[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 74 (Tuesday, June 14, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: June 14, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. HATCH:
       S. 2180. A bill to define certain terms for purposes of the 
     Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, and for other 
     purposes; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.


           Local government planning involvement act of 1994

  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to 
assist local government involvement in the land use planning activities 
of certain Federal agencies.
  I have mentioned to my colleagues many times on this floor, most 
recently during consideration of S. 455, the Payments-In-Lieu-of-Taxes 
Act, that the overwhelming majority of Utah's land is managed by the 
Federal Government. In fact, according to the Bureau of Land Management 
[BLM], 70.2 percent of Utah's total acreage is owned by a Federal 
agency, such as the BLM, National Park Service, U.S. Forest Service, 
Fish and Wildlife Service, and Department of Defense.
  Any Federal agency that needs real estate to perform its mission, 
more than likely, owns an acre of Utah land. A review of Utah's land 
ownership scenario resembles a checkerboard. This is typical of most 
Western States, with Federal land intermingled in every region with 
private and State lands. Many times, this situation breeds 
confrontation when the missions and activities of the various Federal 
agencies run counter to the activities of private citizens and local 
governments.
  The Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 [FLPMA] requires 
the Secretary of the Interior to undertake planning exercises for the 
management of our public lands. It is a thorough process that requires 
considerable time and effort on the part of agency officials. And, 
while the end product of these exercises may undergo considerable 
review and public scrutiny, the impacts can be far reaching for 
surrounding communities and engender controversy. In a State like Utah 
with significant public lands, the breadth and depth of these impacts 
can be startling.
  The preparation of the Dixie Resource Management Plan [DRMP] by the 
BLM in southwestern Utah, primarily in Washington County, has brought 
this issue to the forefront. The situation in Washington County, 
demonstrates why I believe changes in FLPMA--the law that gives Federal 
agencies the power to make decisions that will determine an area's 
economic furture--are necessary.
  Basically, the DRMP is a blueprint for the future uses of lands 
managed by the BLM in this designated area. I will not take my 
colleagues' time to discuss every detail related to the preparation of 
this DRMP, which has been in the works since 1987, but I will point out 
that this area of Utah confronts significant land use issues. These 
include rapid urban growth and expansion, retention and protection of 
public lands for cultural resources, riparian values, threatened and 
endangered species--specifically, the desert tortoise--scenic values, 
and recreational opportunities. The DRMP is also reviewing proposed 
water storage projects in the area, including conducting an inventory 
of all river segments eligible for designation as wild and scenic 
rivers.
  As the BLM has developed the DRMP, several alternatives have been 
identified. Unfortunately, the majority of these alternatives are in 
substantial conflict with the needs identified by local residents and 
their elected officials, and these citizens have called for a new round 
of public scoping meetings to provide the BLM with constructive input 
on a plan that is consistent with the BLM's legal directives and meets 
local needs.
  The Washington County Board of Commissioners and the Washington 
County Water Conservancy District have attempted during the past 2 
years to review the supporting documentation used by the BLM to 
construct the DRMP and thus provide meaningful comments on the same to 
the agency as provided in section 202(c)(9) in FLPMA. These requests 
have been heard, but not adequately fulfilled.
  In Iron County, UT, which is immediately north of Washington County, 
concerns are being raised regarding the potential impact of similar 
issues within that county, particularly the potential for designating 
rivers located on U.S. Forest Service lands as wild and scenic rivers. 
There are a myriad of other examples of Federal land use planning in my 
State. And, the key word here is ``Federal.'' Too often, local 
interests and concerns are being paid lip service or being ignored 
altogether.
  My bill will modify FLPMA to provide more input by local entities in 
the land use planning process mandated by section 202. I use the word 
modify intentionally, because this legislation is not an effort to 
overhaul FLPMA. It does not represent an attempt to rewrite this major 
Federal law that, among other things, provides a blueprint for the 
management of Federal lands. It is an attempt to give key words used in 
the law further definition to ensure that the intent behind these key 
words is achieved.
  For example, under this legislation, the term ``local governmental 
entity'' would include local political entities created or recognized 
pursuant to State law, including county commissions, special service 
districts, water districts, cities, towns, and regional and local 
government associations.
  The other primary section of my bill further defines the word 
``coordinate,'' which is contained in section 202(c)(9) of FLPMA, that 
is now subject to the interpretation of the Secretary of the Interior. 
These interpretations have only caused controversy and conflict. In my 
opinion, the best way to avoid similar situations in the future is to 
qualify and expand the coordination activities that must be undertaken 
by the Secretary with State and local governments.
  This legislation will require notification by the Secretary to the 
appropriate State or local official, including the Governor, of the 
intent to begin land use activities within that State or local area. 
Upon request of these leaders, State and local employees will be 
included in the inventory and planning activities of the Federal 
managers, and the plans, inventories, and other information related to 
these activities, including long- and short-term work plans, will be 
made available to these employees. Again, in this manner, the full 
intent behind section 202(c)(9) requiring coordination of Federal land 
use plans with the land use planning and management programs of the 
States and local governments within which the lands are located can be 
realized.
  This bill does not give State and local governments overriding 
authority or veto power over Federal land use plans. Let me be clear 
about that. The Secretary will continue to develop these plans as 
required under law, obtaining input and comments from all interested 
parties as these plans are developed, and altering the plans where 
appropriate. This bill will not foreclose any party from participating 
in this process. However, FLPMA does expressly direct the Secretary to 
coordinate the activities involved in land use plans ``to [an] extent 
consistent'' with local land use plans. My legislation is designed to 
promote this directive so that consistent plans, local and Federal, are 
developed.
  Mr. President, I believe these modifications to FLPMA are appropriate 
and consistent with the underlying purpose of the act to ensure the 
proper and legal role of State and local governments in Federal land 
use planning activities. I encourage my colleagues to support this 
legislation.
                                 ______

      By Mr. JOHNSTON (by request):
  S. 2181. A bill to authorize the appropriation of funds for 
construction projects under the Covenant to Establish a Commonwealth of 
the Northern Mariana Islands in Political Union with the United States 
of America, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Energy and 
Natural Resources.


             Northern Mariana Islands construction projects

 Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, at the request of the Department 
of the Interior, I send to the desk a bill to authorize the 
appropriation of funds for construction projects under the Covenant to 
Establish a Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands in Political 
Union with the United States of America, and for other purposes.
  I ask unanimous consent that the bill, the communication, and an 
agreement of the special representatives on future Federal financial 
assistance for the Northern Mariana Islands which accompanied the 
proposal be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the materials were ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                S. 2181

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled, that the 
     Act of March 24, 1976 (Pub. L. 94-241, 90 Stat. 263), as 
     amended, is amended by--
       (1) adding the following section at the end thereof:
       ``Sec. 6. There are authorized to be appropriated for the 
     Government of the Northern Mariana Islands for capital 
     infrastructure $18,000,000 to become available on October 1, 
     1995, notwithstanding the first paragraph of section A of 
     Part II and section B of Part III of the Agreement of the 
     Special Representatives on Future Federal Financial 
     Assistance for the Northern Mariana Islands, executed on 
     December 17, 1992: Provided, that such amounts shall become 
     available only to the extent that matching funds are 
     provided, on a project-by-project basis, by the Government of 
     the Northern Mariana Islands in the amounts of $9,000,000 for 
     fiscal year 1995 and $18,000,000 for fiscal year 1996. No 
     funds are authorized to be appropriated for the purposes of 
     this Act for any fiscal year thereafter. Such federal 
     assistance shall be provided through annual grants according 
     to the remaining terms of such Agreement, except that the 
     duration of the Agreement shall be two years.''; and
       (2) repealing section 4(b) upon enactment of appropriations 
     to the Secretary of the Interior for the Government of the 
     Northern Mariana Islands.
                                  ____


 Agreement of the Special Representatives on Future Federal Financial 
              Assistance for the Northern Mariana Islands

       Whereas, under the Covenant to Establish a Commonwealth of 
     the Northern Mariana Islands in Political Union with the 
     United States of America (Covenant), the Government of the 
     United States (Federal Government) and the Government of the 
     Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (Commonwealth 
     Government) desire to further their mutually beneficial 
     relationship through the development of the economic 
     resources of the Commonwealth, which, over the next seven 
     years, are expected to meet the financial needs of local 
     self-government; and
       Whereas, the current guaranteed annual levels of direct 
     grant assistance expire at the end of fiscal year 1992; and
       Whereas, the Covenant provides for the appointment of 
     special representatives to consider and make recommendations 
     regarding future Federal financial assistance to the 
     Commonwealth Government; and
       Whereas, President George Bush and Governor Lorenzo I. De 
     Leon Guerrero appointed such special representatives who have 
     considered such future Federal financial assistance;
       Now, therefore, we, Stella Guerra, Special Representative 
     of the President of the United States, and Benjamin T. 
     Manglona, Pedro R. Deleon Guerrero, Joseph S. Inos, Eloy S. 
     Inos, David M. Sablan, and Mike W. Naholowaa, Special 
     Representatives of the Governor of the Commonwealth of the 
     Northern Mariana Islands, agree as follows:


                        part i. policy statement

       The Special Representatives mutually agree that economic 
     growth in the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands 
     has progressed so that the Commonwealth Government is now 
     capable of fully financing its government operations, and 
     will phase in local financing for all capital development 
     projects according to the schedule in this agreement, with 
     the goal of self-reliance by the end of the period of this 
     agreement.


