[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 133 (Tuesday, September 24, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S11169-S11186]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. THURMOND (for himself, Mr. Faircloth, Mr. Lott, Mr. Helms, 
        and Mrs. Kassebaum):
  S. 2104. A bill to amend chapter 71 of title V, United States Code, 
to prohibit the use of Federal funds for certain Federal employee labor 
organization activities, and for other purposes; to the Committee on 
Governmental Affairs.


                      UNION ACTIVITIES LEGISLATION

  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a very 
important piece of legislation that would affect every American 
taxpayer. This measure would prohibit Federal funds

[[Page S11170]]

from being used to pay Federal employees while working on union 
business.
  Mr. President, I was shocked by a recent Government Accounting Office 
[GAO] report to Congress concerning union activities at the Social 
Security Administration [SSA]. I understand that Federal employees have 
the right to be represented by a union. However, I completely disagree 
that the American taxpayer should foot the bill for this 
representation.
  The results of the GAO report are astounding and very disturbing. The 
GAO reported that over 413,000 hours were spent by Federal employees 
last year on union activities at the SSA. This cost the American 
taxpayers approximately $12.6 million in salaries and expenses. This 
does not even count the amount of time management spent answering union 
concerns. The cost involved for management to respond may be double the 
nearly $13 million we spent on the union representatives. The GAO 
identified 1,800 SSA employees who are authorized by the union to spend 
time on SSA union activities; I repeat, Mr. President, 1,800 Federal 
employees, paid by the U.S. Government to do union work. Currently, 146 
of those representatives are considered to be full-time. In other 
words, 146 Federal employees are spending 100 percent of their time at 
the Social Security Administration working on union activities, not 
serving Social Security beneficiaries and the taxpayer, but doing full-
time union work. These figures are for just one agency. In 1993, 
President Clinton issued Executive Order 12871, which requires agencies 
to involve labor organizations as full ``partners'' with management 
in identifying problems and creating solutions. In the time that this 
Executive order has been in effect, the cost to the American taxpayer 
for union activity at SSA alone has more than doubled. Further, Federal 
employees who are performing union work full-time has jumped from 80 to 
146. There are still some 1,654 additional SSA employees working part-
time on union activities. Mr. President, this is outrageous.

  As I stated, these figures are only for the SSA. I have, therefore, 
requested that the GAO prepare a similar report to the one conducted at 
SSA, which would address union activity within the entire Federal 
Government. It is my feeling that the aggregate numbers will be equally 
as staggering and shocking as those found at SSA.
  I am pleased to be a cosponsor of legislation, authored by my good 
friend, Senator Faircloth, which would prohibit using money from the 
Social Security and Medicare trust funds for union activities at SSA 
and the Department of Health and Human Services. However, I think we 
should go even further. No Federal money should be used to subsidize 
union work within any Government agency. Our Government workers should 
be attending to the business for which they were hired while on the 
American taxpayer's time. The union representatives at Federal agencies 
were not hired to do the work of the unions. They were hired to perform 
specific duties pertaining to the official business of the Federal 
agency that employs them.
  The legislation I am introducing would ensure that union activities 
at the Federal level are not financed by the already heavily burdened 
American taxpayer. Mr. President, let the unions pay the salaries and 
expenses of those who perform union work; and let our tax money be used 
to do the work of the American people.
  The able Majority Leader, Senator Lott, Senators Faircloth, Helms, 
and Kassebaum are original cosponsors. I invite my other colleagues to 
join us in support of this important measure to correct an absolute 
misuse of Federal funds.
  I further ask unanimous consent that the GAO report regarding union 
activities at the Social Security Administration be included in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

          Union Activity at the Social Security Administration

       Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: I am pleased 
     to be here today to discuss the time spent on union 
     activities at the Social Security Administration (SSA). Union 
     activities generally include representing employees in 
     complaints against management, bargaining over changes in 
     working conditions and the application of personnel policies, 
     and negotiating union contracts with management. The federal 
     government pays its employees' salaries and expenses for the 
     portion of time they are allowed to spend on union 
     activities; it also provides other support such as space, 
     supplies, equipment, and some travel expenses.\1\ Federal 
     union members generally cannot bargain over wages and cannot 
     strike, and federal employees are not required to join unions 
     and pay union dues in order to be represented by the union.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     \1\ Footnotes at end of article.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
       Given the budget constraints facing federal agencies, the 
     Subcommittee expressed concern about the amount of time and 
     expenses devoted to union activities and paid for by the 
     federal government. The Subcommittee expressed particular 
     concern about SSA unions regarding the amount of money paid 
     for union activities out of the Social Security trust funds.
       As requested, I will focus my remarks on the history of 
     union involvement in the federal government, the statutory 
     basis for the federal government to pay employee salaries and 
     expenses for union activities, and the amount of time spent 
     on and costs associated with union activities at SSA and how 
     the agency accounts for it. The Subcommittee also asked us to 
     comment on how the amount of time and money spent at SSA on 
     union activities compares with what is spent at other large 
     federal agencies, such as the Department of Veterans Affairs 
     (VA) and the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), and how it 
     compares with the amount spent by the U.S. Postal Service, 
     which operates more like a private-sector company. As 
     requested, we have also provided information on union 
     activities in the private sector.
       In response to your request, we began our work at SSA in 
     August 1995. To develop this information, we interviewed 
     management and union officials in SSA headquarters and 4 of 
     SSA's 10 regional offices. We also reviewed union contracts, 
     payroll records, and time-reporting forms. To determine the 
     amount of time spent on union activities, we reviewed yearly 
     reports of time spent on union activities and verified the 
     time reported by reviewing source documents at one region and 
     selected headquarters components. We supplemented our field 
     work with telephone calls to three additional SSA regions to 
     verify that similar time reporting procedures were used.
       We also met with union and management officials at VA, IRS, 
     and the Postal Service to compare their union time and costs 
     with SSA's. VA does not operate a national union time-
     reporting system and therefore could not provide data on 
     union activities. Consequently, we are not providing any 
     information concerning VA. At IRS and the Postal Service, we 
     obtained available information on union activity from 
     headquarters and selected field facilities but did not verify 
     its accuracy. We also discussed the role and function of 
     unions in the federal government with the Office of Personnel 
     Management (OPM) and discussed the private-sector use of 
     official time for union activities with labor-relations 
     experts at various trade associations, colleges, and 
     universities. We also reviewed a 1992 Bureau of National 
     Affairs publication that summarized trends in labor/
     management contracts for private industry. Finally, to 
     determine the types of contract provisions that exist in 
     private industry with regard to the use of official time, we 
     reviewed ten contracts on file at the Bureau of Labor 
     Statistics.
       In summary, federal labor/management relations were 
     formalized by executive order in the early 1960s.\2\ In 1962, 
     an executive order permitted federal agencies to grant 
     official time for certain meetings between management and 
     union representatives, at the discretion of the agency. The 
     management control prevalent when the first executive order 
     was issued has evolved over time, and today unions operating 
     at federal government agencies have significant involvement 
     in operational and management decisions. The use of official 
     time, which is authorized paid time off from assigned duties 
     for union activities, has become a routine method of union 
     operation in the federal government. OPM officials told us 
     that currently no governmentwide requirement exists to 
     capture or report the amount of official time charged to 
     union activities. They further noted that managers and 
     employees would spend time interacting on personnel and 
     working condition matters even if there were no unions 
     operating at agencies.
       We determined that over the last 6 years, the time spent on 
     union activities at SSA has grown from 254,000 to at least 
     413,000 hours, at a cost to SSA's trust funds of $12.6 
     million in 1995 alone. That is, SSA currently pays the 
     equivalent of the salaries and expenses of about 200 SSA 
     employees to represent the interests of the approximately 
     52,000 employees represented by unions at SSA. This cost 
     represents a portion of the $5.5 billion SSA incurred in 
     administrative expenses for fiscal year 1995.
       In addition, SSA has reported to the Congress that the 
     number of full-time union representatives, those devoting 75 
     percent or more of their time to union activities, grew from 
     80 to 145 between 1993 and 1995. We found, however, that the 
     reporting system for collecting such data does not adequately 
     track the number of union representatives charging time to 
     union activities or the actual time spent. Consequently, we 
     conducted a limited verification of the hours spent on union 
     activities reported by SSA and found

