cuts the vetoed budget would have imposed. When we finish wasting our time on this meaningless resolution, I look forward to working with one and all on arriving at a balanced budget plan. I suggest the coalition budget will be a very good way to get this difficult job done.

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Bentsen].

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Sisisky].

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I think every Member of this body 1 years ago felt embarrassment when we learned that the incoming Speaker, Newt Gingrich, was about to pocket $4.5 million under an extraordinarily book deal that would have richly benefited him and the individual seeking to pay him, an individual with substantial stake in the legislation to come before this Congress. The Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, in a bipartisan, unanimous vote, has voted to make certain that never again will we have a Speaker, Newt Gingrich, or a Republican or a Democrat ever again try and cash in in this fashion by nailing down the book advance loophole. I was shocked to learn in this morning's papers, Speaker Gingrich is trying to delay indefinitely this measure from coming up for a vote in the House, and other Members of the Republican leadership are on board in trying to delay us or stop us from having a vote on this good Government reform. Think again, Mr. Speaker. Think again, Republican leaders. The Committee on Standards of Official Conduct has spoken and we will have a vote, either under your auspices or under a discharge petition.

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the resolution offered by Mr. Hamilton to express the support of Congress for the United States troops who will be deployed to Bosnia. The deployment of U.S. troops is one of the most solemn and difficult decisions a country must make. Even when the mission is not to do battle but to preserve peace as is the case in Bosnia, the deployment of our Armed Forces involves inherent risk. No President and no Member of Congress could ever lightly consider the question of sending U.S. soldiers overseas in support of our national interests. I would have preferred that the implementation of the Bosnian peace accord would not have required the deployment of U.S. troops. However, the President has made the commitment of our forces and, tonight, several hundred United States troops are in Bosnia and several thousand more are on their way. The choice for the House is whether to support those troops and the mission they seek to accomplish. In my view, the Hamilton resolution is the only option before us that provides clear and unambiguous support for the brave American men and women who will be serving in Bosnia. While acknowledging that members of Congress continue to have concerns about the implementation of the Dayton Peace Accord, the Hamilton motion says that our soldiers deserve the unequivocal support of the U.S. Congress and the American people. Only the Hamilton motion sets aside the differences in policy that have brought us to this point and simply tells our troops that we support you and the job you are being called to do. The actions of this House have real consequences for both our foreign policy and our troops who will serve in Bosnia. If we reject our proud tradition of bipartisanship in foreign relations, we will dishearten our friends and embolden our enemies. If, as some suggest, we say to U.S. troops that we support you as individuals but reject the job you are trying to do, it is an empty gesture. What's worse, an equivocating message from Congress that calls into question U.S. resolve threatens U.S. troops by encouraging isolated rogue elements who would resort to violence to derail the peace agreement. I urge my colleagues to support the Hamilton resolution. modification to house resolution 306 offered by mr. hamilton

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 1350, the Maritime Security Act of 1995. Both our national security and commercial interests are well-served by preserving a viable U.S.-flagged maritime industry. A domestic fleet of ocean-going vessels provides vital sealift capability to our military and ensures that foreign shipping interests do not gain total control over America's foreign trade. For these reasons, all Americans should support the maintenance of a healthy domestic shipping industry. While the legislation before us today protects the future of our domestic shipping capability, it does so while dramatically reducing costs to the Federal Government. H.R. 1350 reduces operating assistance payments for militarily useful U.S.-flag ships by more than 50 percent, from $225 million annually to $100 million. What's more the bill eliminates outdated and unnecessary rules and regulations which impede the ability of U.S.-flag commercial vessels to compete and to expand and modernize their fleets. Finally, Mr. Chairman, I am pleased that the committee successfully revised the application of cargo preference requirements for shipments of agriculture commodities under the Public Law 480 Food for Peace Program. The revision will ensure that Great Lakes ports, which are not served by large U.S.-flag vessels, are not precluded from participating in such shipments. This provision is especially important to North Dakota and the entire upper Midwest because we export a significant amount of agriculture products through Great Lakes ports. As I have said before on this floor, I do not view the interest of domestic shipping agricultural trade as incompatible. H.R. 1350 strikes an important balance that serves the interests of both industries. I congratulate the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, Mr. Spence, and the ranking minority member, Mr. Dellums, for bringing this bipartisan legislation to the floor today. The bill was unanimously supported by the Committee on National Security and deserves the support of all Members.