                            PART II. FUNDING

       A. Guarantee Funding Schedule. Subject to the minimum 
     matching contributions by the Commonwealth Government, the 
     Federal Government pledges the full faith and credit of the 
     United States to the appropriation of $120 million in capital 
     development funding in accordance with the following 
     schedule:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Commonwealth
                         Federal    Commonwealth  Matching     Capital  
    Fiscal year       contribution  contribution     and     Development
                                                    ratio       Fund    
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1994................    22,000,000     9,000,000     71/29    31,000,000
1995................    21,000,000    14,000,000     60/40    35,000,000
1996................    20,000,000    16,000,000     56/44    36,000,000
1997................    18,000,000    18,000,000     50/50    36,000,000
1998................    16,000,000    20,000,000     44/56    36,000,000
1999................    14,000,000    21,000,000     40/60    35,000,000
2000................     9,000,000    22,000,000     29/71    31,000,000
                     ---------------------------------------------------
  Total.............   120,000,000   120,000,000     50/50  240,000,000 
------------------------------------------------------------------------

       The Special Representatives agree that the final 
     appropriated amount for fiscal year 1993 will be granted in 
     accordance with the terms described in Parts II and III of 
     this agreement, except that the matching contributions by the 
     Commonwealth Government will be 25 percent of the Federal 
     contribution.
       The Special Representatives agree that the interest 
     earnings on funds contributed under the Second Financing 
     Agreement may be applied to the total of the Commonwealth 
     Government matching requirements for fiscal years 1993 
     through 1995. These earnings will be made available when the 
     terms of the grant pledge agreements entered into under the 
     Second Financing Agreement are met.
       Any non-Federal funds appropriated by the Legislature in 
     the internal Commonwealth budget process constitutes local 
     revenue for the purpose of complying with the Commonwealth 
     Government contribution requirements for specific projects 
     delineated in Part II B of this Agreement.
       B. Capital Development. The Commonwealth Government shall 
     develop and maintain an integrated list of priorities for new 
     and reconstructed capital infrastructure to serve the 
     residents of the Commonwealth. Each listed project shall have 
     a cost estimate with identified sources of financing. 
     Projects may be phased over two or more years. Such list may 
     be revised as deemed appropriate by the Commonwealth 
     Government. Copies of the list and any revision shall be 
     submitted to the Assistant Secretary of the Interior for 
     Territorial and International Affairs.
       Projects shall be funded in accordance with an annual grant 
     that specifies the required Federal Government and 
     Commonwealth Government contributions for the projects.
       The islands of Rota and Tinian shall each receive no less 
     than a \1/8\th share and the island of Saipan shall receive 
     no less than a \2/8\th share of the total Commonwealth 
     Capital Development Fund.
       C. Debt Financing. The Federal contribution provided in 
     accordance with this agreement may be applied or directed by 
     the Commonwealth Government for the repayment of debt 
     instruments issued by the Commonwealth Government for 
     purposes of capital development, subject to the approval of 
     the Assistant Secretary of the Interior for Territorial and 
     International Affairs.


                  PART III. ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS

       A. Reporting and Accountability. The Federal financial 
     assistance provided under this agreement shall be subject to 
     applicable Federal grant regulations (the Common Rule: 43 CFR 
     12a, OMB Circular A-102, and OMB Circular A-128).
       Prior to the contribution of funds under this agreement, 
     the Federal Government and the Commonwealth Government shall 
     enter into a Subsidiary Agreement on Audit Resolution 
     describing the procedures for resolution and follow-up of all 
     audit recommendations related to financial assistance 
     provided pursuant to Section 702 of the Covenant.
       B. Performance Review. Prior to the beginning of the third 
     and fifth years of this agreement, representatives of the 
     Commonwealth Government and the Federal Government shall meet 
     to review progress in carrying out this agreement.
       C. Prerogative. This agreement may be amended by mutual 
     agreement in writing, or may be voided by either party prior 
     to ratification by the Congress. In recognition of mutual 
     compromise in exhaustive discussions leading to this 
     agreement, and the Governor of the Commonwealth shall 
     communicate his endorsement of this agreement to the Congress 
     concurrently with the Administration's formal transmission 
     and endorsement.
       For the United States of America:
                                                    Stella Guerra,
                          Special Representative of the President.

       For the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands:
     Benjamin T. Manglona,
       Special Representative of the Governor of the Commonwealth 
     of the Northern Mariana Islands.
     Joseph S. Inos,
       Special Representative of the Governor of the Commonwealth 
     of the Northern Mariana Islands.
     David M. Sablan,
       Special Representative of the Governor of the Commonwealth 
     of the Northern Mariana Islands.
     Pedro R. Deleon Guerrero,
       Special Representative of the Governor of the Commonwealth 
     of the Northern Mariana Islands.
     Eloy S. Inos,
       Special Representative of the Governor of the Commonwealth 
     of the Northern Mariana Islands.
     Mike W. Naholowaa,
       Special Representative of the Governor of the Commonwealth 
     of the Northern Mariana Islands.
                                  ____

                                  U.S. Department of the Interior,


                                      Office of the Secretary,

                                      Washington, DC, May 2, 1994.
     Hon. Albert Gore,
     President, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. President: Enclosed is draft legislation to 
     authorize the appropriation of funds for construction 
     projects under the financial provisions of the Covenant to 
     Establish a Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands in 
     Political Union with the United States of America (Covenant) 
     (Public Law 94-241).
       We recommend that the bill be referred to the appropriate 
     committee for consideration, and that it be enacted.
       The Northern Mariana Islands have experienced rapid 
     economic growth over the past decade. This rapid growth, 
     however, has severely taxed the physical infrastructure of 
     the Commonwealth. As a result of the December 17, 1992, 
     Agreement of the Special Representatives on Future Federal 
     Financial Assistance for the Northern Mariana Islands 
     (enclosed), arrived at pursuant to section 702 of the 
     Covenant, legislation was forwarded to the Congress proposing 
     a seven-year $120 million program for capital infrastructure 
     improvements. Under the agreement, annual rates of Federal 
     contribution would decline from $27.7 million to $9 million. 
     Some members of the Congress suggest that the funding in the 
     agreement is too generous and that the seven-year funding 
     period is too long.
       Therefore, to address these concerns the Administration 
     proposes draft legislation to authorize the appropriations of 
     $18 million for fiscal year 1995 and $9 million for fiscal 
     year 1996 for only the highest priority capital 
     infrastructure construction in the Northern Mariana Islands. 
     These appropriations are conditioned on the Government of the 
     Northern Mariana Islands matching with $9 million for fiscal 
     year 1995 and $18 million for fiscal year 1996. Under the 
     full two-year program the federal and Northern Mariana 
     Islands matching shares would be equal. Except for the 
     funding provision, all major aspects of the 1992 agreement 
     would remain the same.
       Absent new legislation, however, the Northern Mariana 
     Islands will continue to receive $27.7 million, annually. 
     Section 4(b) of Public Law 94-241, as amended, provides that 
     the Government of the Northern Mariana Islands shall continue 
     to receive $27.7 million until the Congress otherwise 
     provides by law.
       The need for capital infrastructure improvements in the 
     Northern Mariana Islands continues unabated. In an effort at 
     compromise, the Administration proposes a program devoted 
     exclusively to capital infrastructure development. We urge 
     early action by the Congress.
       The Office of Management and Budget has advised that 
     enactment of this draft bill would be in accord with the 
     program of the President.
           Sincerely,

                                             Leslie M. Turner,

                                              Assistant Secretary,

                    Territorial and International Affairs.

                                 ______

      By Mrs. HUTCHISON (for herself and Mr. Robb):
  S. 2183. A bill to require the Secretary of the Treasury to mint 
coins in commemoration of the 50th anniversary of the signing of the 
World War II peace accords on September 2, 1945; to the Committee on 
Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.


           world war ii peace accords commemorative coin act

  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I introduce today S. 2183, the World 
War II Peace Accords Commemorative Coin Act. I am joined by the 
distinguished Senator from Virginia, Senator Robb. This bill authorizes 
the minting of a commemorative coin to honor the signing of the 
historic peace accords which ended World War II.
  Last week, we celebrated the 50th anniversary of D-day, commemorating 
the Allied invasion of Normandy which turned the tide of World War II 
in Europe. The beachhead established on the coast of France that day 
helped to pave democracy's road to victory over the tyranny of Adolf 
Hitler. Thousands of miles away, our Armed Forces would soon make 
similar sacrifices on very different beaches--beaches in the South 
Pacific. The courageous efforts of our troops in both Europe and the 
South Pacific provided decisive victory for the Allies and culminated 
in the historic signing of the peace accords abroad the U.S.S. Missouri 
on September 2, 1945.
  My bill authorizes the minting of a commemorative coin recognizing 
the 50th anniversary of this momentous event and all those who 
sacrificed to make it possible. While the minting of the coin will not 
cost the Federal Government a single penny, proceeds from the coin's 
sales will fund an expansion of the nonprofit Nimitz Museum of the 
Pacific War in Fredericksburg, TX. Fleet Adm. Chester Nimitz was raised 
by his grandfather in Fredericksburg and later became one of America's 
greatest leaders during World War II. The museum which bears his name 
is the only museum in the United States dedicated to telling the 
complete story of the Pacific War. Upon completion, the expansion will 
house a number of irreplaceable war relics--including a PT boat similar 
to the one commanded by President Kennedy and a fighter plane like the 
one piloted by President Bush.
  In addition, our colleagues in the House of Representatives have 
overwhelmingly supported a similar bill sponsored by Congressman Lamar 
Smith from San Antonio which has obtained 229 cosponsors only 6 weeks 
after introduction. I believe the Members of the Senate will show 
similar support for this legislation.
  On September 2, 1995, we will celebrate the 50th anniversary of the 
end of the greatest war the world has ever known. I urge my colleagues 
to join Senator Robb and myself in honoring those who sacrificed to 
provide the freedom we now enjoy.
                                  ____

      By Mr. INOUYE:
  S. 2184. A bill to amend title 38, United States Code, to authorize 
the employment of social workers in the Veterans Health Administration 
on a fee basis; to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs.