[[Page S11171]]

     that time spent on union activities was underreported. While 
     SSA is currently developing a new system to more accurately 
     track the time spent on union activities, it plans to 
     implement this system to replace only the automated reporting 
     system for union representatives in the field offices and 
     teleservice centers. SSA is not planning to improve the less 
     accurate manual time-reporting system for its other 
     components.
       Under the terms of the current SSA union contract 
     negotiated in 1993, the selection of union representatives 
     and the amount of time they spend on union activities are 
     determined by the union without the consent of local 
     managers. We found that over 1,800 designated union 
     representatives in SSA are authorized to spend time on union 
     activities, although most of the time spent is by SSA's 146 
     full-time representatives. Some SSA field managers told us 
     that their having no involvement in decisions about how much 
     time is spent by individuals and who the individuals are 
     causes problems in managing the day-to-day activities of 
     their operations. Union representatives, on the other hand, 
     told us that the time they use is necessary to fully 
     represent the interests of their coworkers.
       SSA reported that it paid for 404,000 hours for union 
     activities in fiscal year 1995, as compared with 442,000 
     hours reported by IRS in fiscal year 1994, the most recent 
     information available. The Postal Service reported that 1.7 
     million hours spent on union activities in fiscal year 1995 
     related to grievances. This Postal Service estimate does not 
     include substantial additional time spent on other types of 
     union activities and paid for by either the unions or the 
     Postal Service.
       With regard to union activity in private industry, some 
     employers pay some or all of the salaries and expenses of 
     union representatives, as the federal government does, while 
     others do not.


                               background

       Labor unions are groups of employees organized to bargain 
     with employers over such issues as wages, hours, benefits, 
     and working conditions. The current federal labor/management 
     program differs from nonfederal programs in three important 
     ways: (1) federal unions bargain on a limited number of 
     issues--bargaining over pay and other economic benefits is 
     generally prohibited,\1\ (2) strikes and lockouts are 
     prohibited, and (3) federal employees cannot be compelled 
     to join, or pay dues to, the unions that represent them. 
     At SSA, employees are represented by three unions: the 
     American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE), which 
     represents over 95 percent of SSA employees who are 
     represented by a union; the National Treasury Employees 
     Union (NTEU); and the National Federation of Federal 
     Employees (NFFE). Of SSA's 65,000 employees, about 52,000 
     nonsupervisory employees are represented by the unions, 
     and about 47 percent of those represented are dues-paying 
     union members. Union operations at SSA are governed by a 
     national AFGE contract and six other union contracts with 
     individual NTEU and NFFE components.
       At the other federal organizations we visited, five unions 
     had national collective bargaining agreements--four at the 
     Postal Service and one at IRS. There were 751,000 employees 
     represented by unions at the Postal Service and 97,000 at the 
     IRS. Although other unions without national collective 
     bargaining agreements represented Postal Service employees, 
     the number of employees represented by these unions is less 
     than one percent of all represented employees.
       There are two main categories of official time, or 
     government paid time spent on union activities, at SSA. The 
     category known as ``bank time'' in field offices, and 
     equivalent categories of official time in other components, 
     refers to time that is negotiated and limited by SSA 
     contracts with its unions. Bank time includes time spent on 
     union- or employee-initiated grievances (complaints regarding 
     any matter related to employment) as well as on union-
     initiated activities, such as training or representational 
     duties. The category known as ``nonbank time'' in field 
     offices, and equivalent categories in other components, 
     generally refers to time spent on management-initiated 
     activities; bargaining over changes to work assignments and 
     working conditions (such as disallowed leave, employee work 
     space, and equipment); management-initiated grievances; and 
     any other time not specifically designated as bank time.


          history of union activity in the federal government

       In 1912, the Lloyd-LaFollette Act established the right of 
     postal employees to join a union and set a precedent for 
     other federal employees to join unions. The government did 
     little to provide agencies with guidance on labor relations 
     until the early 1960s.
       In 1962, President Kennedy issued Executive Order 10988, 
     establishing in the executive branch a framework for federal 
     agencies to bargain with unions over working conditions and 
     personnel practices. The order established a decentralized 
     labor/management program under which each agency had 
     discretion in interpreting the order, deciding individual 
     agency policy, and settling its own contract disputes and 
     grievances.
       In 1969, President Nixon issued Executive Order 11491, 
     which established a process for resolving labor disputes in 
     the executive branch by forming the Federal Labor Relations 
     Council to prescribe regulations and arbitrate grievances. 
     This order clarified language to expressly permit bargaining 
     on operational issues for employees adversely affected by 
     organizational realignments or technological changes.
       In 1970, the Postal Reorganization Act brought postal labor 
     relations under a structure similar to that applicable to 
     companies in the private sector. Collective bargaining for 
     wages, hours, and working conditions was authorized subject 
     to regulation by the National Labor Relations Board. Like 
     other federal employees, postal employees could not be 
     compelled to join or pay dues to a union and could not 
     strike.
       The Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 provided a statutory 
     basis for the current federal labor/management relations 
     program and set up an independent body, the Federal Labor 
     Relations Authority (FLRA), to administer the program. The 
     act expanded the scope of collective bargaining--the process 
     under which union representatives and management bargain over 
     working conditions--to allow routine negotiation of some 
     operational issues, such as the use of technology and the 
     means for conducting agency operations.
       In 1993, President Clinton issued Executive Order 12871, 
     which articulated a new vision of labor/management relations, 
     called ``Partnership.'' Partnership required agencies to 
     involve labor organizations as full partners with management 
     in identifying problems and crafting solutions to better 
     fulfill the agency mission. It also expanded the scope of 
     bargainable issues. This new arrangement was intended to end 
     the sometimes adversarial relationship between federal unions 
     and management and to help facilitate implementation of 
     National Performance Review initiatives, which were intended 
     to improve public service and reduce cost of government.


           basis for paying salaries of union representatives

       In 1962, Executive Order 10988 permitted federal agencies 
     to grant official time, which is authorized paid time off 
     from assigned government duties, for meetings between 
     management and union representatives for contract 
     negotiation, at the discretion of the agency. In 1971, 
     Executive Order 11491 was amended to prohibit the use of 
     official time for contract negotiation unless the agency 
     and union agreed to certain arrangements. Specifically, 
     the agency could authorize either (1) up to 40 hours of 
     official time for negotiation during regular working hours 
     or (2) up to one-half the time actually spent in 
     negotiations. Over the next 4 years, a series of Federal 
     Labor Relations Council decisions and regulations 
     continued to liberalize the use of official time by 
     allowing negotiations for the use of official time for 
     other purposes.
       The Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 authorized official 
     time for federal agency union representatives in negotiating 
     a collective bargaining agreement. \4\ The act also permitted 
     agencies and unions to negotiate whether union 
     representatives would be granted official time in connection 
     with other labor/management activities, as long as the 
     official time was deemed reasonable, necessary, and in the 
     public interest. The act continued to permit agencies to 
     provide unions with routine services and facilities at agency 
     expense. The act prohibited the use of official time for 
     internal union business, such as solicitation of members.