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I offer my support for H.R. 2684, the Senior Citizens' Right to Work Act. For many senior citizens, their retirement years are not golden and filled with leisure. Many of our elderly who cannot make ends meet with their savings and Social Security benefits have no other choice but to continue working. This legislation will help low-income senior citizens, especially single women, who are at risk of living in poverty during their retirement years. As the safety net for the elderly begins to fray due to cuts in Medicare and other programs, the least we can do is allow those who need to work to keep more of their benefits. I am pleased the Ways and Means Committee was able to forge a bipartisan bill on this important issue.

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 and in opposition to the amendments that will be offered for consideration today. Mr. Speaker, the bill before us today is identical to the legislation passed by the Senate by unanimous vote. If we approve this legislation without amendment, the bill will be sent to the President and signed into law. If, on the other hand, the House adopts even a single amendment, the bill must be sent to conference, where history has taught us that the enemies of lobbying reform will delay, obstruct and effectively kill this breakthrough legislation. Therefore, I will vote against the amendments offered today not because the bill is perfect or because all of the amendments are without merit, but because Congress can no longer afford to delay meaningful lobbying reform. I appreciate the commitment of Chairman Canady and Mr. Frank to strongly advocate for the expeditious consideration these amendments in separate legislation. In this way, Congress will have the opportunity to evaluate the merit of these amendments without endangering the enactment of lobbying reform. I congratulate the chairman and ranking minority member for their work on this legislation and strongly urge its adoption.

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, rural America should never forget what treatment has been given to agriculture in this budget. The act before us repeals what has been farm policy for nearly 50 years, and it does so with a proposal that has never had a single hearing or even received a passing vote in any committee of this Congress. Rural America does not yet know what is coming at it in this proposal, but three consequences are immediately clear: It is a transitional plan to the complete elimination of farm programs; it removes the safety net for family farmers when market prices collapse; and it cuts the support for our agricultural exports to an amount way, way below what our international competitors will be using to support their exports. It is clear what the results over the long haul will be: Loss of export markets for our products, lower prices for farm commodities, and family farmers forced off the land by the thousands all across this country. We can and we must do better than this. After the veto, I look forward to working with friends on both sides of the aisle to build a farm program that will work for rural America.

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, as a Member of Congress, I feel strongly that no United States troops should be deployed as part of a peacekeeping force in Bosnia without prior congressional authorization. That is why the November 13, 1995, correspondence from the President to the Speaker of the House is so important. In that letter, the President stated: I will submit a request for a Congressional expression of support for U.S. participation in a NATO-led Implementation Force in Bosnia promptly if and when the parties have initiated an agreement that I consider to be a genuine agreement and after I have reviewed the final NATO operational plan After initialing of an agreement, there will be a timely opportunity for Congress to consider and act upon my request for support before American forces are deployed in Bosnia. In light of this assurance, I cannot support the resolution before the House. This resolution appears to be driven by a political motive to embarrass the President, irrespective of the peace negotiations underway between the warring parties in Dayton, Ohio. The carnage and devastation in the Former Yugoslavia has been far too tragic to jeopardize the fragile hope of reaching a peace accord in any way by premature congressional action. The President has said he will send no troops without a prior vote in Congress. If that event would occur, I will vote against sending troops unless a compelling case is made to justify the U.S. commitment. I will reserve judgment on this important issue until all relevant facts are known, including the precise mission and objectives of U.S. forces, the number of troops, the length of the mission, the risk to U.S. troops, the probability of success, and the equity of our role relative to our NATO partners. Congress--by the vote today--is callously jeopardizing vitally important peace talks. The memories of all the innocent men, women and children whose lies have been lost in this savage civil war deserve more responsible action by us sitting comfortably here in the House of Representatives this afternoon.