           legislation on the veterans health administration

 Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I am introducing legislation today 
to amend chapter 74 of title 38, United States Code, to revise certain 
provisions relating to the appointment of clinical social workers in 
the Veterans Health Administration.
  Clinical social workers have a long history of providing high quality 
care to veterans and their families through the Veterans Health 
Administration of the Department of Veterans Affairs. Social workers in 
the Veterans' Administration [VA] are credentialed, have clinical 
privileges, and provide direct patient care services on an independent 
basis. Clinical social work services provided to veterans include 
psychosocial assessment, diagnosis, and treatment; preadmission 
planning; discharge planning and post-discharge follow-up case 
management; and health education. These services are critical to the 
overall operation of VA medical centers and provide a significant 
contribution to VA initiatives related to homelessness, substance 
abuse, and post-traumatic stress disorder.
  It has come to my attention that the current system of recruiting, 
hiring, and retaining professional social workers to Veterans' 
Administration facilities is fraught with long delays, loss of 
desirable applicants, low salaries, and a lack of career advancement 
opportunities for members of this important profession. I believe that 
these kinds of problems ultimately compromise the quality of patient 
care, and I believe that this situation needs to be corrected.
  Mr. President, the legislation I am introducing today would correct 
these problems by transferring the recruitment and appointment of 
social work staff in the VA to title 38, a system that was designed to 
address professional issues of patient care. Indeed, many other patient 
care professionals within the VA have already been placed under the 
jurisdiction of title 38, and this conversion has ameliorated problems 
for those professionals that were similar to the problems which 
currently exist for social work.
  I believe it is important to ensure that the special expertise and 
skills social workers possess continue to be made available to our 
Nation's veterans and their families. I believe that the conversion of 
social workers to a hybrid title 38, as proposed by this legislation, 
would provide relief for the current difficulties and enhance the 
quality of care for veterans.
  Mr. President, I request unanimous consent that the text of this bill 
be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 2184

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. AUTHORITY TO EMPLOY SOCIAL WORKERS.

       Paragraph (2) of section 7405(a) of title 38, United States 
     Code, is amended--
       (1) redesignating subparagraph (C) as subparagraph (D); and
       (2) by inserting after subparagraph (B) the following new 
     subparagraph (C):
       ``(C) social workers.
                                 ______

      By Mrs. BOXER (for herself and Mrs. Feinstein):
  S. 2185. A bill to require the Secretary of the Treasury to transfer 
to the Administrator of General Services the Old U.S. Mint in San 
Francisco, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Environment and 
Public Works.


               legislation to transfer the old u.s. mint

 Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation 
to require the Secretary of the Treasury to transfer to the 
Administrator of General Services the Old Mint Building in San 
Francisco.
  I ask unanimous consent that the full 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. 2185

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. TRANSFER OF U.S. MINT, SAN FRANCISCO.

       (a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law, not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of 
     this Act, the Secretary of the Treasury shall transfer to the 
     Administrator of General Services, without consideration, the 
     property referred to as the ``Old U.S. Mint'', located at 
     Fifth and Mission Streets, San Francisco, California, 
     together with any improvements, structures, and fixtures 
     located on the property.
       (b) Obtaining of Other Space.--Notwithstanding any other 
     provision of law, using authority and funds available under 
     section 5134 of title 31, United States Code, the Secretary 
     of the Treasury may obtain by lease or purchase other space 
     for the operations of the United States Mint carried out, 
     prior to the date of transfer under subsection (a), at the 
     Old U.S. Mint.
       (c) Space and Services Charges.--
       (1) In general.--In accordance with section 210(j) of the 
     Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949 (40 
     U.S.C. 490(j)), the Administrator of General Services shall 
     charge persons who are furnished space and services in 
     connection with the property transferred under subsection (a) 
     for the space and services.
  (2) Deposit of charges collected.--Notwithstanding any other 
provision of law, the Administrator of General Services shall deposit 
in the Federal Buildings Fund established by section 210(f) of such Act 
the amounts collected under paragraph (1).
                                 ______

      By Mr. FEINGOLD (for himself and Mr. Kohl):
  S. 2186. A bill to direct the Secretary of the Army to transfer to 
the State of Wisconsin lands and improvements associated with the 
LaFarge Dam and Lake portion of the project for flood control and 
allied purposes, Kickapoo River, WI, and for other purposes; to the 
Committee on Environment and Public Works.


                        lafarge dam legislation

 Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with my good 
friend and colleague from Wisconsin, Senator Kohl, in introducing a 
bill to bring to a close some unfinished business begun by the Federal 
Government in our State in 1962. Identical legislation is being 
introduced today in the House of Representatives by our colleagues from 
Wisconsin, Congressmen Gunderson and Petri.
  Mr. President, approximately three decades ago, plans were made to 
build a dam across the Kickapoo River, near the village of LaFarge, 
which is located in southwest Wisconsin.
  The dam was proposed to provide flood control to a valley which 
continues to experience frequent floods today. In addition, local 
residents were told of the economic benefits the planned lake and other 
improvements would bring in terms of tourism.
  Federal legislation was passed authorizing construction by the Army 
Corps of Engineers in 1962. One hundred and forty families were evicted 
from homes and farms and construction began in 1971. Construction ended 
in 1975 leaving the proposed dam only partially built.
  The economic and flood control benefits were never realized because 
there is no lake, and no lake exists because the dam was never 
completed. In fact the only legacy of the project today lies in some 
scattered remains of former farm homes, and a 103 foot tall, three-
quarters completed dam, with the Kickapoo river flowing unimpeded 
through a 1,000 foot gap.
  The legislation we are introducing today attempts to bring this 
chapter of the history of LaFarge to a close, but not through finishing 
dam construction. Even the local residents who once had a vested 
interest in seeing the dam complete concede this is not a feasible 
approach, and further, there is now widespread consensus the dam 
project should not continue.
  Mr. President, the legislation introduced today is the result of 
united community efforts to overcome the past. For the past 3 years, 
members of the local community, the Army Corps of Engineers, University 
of Wisconsin-Extension, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, 
Wisconsin Department of Transportation, Wisconsin State Historical 
Society, the Governor's office, State legislators, Wisconsin 
environmental groups, and the members of the congressional delegation 
who join in introducing this legislation, have collaborated together on 
a plan to take the impacted lands into protection under a combination 
of State and local control.
  I am proud to introduce legislation which is the fruit of these 
labors. The legislation I offer with Senator Kohl today has three main 
components.
  First, it deauthorizes the dam and accompanying 8569 acres of 
federally-owned land.
  Second, it maintains and slightly modifies authorization for 
improvement projects which were included in the original designs. These 
improvements include the upgrading of three roads, and construction of 
a visitor and education complex including buildings, parking areas, 
recreational trails and canoe facilities. The legislation also provides 
for some environmental cleanup and site restoration of abandoned wells 
and farm sites.

  Finally, the legislation transfers these lands and improvements to 
the State of Wisconsin to be managed under State and local protection.
  The Wisconsin State legislature recently passed legislation to take 
over management of the Kickapoo valley lands in readiness for this kind 
of Federal action. It provides that the deauthorized land will be 
managed as a reserve under the auspices of the newly created Kickapoo 
Valley Governing Board. The board is charged with the following 
objectives:

       (3) Objectives.--The board shall manage land in the 
     Kickapoo valley reserve to preserve and enhance its unique 
     environmental, scenic and cultural features, to provide 
     facilities for the use and enjoyment of visitors to the 
     reserve and to promote the reserve as a destination for 
     vacationing and recreation.

  Strong environmental protections are included in the State 
legislation including limits on development and an outright ban on any 
mining activities. In addition the board is required to consult with 
the State Historical Society and Wisconsin Indian tribes in managing 
the historical and cultural content of the lands.
  In other words, Mr. President, the deauthorized land would be in very 
good hands, and for the first time since the 1960's, local residents 
would regain some control of their own destiny.
  Mr. President, when building of the LaFarge Dam was first proposed by 
the Army Corps of Engineers, two other Federal agencies were expressing 
their interest in the area for quite different reasons. The U.S. Fish 
and Wildlife Service was considering designating a ``Driftless Area 
National Wildlife Refuge,'' and the upper Kickapoo watershed--which was 
untouched by the levelling effects of glaciation--was a likely target. 
At the same time, the Natural Park Service was interested in the area 
due to its unique terrain and diverse plant and animal populations.
  The Kickapoo Valley is a lovely area filled with water-carved 
sandstone cliffs, stands of white pine and hemlock, and rugged ridges 
surrounding narrow valleys. It is home to many rare plants and several 
State threatened and endangered animals, as well as more than 400 
archeological sites.
  It is these very attributes which contributed to the demise of dam 
plans, and which were long regarded to be standing in the way of 
progress. Now, the local community has embraced protection of these 
natural treasures as a means to revitalize the region.
  Mr. President, when the 140 families were forced to leave their homes 
in the 1960's, many of them left the region entirely. Many of those who 
stayed in the area lost income and the land they once owned was removed 
from the local tax base. Local businesses which once relied on these 
customers, suffered, and the school system lost property tax funding 
along with one-third of its students.
  Today, the economic results are still felt in this valley where the 
median income is only slightly above half of the State average. And the 
heartfelt bitterness toward what is widely considered an irresponsible 
Federal boondoggle has been tempered only recently with plans for 
Federal deauthorization.
  Mr. President, that is why I am convinced the legislation we offer 
today is the best course for this region. It allows for responsible 
local and State control, and fulfills the Federal Government's 
responsibility to this area.
  The Army Corps of Engineers estimates that if the LaFarge dam were to 
be completed today, the total cost would be $102 million of which $18.6 
million has already been expended. The legislation we offer completes 
only the related promised improvements to the area at a cost of $17 
million--a savings of $66.4 million over costs for dam completion.
  In closing, Mr. President, I would like to extend my thanks to my 
colleagues who are joining me in introducing this legislation today. I 
would also like to recognize the many people from all levels of 
government and many different walks of life who have committed long 
hours of hard work to developing a workable proposal.
  And finally, I would like to recognize the personal and collective 
sacrifice demanded of the people of the Kickapoo Valley in the past 30 
years, by finally fulfilling old Federal promises and by returning 
management of their land to State and local control.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in 
the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 2186

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. KICKAPOO RIVER, WISCONSIN.