           TIME SPENT ON AND COST OF UNION ACTIVITIES AT SSA

       SSA has a national system for reporting time spent on union 
     activities by union representatives. This system is separate 
     from the agency's time and attendance and workload reporting 
     systems. Under this system, union representatives generally 
     fill out and submit forms to their supervisors to account for 
     union time. The hours reported on these forms are then 
     periodically aggregated and submitted to SSA headquarters for 
     totaling. This time-reporting system consists of two 
     component systems that cover roughly an equal number of 
     employees. The first is an automated system that captures 
     time reported by union representatives working in field 
     offices, which are the primary point of public contact with 
     SSA, and at teleservice centers, where calls to SSA's 
     national 800 number are answered. The second component is a 
     manual system used to capture time spent by union 
     representatives at SSA headquarters, as well as at Program 
     Service Centers, the Office of Hearings and Appeals, and 
     other components. Neither system is designed to capture 
     either time spent by management on union-related matters or 
     the number or names of individuals charging union time.
       We conducted a limited verification of time captured in 
     SSA's national reporting system at one SSA region and several 
     headquarters components. By tracing source documents for 
     union representatives' time to reported totals in the system, 
     we discovered additional time not captured by the two 
     systems. These gaps occurred primarily in the manual system 
     and resulted from inaccurate reporting from the source 
     documents, overlooked reports for some union representatives, 
     and uncounted reports for some organizational units during 
     certain reporting periods. We also verified that similar 
     procedures were being used at three other regions, which 
     could result in similar underreporting at these locations.
       The overall time spent on union activities has grown 
     steadily from 254,000 hours in 1990 to over 413,000 in 1995. 
     This is the equivalent

[[Page S11172]]

     of paying the salaries and other expenses of about 200 SSA 
     employees to represent the 52,000 employees in the bargaining 
     unit in 1995. SSA reported 254,000 hours of official time 
     devoted to union activities in 1990, 269,000 in 1991, 272,000 
     in 1992, 314,000 in 1993, 297,000 in 1994, and 404,000 in 
     1995.
       Because of limitations in SSA's reporting system, it is not 
     possible to estimate actual time spent agencywide for any 
     reporting period. Although it is likely that the actual time 
     spent agencywide exceeds our estimates, our verification 
     sample was not large enough to be statistically valid, so it 
     cannot be extrapolated to all of SSA.
       To determine what contributed to the increase in time spent 
     on union activities, we developed information on the 
     categories of time used.
       SSA is currently developing a new system to better track 
     and account for time spent on union activities in its field 
     offices and teleservice centers. SSA says the purpose of this 
     system is to provide management and the union with a more 
     accurate and up-to-date accounting of time spent and the 
     number of employees working on union activities and to ensure 
     that time expended on certain activities does not exceed time 
     allotted to the unions by the contracts. SSA, however, has no 
     current plans to apply this new system to headquarters, the 
     Program Service Centers, the Office of Hearings and Appeals, 
     or other components using the manual system and did not 
     explain why the agency made this decision.
       SSA has no system for routinely calculating and reporting 
     the cost of union activity, although it does provide annual 
     estimates of the expenses for union activities to the 
     Congress.
       In order to determine the accuracy of these estimates, we 
     tried to construct our own estimate of union-related costs. 
     Because the salaries of union representatives make up most of 
     the cost, we asked SSA for a list of current representatives 
     and the time they spend on union activities. SSA estimated 
     that there were about 1,600 union representatives, but the 
     lists they maintained were outdated and incomplete. We 
     identified about 1,800 union representatives who are 
     currently authorized by the union to spend time on SSA union 
     activities. SSA has also reported to the Congress that the 
     number of full-time representatives--those spending 75 
     percent or more of their time on union activities--grew from 
     80 to 145 between fiscal years 1993 and 1995. We identified 
     145 current full-time representatives. The average annual 
     salary in 1995 for the 146 full-time representatives was 
     $41,970. In 1996, their salaries ranged from $23,092 to 
     $81,217.
       We estimate that the total cost to SSA for union activities 
     of all representatives was about $12.6 million in 1995. We 
     calculated the 1995 personnel cost to be $11.4 million by 
     multiplying the average hourly salary of union 
     representatives (about $27.64, including benefits) by the 
     413,000 hours we estimated the representatives spent on union 
     activities.
       The remaining $1.2 million in total SSA costs for union 
     activities includes related travel expenses; SSA's share of 
     arbitration costs; and support costs, such as supplies, 
     office space, and telephone use. More specifically, in 
     accordance with the union contracts, SSA pays for travel 
     related to contract negotiations and grievance cases. In 
     addition, it pays the travel and per-diem costs of all union 
     representatives, whenever meetings are held at management's 
     initiative. Union representation at major SSA initiatives, 
     such as the reengineering of its disability programs, the 
     National Partnership Council, and Partnership training, has 
     added to travel and per-diem costs. In 1995, SSA estimated 
     that it spent about $600,000 on travel-related expenses for 
     union representatives. Union representatives told us that the 
     union pays travel costs for union-sponsored training, 
     internal union activities, and some local travel.
       Under the national contract agreements, arbitration fees 
     and related expenses are shared equally between the union and 
     SSA. SSA reported that its share of arbitration costs was 
     $54,000 for the 38 cases heard in 1995.
       SSA also incurs other costs for telephones, computers, fax 
     machines, furniture, space and supplies used by union 
     representatives. In 1995, SSA estimated this cost at 
     $500,000.
       Regarding the amount of dues collected from union members, 
     we determined that about $4.8 million was collected in 1995, 
     mainly through payroll deduction. The unions use these funds 
     for their internal expenses, which include the cost of 
     lodging and transportation for union-provided training; the 
     union's share of grievance costs; miscellaneous furniture, 
     supplies, and equipment for some union offices; the salaries 
     of the AFGE local president and his staff, who represent SSA 
     headquarters employees; and a share of national union 
     expenses.
       The recent advent of Partnership activities in SSA will 
     likely increase the time spent on union activities. The 
     executive order on Partnership directs agencies to involve 
     unions as the representatives of employees to work as full 
     partners with management to design and implement changes 
     necessary to reform government. Partnership activities at SSA 
     are just starting, and we found that these limited activities 
     are not routinely designated by SSA in its union time-
     reporting system. It is possible that time spent on 
     Partnership activities is currently being reported in other 
     activity categories. Consequently, as Partnership activities 
     increase, we would expect the time devoted to them to also 
     increase. However, this will be evident only if agency time-
     reporting systems adequately designate this time. It should 
     be noted that many public and private organizations without 
     unions are involving employees in quality management 
     initiatives similar to Partnership activities.


              ssa management and union views on union time

       SSA managers and union officials and representatives have 
     offered their views about the use of official time for union 
     activities. SSA managers, both individually and through their 
     managers' associations, have expressed concern to us and to 
     the Congress about limitations in their ability to 
     effectively manage their operations and control the use of 
     time spent by their employees under the current union/
     management arrangement. By contract, the assignment of union 
     representatives and the amount of time they spend on union 
     activities are determined by the union without the consent of 
     local management.
       Of the 31 field managers we interviewed, 21 said that it is 
     more difficult to manage day-to-day office functions because 
     they have little or no control over when and how union 
     activities are conducted. They said that they have trouble 
     maintaining adequate staffing levels in the office to serve 
     walk-in traffic, answer the telephones, and handle routine 
     office workloads. Additionally, 18 expressed concern about 
     the amount of time they spend responding to union requests 
     for information regarding bargaining and grievances. We did 
     not verify the accuracy of any of the field managers' 
     statements. We tried to quantify the time spent by managers 
     on union related activities, but SSA had no time reporting 
     system to track it. However, managers would be spending some 
     of their time interacting with employees about similar issues 
     even if there were no unions.
       Nine out of the 15 union officials and representatives we 
     talked to felt that it was counterproductive in the 
     Partnership era to track time spent on union activities. They 
     believe that union representation is an important function 
     that is authorized by a negotiated agreement with SSA that 
     authorizes them to represent the interests of their 
     coworkers. They consider the amount of time currently 
     allocated for their activities as appropriate and believe 
     that more attention should be paid to the value of their 
     efforts than to the time it takes to conduct them.


comparison of time spent and cost of union activity at irs, the postal 
                            service and ssa

       The Postal Service and IRS provided data to us on time 
     spent on union activities in their agencies. Postal Service 
     records show that during fiscal year 1995, union 
     representatives at the Postal Service reported spending 1.7 
     million hours of official time on grievance processing and 
     handling in the early stages. This number does not include 
     substantial amounts of official time spent on employee 
     involvement programs similar to SSA's Partnership activities, 
     which are paid for by the Postal Service. Neither does this 
     number include official time spent on activities such as 
     employee involvement training and ULP charges.
       IRS records showed that their union representatives 
     reported spending 442,000 hours on union activities in fiscal 
     year 1994, the most recent year for which data are available. 
     We did not attempt to verify these estimates. In fiscal year 
     1995, the Postal Service reported spending $29 million in 
     basic pay on grievance processing and handling for the 1.7 
     million hours. IRS did not develop cost data for union 
     operations.


               who pays union costs in private industry?