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, as we debate this continuing resolution tonight, I think it is important to look at the components of the budget negotiations that we are actually in the middle of. The majority would ask us tonight to support a balanced budget by the year 2002 using Congressional Budget Office budget assumptions. Sixty-eight of us, myself included, have voted for a plan that accomplishes exactly that. But there is a third and essential leg to this three-legged stool that is conspicuously missing in the continuing resolution advanced by the majority tonight, and that is the $245 billion tax cut. There is not one word about backing off of the $245 billion tax cut in this continuing resolution. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I must oppose it tonight because we know that advancing towards the goal of a balanced budget in 2002, which I support, CBO numbers, which I think are sound, cannot be accomplished with the $245 billion tax cut without eviscerating cuts to Medicare, Medicaid, farm programs, student loans, and the rest of the litany of horrors represented in the budget reconciliation act, including the raid on pension funds that notwithstanding a 94-to-5 vote in the Senate has come back into the Budget Reconciliation Act in the conference committee. Mr. Speaker, we are at this point in the budget negotiations because the Republican majority has insisted upon increasing the part B premium for Medicare as part of passing a continuing resolution. Tonight they back off of that, but they insist on two points: balanced budget by 2002, CBO numbers, and not 1 inch of budging off of their 245 billion tax cut disproportionately benefiting the wealthiest people in this country. We now that means cuts in Medicare, cuts in Medicaid, cuts in farm programs that cannot be sustained, and we must vote no.

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 2539, the Interstate Commerce Commission Termination Act. North Dakota is a leading producer of many agricultural commodities such as wheat, durum, barley, canola, and sunflowers. A large portion of these commodities are shipped to processing facilities beyond our borders. The farmers and grain elevators in my State fit the classic definition of the captive shipper lacking access to effective alternative means of transportation. We do not enjoy access to any waterways and trucks are not considered a viable alternative to rail transportation. In fact, the North Dakota Public Service Commission estimates that it would take 650,000 long-haul trucks to move 1 year's harvest to market. That's more trucks than we have people in my State. Because North Dakota's economy depends on moving our commodities to market by rail, it is critical for us to have access to affordable and reliable rail service. I have concerns about several provisions of this bill, but one affects my State directly. H.R. 2539 deletes a provision in current law which has been critical in maintaining rail service in North Dakota. Commonly known as the ``Andrews amendment,'' this law prohibits the wholesale abandonment of railroads in North Dakota by Burlington Northern [BN]. In the early 1980's, BN planned to abandon over 20 percent of its railroad miles in my State. Such a wholesale abandonment would have been devastating to the farmers and small grain elevators who depended on those lines to get their commodities to market. The Andrews amendment originally allowed BN to abandon 350 miles in North Dakota. Subsequent legislation allowed BN to pursue abandonment when it was shown that no customer demand existed for a line. Due to our dependence on a single railroad and a lack of access to competing modes of transportation, many farmers and elevator owners do not have any economically feasible options. The Andrews amendment has played a critical role in ensuring that BN took a go slow approach to abandoning lines in North Dakota. For the Record, I am also submitting two letters. One from myself to Representative Susan Molinari, chairwoman for the Subcommittee on Railroads and the second from the North Dakota Public Service Commissioners stating their support for continuing the Andrews amendment. Additionally, I am concerned this legislation unfairly tips the balance too far in favor of the railroads. The pre-emption of State and Federal laws takes away the option shippers have to pursue common law remedies. Also the power to suspend rates or practices while a charge of unfavorable treatment is reviewed has been suspended. Congress of the United States, October 10, 1995. Hon. Susan Molinari, Chairwoman, Subcommittee on Railroads, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC. Dear Chairwoman Molinari: As you prepare to introduce legislation to merge the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) into the Department of Transportation (DOT), I am writing to express my strong support for preserving a vital protection for North Dakota farmers and grain shippers against wholesale railroad abandonment. To realize the importance of this provision to North Dakota, one must first understand the unparalleled degree to which North Dakota agriculture is dependent upon railroad transportation. North Dakota is the nation's most prolific producer of agriculture commodities--our farmers lead the nation in the production of wheat, durum, barley and sunflowers. And North Dakota is uniquely dependent upon railroads to transport these commodities to market. North Dakota is not only the nation's largest agriculture producer, it is also, geographically, the most remote from processing centers and points of export. Unlike other large agriculture producing states, there is no realistic alternative mode of transportation to rail. Barge traffic is unavailable and trucking bulk shipments over such great distances is not economically viable. As a result, on average, the 475 local country grain elevators in North Dakota rely on railroads to ship 75 percent of their commodities to market. The majority of these elevators fit the textbook definition of ``captive shipper,'' where the railroad faces no effective competition. To illustrate this point, consider the circumstances of the grain elevator in Beach, North Dakota. The elevator in Beach is 750 miles from the nearest grain market, 750 miles from the nearest navigable waterway, and 150 miles from the nearest competing railroad. Although North Dakota's overwhelming reliance on railroads continues to create difficulties in the marketing of grain, for the last 15 years, we have achieved a degree of stability for our farmers and shippers through an abandonment limitation--the socalled ``Andrews amendment.'' In the early 1980's, Burlington Northern (BN) railroad filed applications with the ICC to abandon 1,200 miles of rail in North Dakota--more than 20 percent of the total railroad miles in the state. The proposal threatened the livelihood of farmers and small grain elevators across the state. In response, Senator Mark Andrews (R-ND) offered an amendment stating that Burlington Northern railroad could not abandon more than 350 miles of rail in North Dakota (P.L. 97- 102, Sec. 402). It should be noted that the Andrews amendment was modified by the FY 1992 Department of Transportation Appropriations Act to permit BN to exceed the 350 mile statutory limit for a abandonments under the exemption provided by section 1152 of title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations. As you know, this provision allows railroads to bypass normal abandonment proceedings when it is demonstrated that there is no customer demand for the line. Therefore, the Andrews amendment is not a prohibition on rail abandonment--it is a reasonable safeguard that recognizes the unique dependence of North Dakota on rail transportation. In sum, as you consider changes to the Interstate Commerce Act, I strongly urge you to preserve the abandonment limitation provided by P.L. 97-102. I appreciate your careful consideration of this important issue. Sincerely, Earl Pomeroy, Member of Congress.