       (a) Project Modification.--The project for flood control 
     and allied purposes, Kickapoo River, Wisconsin, authorized by 
     section 203 of the Flood Control Act of 1962 (76 Stat. 1190), 
     as modified by section 814 of the Water Resources Development 
     Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4169), is further modified as provided 
     by this section.
       (b) Transfer of Property.--
       (1) In general.--Subject to the requirements of this 
     subsection, the Secretary shall transfer to the State of 
     Wisconsin, without consideration, all right, title, and 
     interest of the United States in and to the lands described 
     in paragraph (2), including all works, structures, and other 
     improvements on the lands.
       (2) Land description.--The lands to be transferred pursuant 
     to paragraph (1) are the approximately 8,569 acres of land 
     associated with the LaFarge Dam and Lake portion of the 
     project referred to in subsection (a) in Vernon County, 
     Wisconsin, in the following sections:
       (A) Section 31, Township 14 North, Range 1 West of the 4th 
     Principal Meridian.
       (B) Sections 2 through 11, and 16, 17, 20, and 21, Township 
     13 North, Range 2 West of the 4th Principal Meridian.
       (C) Sections 15, 16, 21 through 24, 26, 27, 31, and 33 
     through 36, Township 14 North, Range 2 West of the 4th 
     Principal Meridian.
       (3) Terms and conditions.--The transfer under paragraph (1) 
     shall be made on the condition that the State of Wisconsin 
     enters into a written agreement with the Secretary to hold 
     the United States harmless from all claims arising from or 
     through the operation of the lands and improvements subject 
     to the transfer.
       (4) Deadlines.--Not later than July 1, 1995, the Secretary 
     shall transmit to the State of Wisconsin an offer to make the 
     transfer under this subsection. The offer shall provide for 
     the transfer to be made in the period beginning on November 
     1, 1995, and ending on December 31, 1995.
       (5) Deauthorization.--The LaFarge Dam and Lake portion of 
     the project referred to in subsection (a) is not authorized 
     after the date of the transfer under this subsection.
       (6) Interim management and maintenance.--The Secretary 
     shall continue to manage and maintain the LaFarge Dam and 
     Lake portion of project referred to in subsection (a) until 
     the date of the transfer under this subsection.
       (c) Completion of Project Features.--
       (1) Requirement.--The Secretary shall undertake the 
     completion of the following features of the project referred 
     to in subsection (a):
       (A) The continued relocation of State Highway Route 131 and 
     County Highway Routes P and F substantially in accordance 
     with plans contained in Design Memorandum No. 6, Relocation-
     LaFarge Reservoir, dated June 1970; except that the 
     relocation shall generally follow the road right-of-way 
     through the Kickapoo Valley in existence on the date of 
     enactment of this Act.
       (B) Construction of a visitor and education complex to 
     include buildings, parking areas, recreational trails, and 
     canoe facilities substantially in accordance with plans 
     contained in Design Memorandum No. 3, Preliminary Master Plan 
     for Resource Management, Kickapoo River, Wisconsin, dated May 
     1967, and Design Memorandum No. 7, Master Recreation Plan for 
     Resource Management, LaFarge Lake Kickapoo River, Wisconsin, 
     dated July 1974.
       (C) Environmental cleanup and site restoration of abandoned 
     wells, farm sites, and safety modifications to the water 
     control structures.
       (D) Cultural resource activities to meet the requirements 
     of Federal law.
       (2) Participation by state of wisconsin.--In undertaking 
     the completion of the features identified in paragraph (1), 
     the Secretary shall determine the requirements of the State 
     of Wisconsin on the location and design of each such feature.
       (d) Costs.--The cost of the project referred to in 
     subsection (a) is modified to authorize the Secretary to 
     carry out the project at a total cost of $17,000,000, with a 
     first Federal cost of $17,000,000.

     SEC. 2. SECRETARY DEFINED.

       As used in this Act, the term ``Secretary'' means the 
     Secretary of the Army, acting through the Chief of 
     Engineers.

 Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, we in the Senate spend a great deal 
of time arguing about the appropriate role of the Federal Government. 
But one thing that we can probably all agree on is that one appropriate 
role of the Federal Government is to rectify its past mistakes. I know 
that all of my colleagues can list many instances in which Federal 
intervention has caused undue pain and suffering to individuals or 
communities. Today I join with my colleague from Wisconsin, Senator 
Feingold, in introducing a bill to address one of those mistakes that 
happened some 30 years ago in the Kickapoo River Valley of Wisconsin. 
And I'm proud to say that the ``fix'' to this problem also saves the 
taxpayers millions of dollars.
  In the mid-1960's, Congress authorized the Corps of Engineers to 
build a flood control dam on the Kickapoo River at LaFarge in Vernon 
County, WI. In order to proceed with the project, the Corp of Engineers 
condemned 140 farms covering an area of about 8,500 acres. To LaFarge, 
a community of only 840 people, the loss of these farms dealt a 
significant blow to the local economy.
  With the loss of economic activity, the community eagerly awaited the 
completion of the dam, and the creation of a lake that promised to 
provide some economic benefits in the form of recreational and tourism 
activities. But because of budgetary and environmental concerns, the 
project never happened. And the people of LaFarge were left holding the 
bag.
  But I am proud to say that the introduction of this bill today 
represents a milestone in the cooperative effort of the citizens of the 
Kickapoo River Valley, the State of Wisconsin, and local environmental 
leaders to turn this bad situation into an outstanding success for the 
community, the State, and the Federal taxpayers.
  The LaFarge Dam legislation would modify the original LaFarge Dam 
authorization, returning the federally condemned property to the State 
of Wisconsin. Anticipating this action, the State legislature and 
Governor Thompson acted earlier this year to authorize the use of this 
8,500 property as a State recreational and environmental management 
area.
  The highway repairs envisioned by the original act would remain. 
Because the original act required an area to be flooded, the highway 
was targeted for relocation. The project has been in limbo all these 
years, the relocation never took place, nor have any improvements or 
needed maintenance been done on the highway. Now, over 30 years later, 
the road has fallen into extreme disrepair, and this bill would 
authorize the necessary road improvements.

  The bill also reauthorizes the construction of a recreational 
facility to help interpret the surrounding environment for the 
visitors.
  While the original dam and flood control project, in today's dollars, 
would have cost the Federal Government $102 million, the modified 
project as authorized by this bill would only cost $17 million.
  Mr. President, I look forward to working with my colleagues on the 
Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, and ultimately in the 
full Senate, to pass this legislation. The identical legislation is 
also being introduced today on the House side by Congressman Steve 
Gunderson.
                                 ______

      By Mr. INOUYE:
  S. 2187. A bill to amend title V, United States Code, to permit the 
garnishment of an annuity under the Civil Service Retirement System or 
the Federal Employees' Retirement System, if necessary to satisfy a 
judgment against an annuitant for physically or sexually abusing a 
child; to the Committee on Governmental Affairs.


                     CHILD ABUSE ACCOUNTABILITY ACT

 Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Child 
Abuse Accountability Act of 1994. This legislation would hold child 
abusers accountable for their actions by allowing their victims access 
to the Federal pensions of persons convicted of child abuse.
  It is estimated that in 1992 almost 3 million children were reported 
to Child Protection Services [CPS] agencies as alleged victims of child 
maltreatment--3 million children, in 1 year, in this country. About 25 
percent of these reports are incidents of physical abuse and about 15 
percent are incidents of sexual abuse.
  The nationwide trend in increased CPS reports over the past few 
years--due partially to increased public awareness and willingness to 
report, but also to economic stress and substance abuse--is alarming. 
The current CPS system is overwhelmed by the demands placed on it.
  The effects of child physical and sexual abuse are far-reaching. 
Appropriate treatment is often extensive, sometimes requiring 
intervention at each developmental stage throughout the lifespan, years 
after the abuse itself has ceased, to enable the victim to work through 
the issues surrounding the abuse with cognitive and emotional skills 
acquired in that stage of development.
  In acknowledgement of the devastating effects of abuse of children, 
courts have often awarded monetary damages to victims of physical and 
sexual abuse. Unfortunately, convicted abusers often avoid payment by 
liquidating assets and relocating. And the Federal Government has, to 
date, protected the pensions of these abusers by refusing to pay court-
ordered awards. This legislation would correct that injustice.
  I urge my colleagues in the Senate to join me in support of the Child 
Abuse Accountability Act, and my colleagues in the House in support of 
H.R. 3694 introduced by Representative Patricia Schroeder on November 
22, 1993.
  Mr. President, I request unanimous consent that the text of this bill 
be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 2187

       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 ``Child Abuse Accountability 
     Act''.

     SEC. 2. GARNISHMENT AUTHORITY.