       Union operations in private industry vary widely. In 
     addition to bargaining over working conditions as SSA unions 
     do, unions in private industry bargain over wages, hours, and 
     benefits. In discussions with National Labor Relations Board 
     officials, we were told that some private-sector firms do not 
     pay their employees' salaries for the time they spend 
     performing union activities, and other firms pay for some or 
     all of the time. For example, during our review of 10 
     contracts, we found that 7 provided for company employees, 
     acting as union representatives, to perform certain union 
     functions in addition to their company duties, at the expense 
     of the employer. In a 1992 publication that summarized basic 
     patterns in private industry union contracts, the Bureau of 
     National Affairs (BNA) reported that over 50 percent of the 
     400 labor contracts it analyzed guaranteed pay to employees 
     engaged in union activity on company time. It also reported 
     that 22 percent of the contracts specifically prohibit 
     conducting union activities on company time.
       Private-sector employers negotiate company time with pay 
     for union representatives to handle grievances more 
     frequently than they do for contract negotiations. Of the 
     contracts reviewed by BNA, 53 percent guaranteed pay for 
     union representatives to present, investigate, or handle 
     grievances. This practice was reported occurring twice as 
     often in manufacturing as in nonmanufacturing businesses. BNA 
     reported that only 10 percent of the contracts guaranteed pay 
     for employees to negotiate contracts.
       Forty-one percent of the private-sector contracts 
     guaranteeing employees pay when they conduct union activities 
     on company time place restrictions on representatives. BNA 
     reported that in 19 percent of the cases with such pay 
     guarantees, management limited the amount of hours that it 
     would pay

[[Page S11173]]

     for. Our review of 10 private-sector contracts submitted to 
     the Bureau of Labor Statistics found one negotiated contract 
     under which employees were limited to 6 hours a day of 
     company time for union representation and another under which 
     they were limited to 8 hours per week of company time for 
     processing grievances.


                              Conclusions

       SSA, like other federal agencies and some private firms, 
     pays for approved time spent by their employees on union 
     activities. SSA has a special fiduciary responsibility to 
     effectively manage and maintain the integrity of the Social 
     Security trust funds from which most of these expenses are 
     paid. In a time of shrinking budgets and personnel resources, 
     it is especially important for SSA, as well as other 
     agencies, to evaluate how resources are being spent and to 
     have reliable monitoring systems that facilitate this 
     evaluation.
       To ensure accurate tracking of time spent on union 
     activities and the staff conducting these activities, SSA has 
     developed and is testing a new time-reporting system for its 
     field offices and teleservice centers. We agree that these 
     are valuable goals for a time-reporting system and believe 
     that it should be implemented agencywide, including at 
     headquarters, Program Service Centers, the Office of Hearings 
     and Appeals, and other components currently using the less 
     reliable manual reporting system. With an improved agencywide 
     system, SSA management should have better information on 
     where its resources are being spent.
       Mr. Chairman, this concludes my formal remarks. I would be 
     happy to answer any question from you or other members of the 
     Subcommittee. Thank you.


                               footnotes

     \1\ The U.S. Postal Service generally does not pay the 
     salaries and expenses of full-time union representatives. 
     Instead, salaries and expenses are covered by union dues. The 
     Postal Services does, however, pay for the time spent on 
     union activities by some parttime union representatives and 
     for union-occupied space in postal facilities.
     \2\ Postal labor/management relations are governed by the 
     Postal Reorganization Act of 1970, which incorporates many 
     provisions of the National Labor Relations Act.
     \3\ Postal unions, however, can bargain over wages and other 
     economic benefits.
     \4\ The Postal Service is not governed by this act. The basis 
     for paying certain union representatives for specified union 
     activities at the Postal Service is contained in union 
     contracts. Contract negotiations are carried out at union 
     expense.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. FRIST:
  S. 2105. A bill to amend chapter 29 of title 35, United States Code, 
to provide for a limitation on patent infringements relating to a 
medical practitioner's performance of a medical activity; to the 
Committee on the Judiciary.


              patent infringements limitation legislation

 Mr. FRIST. 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. 2105

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

     SECTION 1. LIMITATION ON PATENT INFRINGEMENTS RELATING TO A 
                   MEDICAL PRACTITIONER'S PERFORMANCE OF A MEDICAL 
                   ACTIVITY.

       Section 287 of title 35, United States Code, is amended by 
     adding at the end the following new subsection:
       ``(c)(1) With respect to a medical practitioner's 
     performance of a medical activity that constitutes an 
     infringement under section 271 (a) or (b) of this title, the 
     provisions of sections 281, 283, 284, and 285 of this title 
     shall not apply against the medical practitioner or against a 
     related health care entity with respect to such medical 
     activity.
       ``(2) This subsection does not apply to the activities of 
     any person, or employee or agent of such person (regardless 
     of whether such person is a tax exempt organization under 
     section 501(c) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986), who is 
     engaged in the commercial development, manufacture, sale, 
     importation, or distribution of a machine, manufacture, or 
     composition of matter or the provision of pharmacy or 
     clinical laboratory services (other than laboratory services 
     provided in a physician's office), if such activities are--
       ``(A) directly related to the commercial development, 
     manufacture, sale, importation, or distribution of a machine, 
     manufacture, or composition of matter or the provision of 
     pharmacy or clinical laboratory services (other than clinical 
     laboratory services provided in a physician's office); and
       ``(B) regulated under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic 
     Act, the Public Health Service Act, or the Clinical 
     Laboratories Improvement Act.
       ``(3) For purposes of this subsection:
       ``(A) the term `body' means--
       ``(i) a human body, organ, or cadaver; or
       ``(ii) a nonhuman animal used in medical research or 
     instruction directly relating to the treatment of humans.
       ``(B) The term `medical activity' means the performance of 
     a medical or surgical procedure on a body, but shall not 
     include--
       ``(i) the use of a patented machine, manufacture, or 
     composition of matter in violation of such patent;
       ``(ii) the practice of a patented use of a composition of 
     matter in violation of such patent; or
       ``(iii) the practice of a process in violation of a 
     biotechnology patent.
       ``(C) The term `medical practitioner' means any natural 
     person who is--
       ``(i) licensed by a State to provide the medical activity 
     described under paragraph (1); or
       ``(ii) acting under the direction of such natural person in 
     the performance of the medical activity.
       ``(D) The term `patented use of a composition of matter' 
     does not include a claim for a method of performing a medical 
     or surgical procedure on a body that recites the use of a 
     composition of matter if the use of that composition of 
     matter does not directly contribute to achievement of the 
     objective of the claimed method.
       ``(E) The term `professional affiliation' means staff 
     privileges, medical staff membership, employment or 
     contractual relationship, partnership or ownership interest, 
     academic appointment, or their affiliation under which a 
     medical practitioner provides a medical activity on behalf 
     of, or in association with, a health care entity.
       ``(F) The term `related health care entity'--
       ``(i) means an entity with which a medical practitioner has 
     a professional affiliation under which the medical 
     practitioner performs a medical activity; and
       ``(ii) includes without limitation such an affiliation with 
     a nursing home, hospital, university, medical school, health 
     maintenance organization, group medical practice, or a 
     medical clinic.
       ``(G) The term `State' means any State or territory of the 
     United States, the District of Columbia, and the Commonwealth 
     of Puerto Rico.
       ``(4) This subsection shall not apply to any patent issued 
     before the date of enactment of this subsection.''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. McCONNELL:
  S. 2106. A bill to amend the United Nations Participation Act of 1945 
to prohibit the placement of members of the United States Armed Forces 
under the command, direction, or control of the United Nations, and for 
other purposes; to the Committee on Foreign Relations.