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. The response I would have to the preceding speaker who just said he would ``look into the facts surrounding the $40 bill pension raid'' explains the seriousness of this proposal. It was advanced in the Committee on Ways and Means--the biggest pension raid on employee pensions ever allowed in history by a Congress. It did not even have a hearing. It then came to the floor of the House and I sought, along with some of my colleagues, an opportunity to independently debate and vote on this pension raid proposal. The Committee on Rules did not allow us to single out the pension raid proposal. It was part of the Budget Reconciliation Act. And as the preceding speaker indicated, he did not even know it was in there. He said he will look into it. He has already voted for it--$40 billion, the biggest raid on employee pension plans. The majority leader said it right earlier this year in response to another proposal, he said, ``keep your paws off worker pensions.'' The Republican majority would be well advised to follow this advice and drop the pension raid provision of the Budget Reconciliation Act.

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to oppose the way this bill is being handled. This is truly a perversion of the process. Rather than bring to the floor a clean debt limit extension, the majority is playing games with the full faith and credit of the U.S. Government. If we don't act quickly, the United States is in danger of default. Legislation to extend the debt limit should not be a Christmas tree for items that can't make it through the normal legislative process. While I strongly believe the American people could use a good dose of regulatory relief, and my votes on that issue have shown that I support providing that, this is neither the time nor the place for the Walker amendment. Further, the Walker amendment was being drafted this morning and I have not had the opportunity to review the text. While I may be in conceptual agreement with some of the provisions, this is not an appropriate vehicle. Passage of a clean debt limit extension bill is critical to the American people. It should not be weighed down with extraneous provisions, no matter what the subject. Speaker Gingrich may think he's playing this game with President Clinton, but he is really playing it with ordinary Americans. Working Americans are the one who will suffer if the Nation defaults on its debt.

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, a proposal tucked into the Budget Reconciliation Act would unleash a $40 billion raid on employee pension plans. During the last 2 nights during special orders, I have invited any Member of the majority to come down to the well and defend their proposal. No one has. I extend the invitation to the 1-minute speakers this morning. They cannot do it because we all know, you jeopardize worker pension security when you allow $40 billion to be removed. We have done this before. In the 1980's, $20 billion was removed from employee pension plans until Congress passed the laws that stopped this hemorrhage. This proposal advanced by House Republicans would allow $40 billion to flow out, jeopardizing retirement security for millions of Americans. This plan must be stopped.

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. That is exactly what I am saying. You might be the most responsibly-managed corporation ever in this country, but if your pension fund is over that 125 percent amount, you face exposure to a hostile takeover, financing the transaction by pulling ultimately from your workers' retirement.