       (A) Civil Service Retirement System.--Section 8345(j) of 
     title 5, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) by amending paragraph (1) to read as follows:
       ``(1)(A) Payments under this subchapter that would 
     otherwise be made to an employee, Member, or annuitant based 
     on service of that individual shall be paid (in whole or in 
     part) by the Office to another person if and to the extent 
     expressly provided for in the terms of--
       ``(i) any court decree of divorce, annulment, or legal 
     separation, or the terms of any court order or court-approved 
     property settlement agreement incident to any court decree of 
     divorce, annulment, or legal separation; or
       ``(ii) any court order or other similar process in the 
     nature of garnishment for the enforcement of a judgment 
     rendered for physically or sexually abusing a child against 
     such employee, Member, or annuitant.
       ``(B) Any payment under this paragraph to a person bars 
     recovery by any other person.
       ``(C) If the Office is served with more than 1 decree, 
     order, or other legal process with respect to the same moneys 
     due or payable to any individual, such moneys shall be 
     available to satisfy such processes on a first-come, first-
     served basis, with any such process being satisfied out of 
     such moneys as remain after the satisfaction of all such 
     processes which have been previously served.'';
       (2) in paragraph (2) by inserting ``other legal process,'' 
     after ``order,''; and
       (3) by amending paragraph (3) to read as follows:
       ``(3) For the purpose of this section--
       ``(A) the term `court' means any court of a State, the 
     District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Guam, 
     the Northern Mariana Islands, or the Virgin Islands, and any 
     Indian court;
       ``(B) the term `judgment rendered for physically or 
     sexually abusing a child' means any legal claim perfected 
     through a final enforceable judgment, which claim is based on 
     whole or in part upon the physical abuse or sexual abuse of a 
     child, whether or not that physical abuse or sexual abuse is 
     accompanied by other actionable wrongdoing, such as sexual 
     exploitation, gross negligence, or emotional abuse; and
       ``(C) the term `child' means an individual under 18 years 
     of age.''.
       (b) Federal Employees' Retirement System.--Section 8467 of 
     title 5, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) by amending subsection (a) to read as follows:
       ``(a)(1) Payments under this chapter that would otherwise 
     be made to an employee, Member, or annuitant (including an 
     employee, Member, or annuitant as defined in section 8331) 
     based on service of that individual shall be paid (in whole 
     or in part) by the Office or the Executive Director, as the 
     case may be, to another person if and to the extent expressly 
     provided for in the terms of--
       ``(A) any court decree of divorce, annulment, or legal 
     separation, or the terms of any court order or court-approved 
     property settlement agreement incident to any court decree of 
     divorce, annulment, or legal separation; or
       ``(B) any court order or other similar process in the 
     nature of garnishment for the enforcement of a judgment 
     rendered for physically or sexually abusing a child against 
     such employee, Member, or annuitant.
       ``(2) Any payment under this subsection to a person bars 
     recovery by any other person.
       ``(3) If the Office is served with more than 1 decree, 
     order, or other legal process with respect to the same moneys 
     due or payable to any individual, such moneys shall be 
     available to satisfy such processes on a first-come, first-
     served basis, with any such process being satisfied out of 
     such moneys as remain after the satisfaction of all such 
     processes which have been previously served.'';
       (2) in subsection (b) by inserting ``other legal process,'' 
     after ``order,''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following new subsection:
       ``(c) For the purpose of this section--
       ``(1) the term `judgment rendered for physically or 
     sexually abusing a child' means a legal claim perfected 
     through a final enforceable judgment, which claim is based in 
     whole or in part upon the physical abuse or sexual abuse of a 
     child, whether or not that physical abuse or sexual abuse is 
     accompanied by other actionable wrongdoing, such as sexual 
     exploitation, gross negligence, or emotional abuse; and
       ``(2) the term `child' means an individual under 18 years 
     of age.''.

     SEC. 3. APPLICATION OF AMENDMENTS.

       The amendments made by this Act shall apply with respect to 
     any decree, order, or other legal process or any notice of 
     agreement received by the Office of Personnel Management on 
     or after the date of enactment of this Act.
                                 ______

      By Mr. INOUYE (for himself and Mr. Simon):
  S. 2188. A bill for the relief of the Pottawatomi Nation in Canada 
for the proportionate share of tribal funds and annuities under 
treaties between the Pottawatomi Nation and the United States, and for 
other purposes; to the Committee on the Judiciary.


               relief of the pottawatomi nation in canada

 Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce today a 
bill to provide an opportunity for the Pottawatomi Nation in Canada to 
have the merits of their claims against the United States determined by 
the United States Court of Federal Claims. The resolution that 
accompanies this bill would refer this claim to the chief judge of the 
U.S. Court of Federal Claims, and requires the chief judge to report 
back to the Senate, at the earliest practicable date, providing such 
findings of fact and conclusions that are sufficient to enable the 
Congress to determine whether the claim of the Pottawatomi Nation in 
Canada is legal or equitable in nature, and the amount of damages, if 
any, including interest computed at the rate of 5 percent interest per 
annum, which may be legally or equitably due from the United States to 
the claimant and which would have been compensable under the Indian 
Claims Commission Act--section 70 title 25, United States Code.
  Mr. President, the origins of this claim begin in the latter part of 
the 18th century, and are inextricably intertwined with claims of the 
Pottawatomi Tribes in the United States previously acted upon by the 
Indian Claims Commission which was established in 1946. The claim 
brought by the Wisconsin Pottawatomi Tribes originally included the 
claims of the Pottawatomi Indians residing in Canada. However, because 
the Canadian Pottawatomis were forced to leave the territorial 
boundaries of the United States and resettled in what is now Canada, 
their claims against the United States were held to be barred on 
jurisdictional grounds. Hannahville Indian Community, et al. v. United 
States, 4 Cl. Ct. 445, 456 (1983), aff'd, 732 F.2d 167 (Fed Cir.), 
cert. denied, 469 U.S. 824 (1984). The members of the Pottawatomi 
Nation in Canada are descendants of the Pottawatomi Nation who were 
aboriginal inhabitants of the United States. This was an Indian nation 
with which the United States dealt with by numerous treaties. Prior to 
their removal to Canada, they shared a common status with the Wisconsin 
Pottawatomis. The exclusion of the claims of the Canadian Pottawatomis 
from consideration by the Claims Court, while required by law because 
of their current Canadian residence, has worked a grave injustice.
  In the 101st Congress, I introduced a similar bill, which would have 
permitted the Court of Federal Claims to consider the merits of the 
claim of the Pottawatomi Nation in Canada. At that time, the 
Pottawatomi Nation in Canada was urged to exhaust their legal remedies 
by bringing suit in the Court of Federal Claims, under the Tucker Act. 
In 1992, the Court of Federal Claims ruled that the Pottawatomis were 
barred under a statute of limitation. Again, the merits of the claim 
were not heard. Pottawatomi Nation in Canada v. United States, 27 
Fed.Cl. 388 (1992).
  Mr. President, members of the Pottawatomi Nation in Canada have 
diligently sought to enforce their rights under the solemn treaties 
they entered into with the United States. This bill seeks to uphold 
those obligations of the United States by waiving technical legal 
defenses and permitting the Chief Judge of the U.S. Court of Federal 
Claims to consider the merits of the claim. For the record, I will 
briefly describe more of the details of this claim.

  Mr. President, from 1795 to 1833, the United States entered into 12 
treaties with the Pottawatomi Indians who resided on lands located in 
what are now the States of Ohio, Michigan, Indiana, Illinois, and 
Wisconsin. The treaty making culminated with the September 25, 1833 
Treaty of Chicago when the Pottawatomi Nation ceded lands on the 
western shore of Lake Michigan in return for reservation lands west of 
the Mississippi River and annual payments in perpetuity.
  The Wisconsin Pottawatomi were not signatories to the Treaty of 
Chicago and refused to move west. About 2,000 to 3,000 fled to Canada, 
with 500 remaining in Wisconsin and Michigan. The Indians who did move 
west received 5 million acres of land near what is now Council Bluffs, 
IA, along with other monetary and nonmonetary considerations. The 
Wisconsin Pottawatomis declared that the bands who negotiated the 
treaties had no right to cede homes and lands in Wisconsin. As is true 
with many other American Indian tribes, the forced removal westward was 
devastating.
  According to one document prepared by a tribal attorney:

       Over one-half of the Indians who were removed West pursuant 
     to per capita Government contracts died en route. Those who 
     reached Iowa were almost immediately removed to inhospitable 
     parts of Kansas. About one-half the Indians removed West and 
     nearly all the remainder fled to Canada. Official files of 
     the Canadian and United States Governments disclose that the 
     Indians who fled to Canada were in a substantial number of 
     cases pursued by troops and departed without their horses or 
     any of their possessions other than the clothes on their 
     backs. (Page 3, of memo of 10/7/49 prepared by tribal 
     attorney in response to questions raised in hearings 
     conducted by the House Committee on Public Lands on 6/7/49 
     and 7/6/49 on H.R. 4726, a bill that would have sent the 
     claim to the newly established Indian Claims Commission.)

The Congress learned in 1864 that the Pottawatomi Indians who had not 
removed to the west had not received their share of tribal funds. The 
Secretary of the Interior concluded that the failure to remove to the 
west had worked a forfeiture of claims to annuities or other payments 
and had disbursed no funds to these Indians. By the act of June 25, 
1864 (13 Stat. 172) the Congress declared that no forfeiture had 
occurred and directed that the share of the Pottawatomi Indians who had 
refused to relocate to the west ``should be held in the Treasury and 
retained to their credit until such time as they might remove to the 
then home of the tribe in Kansas.'' (H.R. Rep. No. 470, 64th Cong., p. 
5, as quoted on page 3 of memo dated October 7, 1949).
  In 1903, the Wisconsin Pottawatomi tribes petitioned the Senate for 
failure to receive payments as required by the law and treaties. (Sen. 
Doc. No. 185, 57th Cong., 2d Sess.) By the act of June 21, 1906 (34 
Stat. 380) the Congress directed the Secretary of the Interior to 
investigate claims made by the Pottawatomi Indians of Wisconsin and 
report on:

       * * * what number of said Indians continued to reside in 
     the State of Wisconsin after the Treaty of 1833, their 
     proportionate shares of the annuities, trust funds, and other 
     moneys paid to or expended for the tribe to which they 
     belong, in which the claimant Indians have not shared, the 
     amount of such moneys retained in the Treasury of the United 
     States to the credit of the claimant Indians as directed the 
     provision of the Act of June 25, 1864 * * *.