   the united nations participation act of 1945 amendment act of 1996

 Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, for several months, I have tried 
to get a straight answer from the administration on the legal 
justification for the deployment of U.S. troops under United Nations' 
command in Macedonia. While the soldiers have a mission, I do not 
believe they have a clear, legal mandate.
  The question of our involvement in Macedonia was first brought to my 
attention by Ron Ray, a constituent of mine who was representing 
Michael New. Apparently, Michael New asked his commanding officer to 
provide some explanation as to why an American Army specialist was 
being asked to wear a U.N. uniform and deploy to Macedonia under the 
U.N. flag.
  In a recent hearing with Ambassador Madeleine Albright, usually one 
of the more plain spoken members of the President's foreign policy 
team, we reviewed the procedures for deploying American troops under 
the United Nation's flag. She offered the view that while there were 
clear guidelines defining chapter VII deployments, using chapter VI to 
justify a mission had evolved as a matter of U.N. custom and tradition.
  Since 1948, 27 peace operations have been authorized by the United 
Nations Security Council. In addition to being authorized by a specific 
chapter of the United Nations Charter, U.S. troop deployments must be 
authorized consistent with U.S. legal requirements spelled out in the 
United Nations Participation Act.
  In July 1993, President Clinton wrote the Congress stating, ``U.N. 
Security Council Resolution 795 established the UNPROFOR Macedonia 
mission under a chapter VI of the U.N. Charter and UNPROFOR Macedonia 
is a peacekeeping force under chapter VI of the Charter.'' But this 
assertion is not substantiated by the record of resolutions and reports 
passed by the United Nations.
  Between 1991 and the end of 1995, the United Nations passed 97 
Security Council resolutions related to the former Yugoslavia. In 
addition, 13 reports were issued by the U.N. Secretary General relative 
to the mandate of the UNPROFOR Macedonia operation. None of these 
resolutions or reports mention a chapter VI mandate for Macedonia. In 
fact, there are 27 resolutions which specifically refer to UNPROFOR, 
which includes Macedonia, as chapter VII. It is worth pointing to just 
one of

[[Page S11174]]

these resolutions which states that the United Nations Security Council 
was ``Determined to ensure the security of UNPROFOR and its freedom of 
movement for all its missions (i.e., Macedonia) and to these ends was 
acting under chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations.''
  In spite of the record, the administration continues to insist that 
Macedonia is a chapter VI operation. When I asked them to document this 
determination, I was provided the following guidance by the Acting 
Assistant Secretary of State:

       The U.N. Charter authority underlying the mandate of a U.N. 
     peace operation depends on an interpretation of the relevant 
     resolutions of the U.N. Security Council. As a matter of 
     tradition, the Security Council explicitly refers to a 
     ``Chapter VII'' when it authorizes an enforcement operation 
     under that Chapter. The absence of a reference to Chapter VII 
     in a resolution authorizing or establishing a peacekeeping 
     operation thus indicates that the operation is not considered 
     by the Security Council to be an enforcement operation. 
     Neither does the Security Council refer explicitly to 
     ``Chapter VI'' in its resolutions pertaining to peacekeeping 
     operations. This practice evolved over time as a means for 
     the Security Council to develop practical responses to 
     problems without unnecessarily invoking the full panoply of 
     provisions regarding the use of force under Chapter VII, and 
     without triggering other Charter provisions that might impede 
     Member States on the Security Council if Chapter VI were 
     referenced.

  In essence what this explanation means is U.S. troops can be deployed 
in harm's way as a matter of U.N. tradition rather than U.S. law. It 
means U.S. soldiers are deployed in a combat zone with an absence of 
reference to the actual legal mandate because the U.N. Security Council 
does not want to refer explicitly to chapter VI due to a reluctance to 
inconvenience member states on the Security Council.
  Mr. President, let me try to add a little clarity to just what the 
Acting Assistant Secretary means when stating the administration does 
not want to invoke a ``panoply of provisions regarding the use of 
force.'' In simple English, when a chapter VII mission is authorized by 
the U.N., U.S. law requires the operation to be approved by the 
Congress. In simple terms, the State Department is using a chapter VI 
designation to avoid having to come to the Congress to justify the 
financial and military burden the United States has assumed in 
Macedonia.
  When the State Department calls a panoply of provisions problem, I 
call surrendering U.S. interests to U.N. command. This is not the first 
time Congress has been circumvented. I had hoped the administration had 
learned from our experience in Somalia. I had hoped the tragic loss of 
life would help the President understand the value and importance of a 
full congressional debate and approval of the merits of deploying 
American soldiers overseas into hostile conditions. Apparently, the 
lesson is lost on this administration. When the U.N. calls, we send our 
young men and women to serve.
  Mr. President, I have taken the time to review the circumstances of 
our military involvement in Macedonia, in order to explain why I am 
introducing legislation today which assures U.S. troops will not serve 
under U.N. commanders and will not be forced to wear a U.N. uniform. 
Our soldiers sign up to serve and pledge allegiance to their Nation--
not the United Nations. This bill will protect them as they fulfill 
both their oath and responsibilities.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. THOMAS (for himself, Mr. Robb and Mr. McCain):
  S. 2107. A bill to authorize the extension of nondiscriminatory 
treatment--most-favored-nation treatment--to the products of Mongolia; 
to the Committee on Finance.


            mongolia most-favored-nation status legislation

  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I rise as chairman of the Subcommittee on 
East Asian and Pacific Affairs to introduce S. 2107, a bill to 
authorize the extension of nondiscriminatory treatment--formerly known 
as most-favored-nation status--to the products of Mongolia. I am 
pleased to be joined by the subcommittee's ranking minority member, 
Senator Robb, and Senator McCain as original cosponsors.
  Mongolia has undergone a series of remarkable and dramatic changes 
over the last few years. Sandwiched between the former Soviet Union and 
China, it was one of the first countries in the world to become 
Communist after the Russian revolution. After 70 years of Communist 
rule, though, the Mongolian people recently have made great progress in 
establishing a democratic political system and creating a free-market 
economy. Just this year, the country held its third election under its 
new constitution, resulting in a parliamentary majority for the 
coalition of democratic opposition parties. Rather than attempt to 
maintain its hold on power, the former government peaceably--and 
commendably--transferred power to the new government.
  Mongolia has demonstrated a strong desire to build a friendly and 
cooperative relationship with the United States on trade and related 
matters since its turn toward democracy. We concluded a bilateral trade 
treaty with that country in 1991, and a bilateral investment treaty in 
1994. Mongolia has received nondiscriminatory trading status since 
1991, and has been found to be in full compliance with the freedom of 
emigration requirements under title IV of the Trade Act of 1974. In 
addition, it has acceded to the Agreement Establishing the World Trade 
Organization.
  Mr. President, Mongolia has clearly demonstrated that it is fully 
deserving of joining the ranks of those countries to which we extend 
nondiscriminatory trade status. The extension of that status would not 
only serve to commend the Mongolians on their fine progress, but would 
also enable the United States to avail itself of all its rights under 
the WTO with respect to Mongolia.

  I have another, more personal, reason for being interested in MFN 
status for Mongolia. Mongolia and my home State of Wyoming are sister 
states; a strong relationship between the two has developed over the 
past 3 years. Several Mongolian Provincial Governors have visited the 
State, and the two governments have established partnerships in 
education and agriculture. Like Wyoming, Mongolia is a high plateau 
with high mountains on the northwest border, where many of the 
inhabitants make their living by raising livestock. I am pleased to see 
the development of this mutually beneficial relationship, and am sure 
that the extension of nondiscriminatory trade status will serve to 
strengthen it further.
  Mr. President, Congressman Bereuter has introduced similar 
legislation in the House. While we both realize that it is probably too 
late in the legislative year to move this bill forward before we 
adjourn sine die, we hope that introducing the bill now will serve as a 
starting point to move forward with this important measure early in the 
next Congress.
  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. 2107

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

     SECTION 1. CONGRESSIONAL FINDINGS.