Mr. POMEROY. I will address it this way, responding technically with the Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation. They have done a study, in fact, of 10 corporations having that level of funding today. If it would be withdrawn, if the funds would be withdrawn as allowed under this proposal, they could very likely face solvency problems in the future. In fact, an interest rate drop of as small as 1 percent, so dramatically effects future outlay projections in a pension plan actuarial analysis that many would be insufficiently funded to meet their worker obligations. We have been down this road before. Mr. Speaker, here are some examples that my colleagues may recognize. In 1985, United Airlines drew $378 million out of their pension fund in a reversion. Today, they are underfunded by $1 billion in their pension fund. Goodyear Tire bought out $400 million in a reversion in 1988. Today, their workers know that that pension program is underfunded by $388 million in 1995. The act of the matter is that this level is not sufficient to protect them.

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, in closing, we have spent the last hour trying to highlight what truly is the most substantial threat posed to workers' pension security ever considered by a Congress. It would be the complete elimination of protections on pension funds, keeping corporations from basically taking workers' pension money. The Republican majority has projected $40 billion would flow out of pension funds, and they think that is a good thing. I think it is a bad thing. It is a very bad thing for the American worker. I want to thank each of you for helping us highlight this issue tonight.

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I think that that point is extremely important. We are at the end of a very, very long day. I, like you, came to the Capitol earlier than 8 this morning, and it is now about a half past 11, and we are here tonight hammering on this issue because of the seriousness of the issue to American workers, but unfortunately, because of the continuing seriousness of the threat that this thing could actually be enacted. It is in conference committee now, and even though the Senate has overwhelmingly rejected it, it is in the House version. We had a motion to instruct conferees considered by this body that would have instructed our conferees to go with the Senate position, not stick with the House position. You know what happened to that motion, it was defeated. I am informed that there was a publication that carried news of this, even today, that they are still pressing ahead in spite of the Senate vote to make sure it is tucked quietly into the total picture. This would be a devastating result for the American worker. There is one final quote that I think we could wrap this up on, because it really does, in my opinion, sum it up. This was offered in the earlier pension debate, but how people could say this in one pension debate and then move to advance a $40 billion pension rate a short time thereafter absolutely confounds me. This one is by our majority leader, Dick Armey. He said, on September 11, ``Our message is simple: Keep your paws off our pensions.'' [[Page H 11936]] Well, I think that Americans all over the country would be very, very well advised to give that message unequivocally to every member of this body and every Member of the Senate: Keep your paws off of our pensions. Clearly, the future, the retirement future of the American worker is at stake, and they deserve no less. Final comments, Mr. Barrett.

Mr. POMEROY. That is a very good question, and I have been trying to think about what they could use them for. I have got basically three scenarios.

Mr. POMEROY. You know, the very words ``corporate welfare'' would lead one to believe that some unfair break given to a corporation was going to be straightened out. Well, here, as you so well pointed out, they give corporations another big break, and if is at the expense of the worker. Right now, the corporation is restricted from grabbing a worker's pension fund, and those restrictions are eliminated. The excise tax is eliminated, allowing any amount over the 125 percent continuing liability in the plan to be withdrawn for any purpose whatsoever at no excise tax level whatsoever between now and July 1, 1996. I call this the windfall window, because this is the time you would really see that pension money flow. Then they move in place a 6\1/2\ percent excise tax, but that 6\1/2\- percent excise tax, compared to the 50-percent tax today, I believe the 6\1/2\-percent tax represents an amount cheaper than the corporations could borrow the money, and there would continue to be a very heavy draw on workers' pension funds.

Mr. POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support the conference report on S. 395, the Alaska Power Administration Sale Act. I believe this bill is an important part of reducing America's dependency on foreign oil. A provision to provide royalty relief for deep offshore drilling is still contained in the bill. I previously opposed the royalty relief due to uncertainty about its need. Since the last vote, I have heard from North Dakota oil and gas producers about the importance of this provision to ensuring domestic oil security. I have also received new information from the Department of Energy indicating the importance of retaining this provision. According to DOE, enactment of this royalty relief will reduce our reliance on foreign sources of crude oil by unearthing the estimated 15 billion barrels of oil in deepwater Gulf of Mexico. Additionally, it is estimated that through new leasing revenues, enactment of this provision will result in a minimum net benefit to the Treasury of $200 million by the year 2000.