      Dr. Wooster of the then Office of Indian Affairs, Department 
of the Interior was appointed to head up this effort and he spent two 
years on investigation. The results of his investigation were set forth 
in the letter report to the Congress from Secretary of the Interior 
James R. Garfield, dated April 1, 1908. (H.R. Doc. No. 830, 60th Cong., 
1st Sess. (1908).) During the course of his investigation, Dr. Wooster 
made an enrollment of 2,007 Wisconsin Pottawatomis: 457 in Wisconsin 
and Michigan and 1,550 in Canada. He concluded that the proportionate 
share of annuities due the Pottawatomi of Wisconsin and unpaid, for the 
period 1838 through 1907 was $447,339. Dr. Wooster also concluded that 
the proportionate share of annuities due the Pottawatomi Nation in 
Canada, for the same period, was $1,517,226. The Congress thereafter 
enacted a series of appropriation Acts from June 30, 1913 to May 29, 
1928 to pay the claims of those Wisconsin Pottawatomis residing in the 
United States. Those Pottawatomis who resided in Canada were never paid 
their share of the tribal funds although, as stated above, the 
legislative history of the 1906 Act demonstrates that the Congress 
believed the tribe's failure to move West did not constitute a 
forfeiture of its entitlement.

  In 1910, the United States and Great Britain entered into an 
agreement for the purpose of dealing with claims between both 
countries, including claims of Indian tribes within their respective 
jurisdictions, by creating the Pecuniary Claims Tribunal. From 1910 to 
1938, the Pottawatomi Nation in Canada diligently sought to have their 
claim heard in this international forum. Overlooked by more pressing 
international matters of the period, including the intervention of 
World War I, the Pottawatomis then came to the U.S. Congress for 
redress of their claim.
  In 1946, the Congress waived its sovereign immunity and established 
the Indian Claims Commission for the purpose of granting tribes their 
long-delayed day in court. The Indian Claims Commission Act granted the 
Commission jurisdiction over so-called ancient claims, or those arising 
before the jurisdictional cut-off date of 1951. The act created five 
broad classes of claims, including claims based upon fair and honorable 
dealings.
  In 1948, the Pottawatomis brought suit before the Indian Claims 
Commission for recovery of damages. Hannahville Indian Community v. 
U.S., No. 28 (Ind.Cl.Comm. filed May 4, 1948). The Canadian band was 
included in the original pleading but the Indian Claims Commission 
dismissed their part of the claim ruling that the Commission had no 
jurisdiction to consider claims of Indians living outside the 
territorial limits of the United States. Hannahville Indian Community 
v. U.S., 115 Ct.Cl. 823 (1950). The claim of the Wisconsin Pottawatomis 
residing in the United States that was filed in the Indian Claims 
Commission was finally decided in favor of the Wisconsin Pottawatomis 
by the U.S. Claims Court in 1983. Hannahville Indian Community, et al. 
v. United States, 4 Cl. Ct. 445 (1983). The Court of Claims concluded 
that the Wisconsin Pottawatomis' proportionate share of unpaid 
annuities from 1838 through 1907 due under various treaties, including 
the Treaty of Chicago, was $447,339; but also finding that most of this 
amount was offset by payments actually appropriated and received. The 
court also concluded that the Wisconsin Pottawatomis were entitled to a 
proportionate share of funds in the amount of $187,758 agreed upon by 
the Pottawatomi Tribe of Kansas and Wisconsin as a capitalization on 
the basis of 5 percentum of perpetual annuities provided in the various 
treaties. The court also found that the Wisconsin Pottawatomis were 
entitled to a proportionate share of certain other funds of minor 
magnitude arising out of the various treaties.
  There are about 10,000 Pottawatomi descendants now living in 
communities surrounding Lakes Huron, Erie, and Ontario in Canada. The 
Pottawatomi Nation in Canada is represented politically by an executive 
council. The executive council receives its direction and mandate from 
the members of the Pottawatomi Nation who meet at general councils 
every other month. The priorities of the Pottawatomi Nation lie in 
areas of language, culture and tribal organizational matters. Both the 
Forest County Pottawatomi community and the Hannahville Indian 
Pottawatomi community support the efforts the Canadian Pottawatomi to 
have their claims against the United States settled.
                                  ____

      By Mr. HATFIELD:
  S. 2189. A bill to amend the Federal Land Policy and Management Act 
of 1976 to provide for ecosystem management, and for other purposes; to 
the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.


                    ecosystem management act of 1994

  Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, ecosystem management and watershed 
protection are the buzz words for a new generation of land management 
philosophies and techniques. A number of Federal land management 
agencies are now working to implement ecosystem management on a 
landscape level, including the Bureau of Land Management, the Forest 
Service and the Bureau of Reclamation. For example, in 1992 the BLM 
released its resource management plans for western Oregon which 
developed the first comprehensive strategy for management of forest 
ecosystems and watersheds in the Nation. Since that time, the Forest 
Service and Interior Department joined in the act with the development 
of the Forest Ecosystem Management Assessment Team report, better known 
as Option 9, for the forest ecosystems of the Pacific Northwest. In 
addition, Interior is continually working on ecosystem management plans 
for other areas of the Nation, such as the Florida Everglades and the 
area inhabited by the southern California gnatcatcher.
  While this work is admirable and perhaps necessary in the evolution 
of land management policy, a great deal of apprehension and concern 
still surrounds this method of managing our water, air, land, and fish 
and wildlife resources on a large scale. As keepers of the taxpayers' 
purse strings, Congress is required to provide the funding to allow the 
agencies to engage in this type of management.
  Unfortunately, we as legislators and appropriators understand little 
about this new and innovative land management technique. Each Federal 
Government agency, State agency, interest group, and Congressperson has 
his or her own idea of what ecosystem management means for the people 
and ecology of their particular State or region. As appropriators, we 
are required to fund these actions with little more than faith that the 
agencies' recommendations are based on sound science and a firm 
understanding of the needs of ecosystems and the people who live there.
  Numerous additional questions surround not only the integrity but the 
functionality of the ecosystem management boat we have already 
launched. For example, what is ecosystem management, how should it be 
implemented and who should be implementing it? How does the ecosystem-
oriented work of the Federal agencies, States, municipalities, 
counties, and interest groups mesh? And is the existing structure of 
our Government agencies adequate to meet the requirements of managing 
land across which State and county lines have been drawn? Finally, with 
a decreasing resource production receipt base, how shall we pay for 
ecosystem management? Direct Federal appropriations? Consolidation of 
Federal, State, local, and private funds? And if we determine how to 
pay for ecosystem management, who coordinates collection of these funds 
and how are they distributed?
  I do not disagree with the theory that holistic, 
coordinated management of our natural resources is necessary. On the 
contrary, I and many of my Senate colleagues are prepared to move in 
that direction. It makes eminent sense to manage resources by the 
natural evolution of river basins and watersheds rather than according 
to the artificial boundaries established by counties, States and 
nations. Nevertheless, as our Nation's funding resources become more 
scarce and our Government agencies, States, localities, and private 
interests seek to coordinate their ecosystem restoration efforts, 
Congress and the executive branch need to avail themselves to the best 
information in order to make educated, informed decisions about how 
ecosystem management will affect our Nation's people, environment, and 
Federal budget.

  To help answer these questions, I am introducing legislation today to 
create an ecosystem management study commission. This bipartisan 
commission will be composed of the chairmen and ranking minority 
members of following Senate committees: Energy and Natural Resources; 
Appropriations; Interior and Related Agencies Subcommittee of 
Appropriations; and the Public Lands, National Parks and Forests 
Subcommittee of Energy and Natural Resources. In addition, chairman and 
ranking members from the following House committees will also serve: 
Natural Resources; Appropriations; Interior Subcommittee of 
Appropriations; and the National Parks, Forests and Public Lands 
Subcommittee of Natural Resources.
  The commission will submit a report to Congress 1 year after 
enactment which: defines ecosystem management; identifies constraints 
and opportunities for coordinated ecosystem planning; examines existing 
laws and Federal agency budgets to determine whether any changes are 
necessary to facilitate ecosystem management; identifies incentives, 
such as trust funds, to encourage parties to engage in the development 
of ecosystem management strategies; and identifies, through case 
studies representing different regions of the United States, 
opportunities for and constraints on ecosystem management.
  To assist the ecosystem study commission with its report, a 13-member 
advisory committee will be appointed by the Secretary of the Interior, 
and would include two tribal nominees, three nominees from the Western 
Governors Association, two members of conservation groups, two members 
from industry, two members from professional societies familiar with 
ecosystem management, and two members of the legal community.
  I expect this commission and its advisory committee to build the base 
of knowledge and data surrounding ecosystem management that we in 
Congress so desperately need in order to make intelligent, informed 
decisions on legislations and funding issues relating to ecosystem 
management. At the very least, this exercise will bring people and 
groups together who often find themselves in adversarial positions on 
natural resource management issues, much as the Northwest salmon summit 
did back in 1990 with environmental, State and industry interests.
  It is time to look beyond the polarized positions of economic growth 
and environmental protection which have crippled our system of land 
management planning and implementation in recent years. Instead we must 
work toward the creation of cooperative, regionally based, incentive-
driven planning for the management of our water, air, land, and fish 
and wildlife resources in perpetuity.
  The quest for ecosystem management becomes even more urgent as we 
realize that the world's population will double from 5.5 to 11 billion 
people over the next 40 years, and the resources to support those 
people will come under increasing demand, especially as they become 
more scare. We have learned since childhood that food, water, shelter, 
and clothing are basic to human survival on this planet. Equally 
important is a clean environment, healthy ecosystem, and an 
understanding of their interdependence and integrated nature. This 
knowledge is crucial for the depolarization of our current land 
management framework and to the reempowerment of our citizens with the 
task of preserving the health and welfare of the river basins and 
watersheds in which the future generations of their families will live 
and work.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in establishing the ecosystem 
management study commission contained in the legislation, and in paving 
the way for a greater understanding of ecosystems, their dependent 
parts and the tools necessary to implement true, on-the-ground 
ecosystem management for the good of both our human and our natural 
resources.
  I ask unanimous consent that a section-by-section analysis of the 
bill be printed in the Record. 
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                Outline and Section-by-Section Analysis


 amends title ii of the federal lands and policy management act of 1976

                             I. Principles

       Set Ecosystem Management principles, including: A 
     recognition of human needs; The need for partnerships and 
     cooperation between public and private interests; The 
     importance of resource stewardship; The importance of public 
     participation; The need for the use of the best available 
     science.