       The Congress finds that Mongolia--
       (1) has received most-favored-nation treatment since 1991 
     and has been found to be in full compliance with the freedom 
     of emigration requirements under title IV of the Trade Act of 
     1974;
       (2) has since ending its nearly 70 years of dependence on 
     the former Soviet Union, made remarkable progress in 
     establishing a democratic political system and creating a 
     free-market economic system;
       (3) has recently held its third election under its new 
     constitution, resulting in a parliamentary majority for the 
     coalition of democratic opposition parties and a peaceable 
     transfer of power to the new government;
       (4) has concluded a bilateral trade treaty with the United 
     States in 1991, and a bilateral investment treaty in 1994;
       (5) has acceded to the Agreement Establishing the World 
     Trade Organization;
       (6) has demonstrated a strong desire to build a friendly 
     and cooperative relationship with the United States on trade 
     matters; and
       (7) the extension of unconditional most-favored-nation 
     treatment to the products of Mongolia would enable the United 
     States to avail itself of all rights under the World Trade 
     Organization with respect to Mongolia.

     SEC. 2. TERMINATION OF APPLICATION OF TITLE IV OF THE TRADE 
                   ACT OF 1974 TO MONGOLIA.

       (a) Presidential Determinations and Extensions of 
     Nondiscriminatory Treatment.--Notwithstanding any provision 
     of title IV of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2431 et 
     seq.), the President may--
       (1) determine that such title should no longer apply to 
     Mongolia; and

[[Page S11175]]

       (2) after making a determination under paragraph (1) with 
     respect to Mongolia, proclaim the extension of 
     nondiscriminatory treatment (most-favored-nation treatment) 
     to the products of that country.
       (b) Termination of Application of Title IV.--On or after 
     the effective date of the extension under subsection (a)(2) 
     of nondiscriminatory treatment to the products on Mongolia, 
     title IV of the Trade Act of 1974 shall cease to apply to 
     that country.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. DORGAN (for himself, Mr. Ashcroft, Mr. Biden, Mr. Breaux, 
        Mr. Coats, Mr. DeWine, Mr. Faircloth, Mr. Ford, Mr. Grassley, 
        Mr. Hatfield, Mr. Inhofe, Mr. Lott, Mr. Mack, Mr. McConnell, 
        Mr. Murkowski, Mr. Pressler, and Mr. Thurmond):
  S. 2108. A bill to clarify Federal law with respect to assisted 
suicide, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Labor and Human 
Resources.


              THE ASSISTED SUICIDE FUNDING RESTRICTION ACT

  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I rise today, along with my colleague, 
Senator Ashcroft, to introduce a piece of legislation. We understand 
that it is late in the session, but we have just completed work on the 
legislation, and we hope that introducing it now and reintroducing it 
in the next Congress will allow us to make some progress toward 
enacting this bill.
  There are 15 original cosponsors besides myself and Senator Ashcroft: 
Senators Biden, Breaux, Coats, DeWine, Faircloth, Ford, Grassley, 
Hatfield, Inhofe, Lott, Mack, McConnell, Murkowski, Pressler, and 
Thurmond.
  This is obviously a bipartisan group of Senators who are today 
introducing this legislation. I will describe it briefly, and then I 
will ask my colleague, Senator Ashcroft from Missouri, with whom I am 
pleased to introduce this today, to add to that description.
  Our legislation is called the Assisted Suicide Funding Restriction 
Act. That is a rather long name, but simply stated, what this bill 
ensures is that Federal tax dollars will not be used to pay for 
assisting in suicide.
  We are in a circumstance in this country where only one State--the 
State of Oregon--has legalized physician-assisted suicides. The State 
has every right to do that. And Oregon is now engaged in the courts in 
a challenge of its law. When and if the court challenge is dismissed 
and it becomes law in Oregon--as is expected based on an earlier Ninth 
Circuit Court of Appeals decision--the folks who run the Medicaid 
Program in Oregon indicate that the State fully intends to use its 
Medicaid dollars to pay for physician-assisted suicides.
  Some of us here in Congress believe that we ought not to in any way 
countenance the use of Federal dollars in the furtherance of physician-
assisted suicides. We are not telling the States what their policies 
ought to be with respect to whether physician-assisted suicides should 
be allowed. Most States have already made that judgment and decided 
that assisted suicide is not appropriate. But to a State that has said 
it intends to use Federal dollars to further their State policy 
allowing assisted suicide, we say no. That is not what we would expect 
Federal dollars, especially Federal health care dollars, to be used 
for. We would expect Federal health care dollars to be used to advance 
the health of patients and the delivery of medicine to those in this 
country who need it--not to advance Federal payment for those who would 
elect physician-assisted suicide.
  Some might say, ``Well, why do you have to legislate on this?'' I say 
to them, if we do not, when the courts resolve the legal questions with 
respect to the Oregon law, we likely will immediately be using Federal 
dollars to pay for physician-assisted suicide in that State, regardless 
of whether Congress and the public want them to or not. The officials 
in that State have indicated that will be the case. So with this 
legislation we say we think it is inappropriate from a public policy 
standpoint and we would not want scarce Federal dollars used for that 
purpose.
  I would like to describe what this legislation is not because it is 
as important as describing what it is.
  This legislation does not limit the withholding of, or the withdrawal 
of, medical treatment, or of nutrition, or hydration from terminally-
ill patients who have decided they do not want their lives sustained by 
medical technology. Most people and States recognize that there are 
ethical, moral, and legal distinctions between actively taking steps to 
end a patient's life and withholding or withdrawing treatment in order 
to allow a patient to die naturally. Again, this legislation 
specifically states that we are not interfering with the ability of 
patients and their families to end or withdrawal treatment.
  This legislation also does not prohibit Federal funding for any care 
or service that is intended to alleviate a patient's pain or 
discomfort, even if the use of this pain control ultimately hastens the 
patient's death. I think we would all agree that we should make the 
utmost effort to ensure that terminally ill patients do not spend their 
final days in pain and suffering, and this legislation does not hinder 
that.

  Finally, this legislation does not prohibit a State from using its 
own dollars to assist in suicide. If a State decides that it wants to 
allow and pay for physician-assisted suicide as a matter of policy, it 
can use its own money to further that aim. This bill simply says we do 
not want Federal dollars used for that purpose.
  Mr. President, I understand that the issue of assisted suicide is an 
enormously emotional one. All of us in this country have read the news 
accounts of a doctor who is actively involved in assisting in his 
patients' suicides and of those who have taken him to court saying he 
has violated their State law. People have very strongly held opinions 
about this subject because issues of life and death reach to the inner 
core of people's moral beliefs. But regardless of one's personal views 
about assisted suicide, there is little disagreement on the broader 
question of whether we ought to use Federal health care dollars to pay 
for physician-assisted suicide.
  In fact, a national survey earlier this year found that 83 percent of 
the American people believe that tax dollars should not be used for 
assisted suicide. I believe this legislation should and will have wide 
support. The National Conference of Catholic Bishops and the National 
Right to Life Committee have both endorsed the bill. The American 
Medical Association and the American Nurses Association have position 
statements opposing assisted suicide. President Clinton has also 
indicated his opposition to assisted suicide, and Senator Ashcroft and 
I hope that our colleagues will join us as cosponsors of this 
legislation. We hope to advance this legislation in the intervening 
days, and also, if necessary, to reintroduce it early in the next 
session to see if we can get the Congress to enact this legislation 
soon.
  Let me again sum up what this bill would and would not do, along with 
why it is necessary. Mr. President, this legislation will prohibit 
Federal funds from being used for the costs associated with assisted 
suicide.
  Let me say again that I am pleased to work with my colleague, Senator 
Ashcroft of Missouri, who I know feels strongly about this issue as 
well.
  Mr. President, this legislation will prohibit Federal funds from 
being used for the costs associated with assisted suicide.
  I understand that the decisions that confront individuals and their 
families when a terminal illness strikes are among the most difficult a 
family will ever have to make. At times like this, each of us must rely 
on our own religious beliefs and conscience to guide us. But regardless 
of one's personal views about assisted suicide, I do not believe that 
taxpayers should be forced to pay for this controversial practice. The 
majority of taxpayers I have talked to do not want their tax money used 
to assist in suicides. In fact, when asked in a poll in May of this 
year whether tax dollars should be spent for assisting suicide, 83 
percent of taxpayers feel tax money should not be spent for this 
purpose.
  The Assisted Suicide Funding Restriction Act prevents any Federal 
funding from being used for any item or service which is intended to 
cause, or assist in causing, the suicide, euthanasia, or mercy killing 
of any individual. The programs covered under this bill include 
Medicare, Medicaid, the military health care system, Federal Employees 
Health Benefits [FEHB] plans, Public Health Service programs, programs 
for the disabled, and the Indian Health Service.