                             II. Commission

       Establish an Ecosystem Management Commission to:
       A. Advise the Secretary and Congress concerning policies 
     relating to ecosystem management on public lands;
       B. Examine opportunities for and constraints on achieving 
     cooperative and coordinated ecosystem management strategies 
     between the Federal Government, Indian tribes, states, and 
     private landowners.

                            III. Membership

       Membership of the Commission includes the Chairman and 
     Ranking Members from the following Congressional committees:
       Senate: Energy and Natural Resources Committee; Public 
     Lands, National Parks and Forests Subcommittee of the Senate 
     Energy Committee; Appropriations Committee; Interior and 
     Related Agencies Subcommittee of the Appropriations 
     Committee.
       House: Natural Resources Committee; Subcommittee on 
     National Parks, Forests and Public Lands of the Natural 
     Resources Committee; Appropriations Committee; Interior 
     Subcommittee of the Appropriations Committee.

                               IV. Report

       The Commission shall submit a report to Congress with 
     recommendations one year after enactment which:
       1. Defines ``ecosystem management;''
       2. Identifies constraints on and opportunities for 
     coordinated ecosystem planning;
       3. Examines existing laws and federal agency budgets 
     affecting public lands management to determine whether any 
     changes are necessary to facilitate ecosystem management;
       4. Identifies incentives, such as trust funds, to encourage 
     parties to engage in the development of ecosystem management 
     strategies;
       5. Identifies, through case studies that represent 
     different regions of the U.S., opportunities for and 
     constraints on ecosystem management.

                         V. Advisory Committee

       An Advisory Committee shall be appointed to assist the 
     Commission not later than 90 days after enactment. Members of 
     the Advisory Committee shall include 13 members appointed by 
     the Secretary of the Interior:
       Two tribal nominees;
       Three nominees from the Western Governors Association;
       Two members of conservation groups;
       Two members from industry with public lands concerns;
       Two members from professional societies familiar with the 
     concept of ecosystem management;
       Two members of the legal community.

                           VI. Appropriations

       Authorized appropriations are $10 million.
                                 ______

      By Mr. LAUTENBERG (for himself and Mr. Wofford):
  S. 2190. A bill to direct the Office of Personnel Management to 
establish an interagency placement program for Federal employees 
affected by reduction in force actions, and for other purposes; to the 
Committee on Governmental Affairs.


             federal service priority placement program act

 Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the 
Federal Service Priority Placement Program Act of 1994. I am pleased to 
be joined in this effort by my colleague from Pennsylvania, Senator 
Wofford.
  In simple terms, Mr. President, this legislation requires the Office 
of Personnel Management [OPM] to establish a demonstration program that 
will create a mandatory interagency placement program for Federal 
employees affected by reduction in force actions.
  Let me explain why this program is needed.
  As Federal employment decreases, an increasing number of talented and 
skilled and dedicated employees lose their jobs. In an effort to be 
responsive to their human needs, and to continue to use their talents 
in public service, different departments, and agencies in the Federal 
Government have developed their own placement programs to help former 
employees. The Department of Defense's Priority Placement Program [PPP] 
is, by far, the most successful placement program in the Government. 
Since PPP's inception in 1965, over 100,000 Defense employees have been 
successfully placed elsewhere in the Department.
  But there are problems with the existing system. First, as jobs 
decline, so does the success of placement programs. In a 1992 report, 
the General Accounting Office [GAO] noted that the PPP in the 
Department of Defense was not able to meet demand for placements 
because fewer job opportunities were available. This remains the case--
there are presently more than 17,000 registrants in the program. The 
placement rate for the PPP has declined, falling from a high of 48 
percent in 1989 to 23 percent in 1991. This problem will continue to 
grow both in the Defense Department and other Federal agencies: After 
all, over the next 5 years of the total Federal civilian work force 
will be reduced by 272,000 employees. We cannot eliminate the jobs with 
one hand and rehire the workers on the other.
  Second, intraagency placement programs fail to maximize opportunities 
for workers. It is fine for the Defense Department to offer its former 
workers priority consideration for new DOD jobs--but it would be even 
better if those workers had priority placement rights or at least extra 
consideration for jobs they are qualified for throughout the Federal 
Government.
  There are some steps being taken in that direction now. The Office of 
Personnel Management currently operates two Governmentwide placement 
programs that supplement the individual efforts of Federal agencies. 
But the program is severely restricted According to a 1992 GAO report, 
OPM's programs had only 4,433 registrants and made only 110 placements 
in fiscal year 1991. Although OPM has made some improvements to its 
programs since 1992, there clearly remains a need for a coordinated, 
mandatory governmentwide placement program.

  That is precisely what this bill will create. It will require all 
Federal agencies to offer any opening to a well-qualified, dislocated 
Federal worker located within the commuting area of such opening prior 
to making an offer to a non-Federal Government employee.
  The Federal Service Priority Placement Program will not supersede 
intra-agency placement programs. Only when an agency is unable to fill 
a position internally through its own placement program will the 
Federal Service PPP go into effect. Furthermore, to ensure the Federal 
employee who is offered a position with another agency will not be 
misplaced, this bill requires that the worker be well qualified for 
that position.
  We want to reinvent government. We have to reduce Federal employment. 
But we do not need to sacrifice the skills and talents and dedication 
of employees arbitrarily. By facilitating a Federal employee's effort 
to maintain a position with the Federal Government through the creation 
of a mandatory interagency placement program, I believe that this 
legislation will minimize the disruption created by reinvention and 
maximize the ability of existing Federal workers to continue to make a 
contribution to this country.
  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. 2190

       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 ``Federal Service Priority 
     Placement Program Act of 1994''.

     SEC. 2. INTERAGENCY PLACEMENT PROGRAM FOR FEDERAL EMPLOYEES 
                   AFFECTED BY REDUCTION IN FORCE ACTIONS.

       (a) Definition.--For purposes of this section the term 
     ``agency'' means an ``Executive agency'' as defined under 
     section 105 of title 5, United States Code, and--
       (1) includes the United States Postal Service and the 
     Postal Rate Commission; and
       (2) does not include the General Accounting Office.
       (b) Establishment of Program.--No later than 180 days after 
     the date of the enactment of this Act, the Director of the 
     Office of Personnel Management shall establish a Government-
     wide demonstration program to facilitate employment placement 
     for Federal employees who--
       (1) are scheduled to be separated from service under a 
     reduction in force pursuant to--
       (A) regulations prescribed under section 3502 of title 5, 
     United States Code; or
       (B) procedures established under section 3595 of title 5, 
     United States Code; or
       (2) are separated from service under such a reduction in 
     force.
       (c) Interagency Placement Program.--The placement program 
     established under subsection (b) shall--
       (1) coordinate with programs established by agencies for 
     the placement of agency employees affected by a reduction in 
     force action within such agency; and
       (2) provide a system to require the offer of a position in 
     an agency to an employee of another agency affected by a 
     reduction in force action, if--
       (A) the position cannot be filled through the placement 
     program of the agency in which the position is located;
       (B) the employee to whom the offer is made is well 
     qualified for the offered position;
       (C)(i) the classification of the offered position is equal 
     to the classification of the employee's present or last held 
     position; or
       (ii) the basic rate of pay of the offered position is equal 
     to the basic rate of pay of the employee's present or last 
     held position; and
       (D) the geographic location of the offered position is 
     within the commuting area of--
       (i) the residence of the employee; or
       (ii) the location of the employee's present or last held 
     position.
       (d) Agency Programs Unaffected.--The interagency placement 
     program established under this section shall not affect the 
     priority of placement of any employee under the agency 
     placement program of such employee's employing agency.
       (e) Termination of Demonstration Program.--The 
     demonstration program established under subsection (b) shall 
     terminate 5 years after the date on which the Director of the 
     Office of Personnel Management determines such program is 
     first operable.
                                 ______

      By Mr. COCHRAN (for himself and Mr. Lott):
  S.J. Res. 199. A joint resolution proposing an amendment to the 
Constitution of the United States relative to the free exercise of 
religion; to the Committee on the Judiciary.


 constitutional amendment restoring the right to the free exercise of 
                                religion

 Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, today I am introducing a joint 
resolution that proposes an amendment to the Constitution to guarantee 
that the right all citizens of the United States to the free exercise 
of their religion shall not be denied or abridged by the United States 
or any State.
  Mr. President, the fact that the guarantee of the free exercise of 
religion is the first of the fundamental rights protected in our Bill 
of Rights indicates the importance the Framers assigned to it.
  In recent years there appears to have developed an official or 
politically correct negative view of individuals who express openly 
their religious views. Many Americans are convinced that the intentions 
of our Constitution's Framers on religious freedom are not only 
misunderstood and misinterpreted, but are, in fact, under attack by the 
very government established to guarantee it. Many Americans also fear 
that if these trends continue the Constitution's guarantee of religious 
freedom will be undermined completely.
  Mr. President, following the Supreme Court's school prayer decision 
and other court cases, such as the 1990 decision in Employment 
Division, Oregon Department of Human Services versus Smith have put the 
state of the law on religious freedom under a cloud. In Smith, the 
Court abandoned its strict scrutiny standard, which had required that 
government must show that a compelling public interest was at stake in 
its actions affecting free exercise, and replaced it with a test by 
which any government action burdening free exercise would be 
constitutional, so long as it is religiously neutral and uniformly 
applied.
  The Smith decision was considered by many as a major erosion in the 
Constitution's protection for free exercise and by some as the 
subordination of free exercise to a much broader range of potential 
Federal, State and local government actions than the Framers could ever 
have imagined.
  The case has become a catalyst that has brought many different 
religious groups and individuals together to push for restoration of 
the strict scrutiny test. The passage last November of the Religious 
Freedom Restoration Act was believed by many to have solved the problem 
by restoring the strict scrutiny standard abandoned in Smith.
  In my view, Mr. President, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act is, 
at best, only a partial solution to the much broader problem manifested 
in the antireligion sentiments and actions that are becoming more and 
more common in our society and institutions. Prof. Douglas Laycock of 
the University of Texas Law School, has described the act as:

       An attempt to create a statutory right to the free exercise 
     of religion, pursuant to Congress' power under Section 5 of 
     the Fourteenth Amendment to enforce the Fourteenth Amendment 
     and therefore presumably to enforce all the rights 
     incorporated in the Fourteenth Amendment.

  It is Professor Laycock's assessment that in combination with Smith 
the Religious Freedom Restoration Act means that ``most religious 
litigation henceforth will be under the statute rather than under the 
Constitution, or maybe under State constitutions rather than under 
Federal law, but the principal Federal claim will be statutory.'' He 
further raises the possibility that if an unpopular religion should 
prevail in court, it is conceivable that Congress could amend the act 
to cut that religion out from its protection.
  Mr. President, I don't believe that this is protection of the free 
exercise that our Framers had in mind. In fact, the Framers would 
probably have great difficulty in understanding how we have arrived at 
the current state of the law with regard to the free exercise of 
religion. They would likely find it ironic that questions arising as to 
Government actions that burden free exercise--the fundamental right to 
which they gave such special standing in the Bill of Rights--should now 
turn on what Congress may have intended in making a law.
  Mr. President, it is time we restored to its proper place in our 
Constitution the guarantee of every individual's right to the free 
exercise of their religious beliefs. That is why today I am introducing 
a joint resolution proposing an amendment to our Constitution which 
will, when adopted, restore that guarantee.
  The proposed amendment reads as follows:

       The right of citizens of the United States to the free 
     exercise of religion shall not be denied or abridged by the 
     United States or by any State.

  Mr. President, if given the opportunity, I believe the American 
people will, through their State legislatures, support a constitutional 
amendment to restore the fundamental right of every individual to 
exercise their religious beliefs, free from Government intervention, 
and I invite my colleagues to join as cosponsors of this joint 
resolution.
  I ask unanimous consent that copies of two recent articles on this 
subject in the Wall Street Journal be printed in the Record. 
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                            Church and State

       In this holy season of Easter and Passover, it's an 
     appropriate time to consider the status of religion's role in 
     the public sphere.
       Some of the most difficult problems facing U.S. society 
     today--crime, welfare, illegitimacy, broken families--are 
     ones that in the past were mitigated by religious influence, 
     not the state. These are preponderantly moral concerns, and a 
     consensus seems to be emerging that their solutions will 
     depend on reviving the moral sense.
       It won't be easy. After the Supreme Court made school 
     prayer illegal, anything remotely religious disappeared from 
     public life, often because of litigation by the ACLU but as 
     often driven off by an overbearing secularism that, for 
     instance, began stripping out religious references from 
     textbooks.
       In time, the media essentially ignored religion, though 
     allegations of pederasty against Catholic priests would 
     cheerfully be kicked through the news media for weeks. (It 
     must be acknowledged that our major religious institutions 
     contentedly handed over many of their traditional social 
     functions to the government, then became lobbies for state 
     tax collections.)
       There are signs now that this may be changing, albeit 
     slowly. Religion seems to be working its way more often into 
     the public discourse. We have a President who unabashedly 
     talks about his beliefs. One of the most influential books of 
     last year was Yale Law Professor Stephen Carter's ``The 
     Culture of Disbelief,'' which argues that American culture, 
     law and politics discriminate against religion. James Q. 
     Wilson's ``The Moral Sense'' was widely discussed, and 
     William Bennett's ``The Book of Virtues,'' well received in 
     both conservative and some liberal publications, rose to the 
     top of the best-sellers' lists. Jesus is on Newsweek's cover.
       Congress overwhelmingly passed the Religious Freedom 
     Restoration Act last fall, after vigorous lobbying efforts 
     from virtually every part of the religious spectrum. The act 
     protects religion from restrictive laws, unless government 
     can show a compelling interest and imposes the restriction in 
     the least burdensome way. A few weeks ago a provision in a 
     House bill that could have forced home-schoolers to obtain 
     the same teaching credentials required of public school 
     teachers died a swift death when congressional switchboards 
     were flooded with calls of protest from home-schooling 
     constituents, many of them evangelical Christians fed up with 
     the educational and moral standards of the public schools.
       One of the most significant political developments of the 
     past year or two is the emerging alliance between Roman 
     Catholics and evangelical Protestants (joined sometimes by 
     Orthodox Jews). Last week a group of prominent clergy from 
     both groups issued a statement pledging to cooperate on 
     political issues of common concern such as abortion, school 
     choice and strengthening the traditional family. The 
     statement cites ``a growing convergence'' on such issues.
       There are 58 million Catholics in the U.S. and 24 million 
     evangelicals--a large segment of the electorate. ``This is 
     the wave of the future,'' says Ralph Reed, executive director 
     of Pat Robertson's Christian Coalition. ``It is as 
     significant a coalition to the future of American politics as 
     the unification of blacks and Jews during the civil rights 
     struggle.''
       Last year the Supreme Court ruled in favor of a religious 
     organization that wanted to rent a local public school 
     auditorium for an after-hours function. States, especially in 
     the South, are trying to legislate prayer back into the 
     schools in the wake of a favorable federal Court of Appeals 
     ruling in 1992.
       The Supreme Court's most important religious case this term 
     concerns the constitutionality of a public school in New York 
     State established to educate the disabled children of Kiryas 
     Joel, a village of Hasidic Jews. In arguing his case before 
     the Court last Wednesday, Nathan Lewin, the attorney for 
     Kiryas Joel, said, ``It turns the Constitution on its head to 
     say that the free exercise of religion becomes the one 
     impermissible vice.''
       All this will agitate those most ardent for church-state 
     separation. But there are some realities they ought to try to 
     come to grips with. The United States remains one of the most 
     religious nations on earth and by far the most religious 
     country in the Western world; nine out of 10 Americans 
     profess a belief in God.
       Yet we are also a nation that in the wake of the school 
     prayer decision, spent the three decades actively expunging 
     every vestige of the religious impulse from public life and 
     discourse. It is hardly a coincidence that this same period 
     saw the rise of many social pathologies. A reaction from this 
     country's religious tradition was inevitable. It has arrived.
                                  ____


                              Free To Pray

       Last week a Mississippi judge struck a blow for prayer in 
     the schools when he reinstated school principal Bishop Knox, 
     who had been suspended for allowing a student to read a 
     prayer over the school's public-address system. Below, 
     excerpts from the opinion by Judge Chet Dillard of the Hinds 
     County Chancery Court in Jackson, Miss.:
       This case involves our most treasured freedoms--concerning 
     our schoolchildren, our Constitution, and our religion. 
     Therefore, a short reference to constitutional history is 
     appropriate.
       ``The sacred rights of mankind are not to be rummaged for 
     among parchments, or musty records. They are written, as with 
     a sun beam in the whole volume of human nature, by the hand 
     of the divinity itself, and can never be erased or obscured 
     by mortal power.'' In the beginning Alexander Hamilton so 
     expressed his views on the value of constitutional rights.
       We have completely missed the main objective of the 
     Founding Fathers of our country when we reach the point where 
     we construe our Constitution to allow students to have 
     abortions yet forbid them to pray in our schools. . . .
       The Constitution was designed to preserve a wholesome, 
     regulated, orderly, moral way of life. It was not to destroy 
     the very way of life our forefathers loved, enjoyed, and 
     wanted to guarantee for future generations when it was 
     adopted. Since the ratification of the Bill of Rights in 1791 
     by the states until recent times, abortion was a criminal 
     act. Most all states had a death penalty for murder, and 
     prayer was the beginning and end of nearly every honorable 
     endeavor. In just a relatively few years, beginning in the 
     '60s, it has become a constitutional right to have an 
     abortion, avoid the death penalty for at least 10 years, but 
     unconstitutional to pray in school except under very limited 
     circumstances. . . .
       There is a valid argument being made that the attempt to 
     prevent the freedom to offer prayer in school has led to the 
     loss of moral values in public education. This seems to be 
     true as reflected by the violence, lack of respect for 
     authority, and criminal acts such as carrying concealed 
     weapons, assaults, drug traffic and even murder. All citizens 
     of this country should be concerned enough to help prevent 
     what happened to religion in the Soviet Union. This was 
     brought about by the courts' interpretation of their 
     constitution. That is the reason we must give as much weight 
     to the Free Exercise Clause as we do the Establishment 
     Clause. They must balance.

                          ____________________