[[Page S11176]]

  This bill does make some important exceptions. First, let me make 
clear that this bill does not limit the withholding or withdrawal of 
medical treatment or of nutrition or hydration from terminally ill 
patients who have decided that they do not want their lives sustained 
by medical technology. Most people and States recognize that there are 
ethical, moral, and legal distinctions between actively taking steps to 
end a patient's life and withholding or withdrawing treatment in order 
to allow a patient to die naturally. Every State now has a law in place 
governing a patient's right to lay out in advance, through an advanced 
directive, living will, or some other means, his or her wishes related 
to medical care at the end of life. Again, this bill would not 
interfere with the ability of patients and their families to make clear 
and carry out their wishes regarding the withholding or withdrawal of 
medical care that is prolonging the patient's life.
  This bill also makes clear that it does not prevent Federal funding 
for any care or service that is intended to alleviate a patient's pain 
or discomfort, even if the use of this pain control ultimately hastens 
the patient's death. Large doses of medication are often needed to 
effectively reduce a terminally ill patient's pain, and this medication 
may increase the patient's risk of death. I think we all would agree 
that the utmost effort should be made to ensure that terminally ill 
patients do not spend their final days in pain and suffering.
  Finally, while I think Federal dollars ought not be used to assist a 
suicide, this bill does not prohibit a State from using its own dollars 
for this purpose. However, I do not think taxpayers from other States, 
who have determined that physician-assisted suicide should be illegal, 
should be forced to pay for this practice through the use of Federal 
tax dollars.
  I realize that the legality of assisted suicide has historically been 
a State issue. Thirty-five States, including my State of North Dakota, 
have laws prohibiting assisted suicide and at least eight other States 
consider this practice to be illegal under common law. Only one State, 
Oregon, has a law legalizing assisted suicide.
  However, two circumstances have changed that now make this an issue 
of Federal concern. First, Federal courts are already handing down 
decisions that will have enormous consequences on our public policy 
regarding assisted suicide. Second, we are on the brink of a situation 
where Federal Medicaid dollars may soon be used to reimburse physicians 
who help their patients die. Should this occur, Congress will not have 
considered this issue. I believe it was never Congress' intention for 
Medicaid or other Federal dollars to be used to assist in suicide, and 
I hope we will take action soon to stop this practice before it starts. 
If Congress does not act, a few States, or a few judges, may very well 
make this decision for us.
  In two separate cases this year, Compassion in Dying versus State of 
Washington and Quill versus Vacco, the Federal Ninth and Second Circuit 
Courts of Appeal, respectively, have struck down Washington and New 
York State statutes outlawing assisted suicide. In the Compassion in 
Dying case, the ninth circuit held that the ``right to die'' is 
constitutionally recognized and that Washington State's law prohibiting 
physicians from prescribing life-ending medication therefore violates 
the ``due process'' clause of the 14th amendment for terminally ill 
adults who wish to end their life. In Quill versus Vacco, the second 
circuit also found that a State law prohibiting physician-assisted 
suicide violates the Constitution, but it did not agree with the ninth 
circuit's reasoning that such a law violates the due process clause. 
Rather, the second circuit held that the New York State law was 
unconstitutional because it violates the ``equal protection'' clause of 
the Constitution. The Supreme Court could decide to take up one or both 
of these cases as early as next year.
  Ironically, in a third case, Lee versus Oregon, a Federal district 
court judge also used the ``equal protection'' clause as the basis for 
his decision--but he ruled that Oregon's 1994 law allowing assisted 
suicide for the terminally ill violates the Constitution, and the judge 
enjoined the implementation of Oregon's law. However, this decision has 
been appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which has already 
affirmed a constitutional ``right to die.'' The ninth circuit's 
decision, which is expected to overturn the district court and lift the 
injunction against Oregon's law, could be handed down any day. The 
State's Medicaid director has already stated that, when the injunction 
against Oregon's law is lifted, Oregon will use Medicaid dollars to pay 
for the costs associated with a physician assisting in suicide.
  I hope you agree with me and the vast majority of Americans who 
oppose using scarce Federal dollars to pay for assisted suicide. I 
invite you to join me, Senator Ashcroft and 15 of our colleagues in 
this effort by cosponsoring the Assisted Suicide Funding Restriction 
Act.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. ASHCROFT addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri is recognized.
  Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, let me begin by commending my colleague 
form North Dakota for his excellent remarks, and his clear explanation 
of this important concept that I believe the American people would have 
us do. And, after all, we come to this body as servants of the people. 
The people are overwhelmingly aware of this issue, and the vast 
majority of American citizens do not believe that tax dollars should be 
used in the conduct of medicine in such a way as to take lives rather 
than to save them.
  I thank my colleague from North Dakota and those who have joined us 
in cosponsoring this particular measure.
  Mr. President, President Jefferson wrote in words that are now 
inscribed on the Jefferson Memorial that the ``care and protection of 
human life, and not its destruction'' are the only legitimate 
objectives of good government. Thomas Jefferson believed that our 
rights were God-given and that life was an inalienable right.
  In this spirit and understanding, I join today with Senator Dorgan in 
sponsoring the Assisted Suicide Funding Restriction Act. It is a modest 
and timely response to a challenge to our legal system and a challenge 
to the moral character of this country. What this bill says simply is 
that Federal tax dollars shall not be used to pay for and promote 
assisted suicide, or euthanasia.
  This bill is urgently needed to preserve the intent of the Founding 
Fathers and the integrity of Federal programs as they now exist and 
serve the elderly and seriously ill in America--programs which were 
intended to support life and to enhance human life, not to promote its 
destruction.
  Government's role in this culture should be to call us to our highest 
and best. I do not believe Government has a role in hastening Americans 
to their graves.
  Our court system is in the process now of litigating serious issues 
in this respect, and, as a result, we find ourselves with the need for 
this kind of clarifying legislation dramatized. This bill is intended 
to prevent the morally contemptible injustice of taking money from an 
American citizen and then using that money to kill another American 
citizen through assisted suicide.
  This is a bill which is very narrowly focused. It is clearly 
targeted. It only affects Federal funding for actions whose direct 
purpose is to cause or assist in causing suicide--actions that are 
clearly condemned as unethical by the American Medical Association and 
also illegal in the vast majority of our States. Again, this bill 
simply prohibits any Federal funding for medical actions that assist 
suicide.
  This bill is needed because, in March, the Ninth Circuit Court of 
Appeals contradicted the positions of 49 States, when it found a 
``Federal constitutional right'' to physician-assisted suicide in a 
case involving Washington State law. Similarly, the State of Oregon 
passed Measure 16, the first law in America to authorize the dispensing 
of drugs to terminally ill patients to assist in their suicide.
  Although a Federal court in Oregon struck down the law that Oregon 
had enacted, the case is being appealed to that same ninth circuit, 
which has already signaled that it believes in a right, a 
constitutional right, to assisted suicide.
  Oregon's Medicaid director and the chairman of Oregon's Health 
Services

[[Page S11177]]

Commission have both said that whenever the ninth circuit allows the 
Oregon law to go into effect, that the federally funded Medicaid 
Program in Oregon will begin paying for assisted suicide with Federal 
taxpayers' funds. According to Oregon's authorities, the procedure 
would be listed on Medicaid reimbursement forms under the grotesque 
euphemism of ``comfort care.''
  That is a rather startling, almost Orwellian label to put on assisted 
suicide. I would think if I were going over an insurance policy and 
someone said, ``Do you want to be covered for comfort care,'' I would 
say, ``Oh, yes, throw in the comfort care.'' But comfort care turns out 
to be a phrase that is destined to be used for assisted suicide, and I 
do not believe it is intended by this Congress or previous Congresses, 
or in the law of the United States, that tax dollars from Federal 
resources be used to support that kind of ``comfort care.''
  The problem is greatly magnified when we consider that Oregon will be 
drawing down Federal taxpayers' funds to help pay for such assisted 
suicides. Neither Medicaid nor Medicare nor any other Federal health 
program has explicit language to prohibit the use of Federal funds to 
dispense lethal drugs for suicide, primarily because nobody in the 
history of these programs felt that we would be appropriating money or 
creating a program to provide for suicide. We felt we were providing 
for individuals, developing therapeutic approaches to health problems, 
not providing for something that the American Medical Association would 
say was unethical and inappropriate, and which would shock the 
conscience of most Americans.
  When Oregon's ninth circuit reinstates measure 16, Federal funds will 
be used for comfort care, a.k.a.--also known as--assisted suicide. As a 
result, I think it is important for us to step up and to define and to 
place into law the kinds of restrictions which I think we felt were 
implied in all of our activities prior to this time. We would be 
derelict in our duty if we were now to ignore this problem and allow a 
few officials, either in a Federal circuit or in a specific State, to 
decide that the taxpayers of all other States and jurisdictions would 
have to help subsidize a practice which they have never authorized and 
that millions find to be morally abhorrent.
  It is crystal clear that the American people do not want their tax 
dollars spent on dispensing toxic drugs with the sole intent to assist 
suicide. Recently, a Wirthlin Poll showed 83 percent of the public 
opposed such use of Federal funds. Even the voters of Oregon, who 
narrowly approved Measure 16 by a vote of 51 to 49 percent, did not 
consider the question of public funding. Voters of two other west coast 
States, California and Washington, soundly defeated similar initiatives 
to legalize assisted suicide. Since November of 1994, when Oregon 
passed its law, 15 other States have considered and rejected bills to 
legalize assisted suicide. Of course, the Federal funding question has 
never been placed before the people in a ballot initiative.

  I would like to say a few words about the way this legislation is 
crafted. It is very carefully limited, and it is very modest. It does 
not in any way forbid a State to legalize assisted suicide. If a State 
like Oregon chooses to do so, the Federal Government does not choose to 
intrude under this bill, or even forbid the State to provide its own 
funds.
  If the State were to provide for assisted suicide and were to fund 
that with State dollars, in spite of the fact that is not my idea of 
good State government, it would be allowed under this bill. This bill 
simply would prevent Federal funds and Federal programs from being 
drawn into and providing support for and promoting assisted suicide. 
After the passage of this bill, States may choose to legalize or even 
fund assisted suicide. They simply could not choose to draw down 
Federal funds to promote or develop that program.
  The bill also does not attempt to resolve the constitutional issue 
that is on its way to the Supreme Court, that issue being whether there 
is a right to assisted suicide or euthanasia. Nor would this 
legislation be affected by what the Supreme Court might do when it 
decides that issue. Congress would still have the right to prevent 
Federal funding of such a practice, even if the Supreme Court found 
that there was a constitutional right to assisted suicide.
  It is also important to understand what this bill does not cover. As 
its rule of construction clearly provides, it does not affect abortion. 
It does not affect complex issues, such as the withholding or 
withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment, even of nutrition and 
hydration. Nor does this bill affect the disbursing of large doses of 
morphine or other pain killers to ease the pain of individuals with 
terminal illnesses, even though the administration of such drugs does, 
in some cases, carry the risk of hastening death as a side effect. The 
administration of pain killers is a long-acknowledged, legally accepted 
practice in all 50 States--and is ethically accepted by the medical 
profession and even pro-life and religious organizations as well.
  What we are dealing with here is the Federal funding of actions whose 
direct purpose is to cause or assist in causing the suicide of a 
patient.
  I am pleased that in spite of the fact the Democrats and Republicans 
may disagree on how to reform Federal programs like Medicaid and 
Medicare, there are things on which we do agree. One thing we should be 
able to agree on is the measure in this bill. Of course, our agreement 
is reflected in the cosponsorship of this measure by individuals on 
both sides of the aisle. These Federal programs should provide a means 
to care for and to protect our citizens, not become vehicles for the 
destruction of our citizens, especially as a result of Federal funding.
  I would like to close by quoting the hallmark of Jeffersonian 
principles embodied in the Declaration of Independence:

       We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are 
     created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with 
     certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, 
     Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.

  I therefore urge all my colleagues to support this bill, an effort to 
uphold congressional responsibility, to defend the foremost of our 
unalienable rights, the right that citizens have to life.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. DASCHLE:

  S. 2109. A bill to provide a 1-year delay in the imposition of 
penalties on small businesses failing to make electronic fund transfers 
of business taxes; to the Committee on Finance.


                       SMALL BUSINESS LEGISLATION

  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation that 
would waive for 1-year penalties on small businesses that fail to pay 
their taxes to the Internal Revenue Service [IRS] electronically.
  In July of this year, millions of small business owners received a 
letter from the IRS announcing that, beginning January 1, 1997, 
business tax payments would have to be made via electronic funds 
transfer. This letter sent shock waves through the small business 
community in South Dakota. The letter was vague and provided little 
information on how the new deposit requirement would work.
  In meetings, letters, and phone calls, South Dakotans have posed many 
questions to me that the IRS letter did not answer: ``How much will 
this cost my business?''; ``Will I have to purchase new equipment to 
make these electronic transfers?''; and ``Will the IRS be taking the 
money directly out of my account?''
  As you may recall, this new requirement was adopted as part of a 
package of revenue offsets for the North American Free-Trade Agreement.
  The Treasury Department was directed to draw up regulations phasing 
in the requirement, which will raise money by eliminating the float 
banks accrue on the delay between the time they receive tax deposits 
from businesses and the time they transfer this money to the Treasury.
  All businesses with $47 million or more in annual payroll taxes are 
already required to pay by electronic funds transfer. The new, lower 
threshold is estimated to bring 1.3 million small- and medium-sized 
businesses into the program for the first time.
  As a result of protests registered by many small businesses, the IRS 
decided to delay for 6 months the 10 percent penalty on firms failing 
to begin making deposits electronically by January 1, 1997. Not 
satisfied with this step, Congress recently passed an outright 6 month 
delay in the electronic filing requirement as part of the Small 
Business Job Protection Act of 1996.

[[Page S11178]]

  I strongly supported this amendment. However, I believe that these 
1.3 million businesses should be given further time to comply without 
the threat of financial penalties. Electronic funds transfer may well 
prove to be the most efficient system of payment for all concerned, 
including small businesses. Once they learn the advantages of the new 
system, these firms may well come to prefer it to the existing one, 
which requires a special kind of coupon and a lot of paperwork. But 
this is a new procedure, and many small employers are not sure what it 
will entail. That is why I believe we should enact a temporary waiver 
of penalties.
  The bill I am introducing today would suspend penalties for 
noncompliance for 1 year, until July 1, 1998. I believe this step is 
necessary to provide time for small businesses to be properly educated 
about the easiest, least burdensome, and most cost-efficient way to 
comply. In my view, whenever possible the IRS should avoid taking an 
adversarial approach toward the small business community, and, for that 
matter, any taxpayers. At every opportunity, the IRS should seek to 
help taxpayers comply with their obligations. I believe that, by 
removing the threat of penalties for a short while longer, this 
legislation will help the IRS fulfill this important part of its 
mission.
  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. 2109

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

     SECTION 1. WAIVER OF PENALTY ON SMALL BUSINESSES FAILING TO 
                   MAKE ELECTRONIC FUND TRANSFERS OF TAXES.

       No penalty shall be imposed under the Internal Revenue Code 
     of 1986 solely by reason of a failure by a person to use the 
     electronic fund transfer system established under section 
     6302(h) of such Code if--
       (1) such person is a member of a class of taxpayers first 
     required to use such system on or after July 1, 1997, and
       (2) such failure occurs during the 1-year period beginning 
     on July 1, 1997.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. DASCHLE:
  S. 2110. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide 
special rules for certain gratuitous transfers of employer securities 
for the benefit of employees; to the Committee on Finance.


               EMPLOYEE STOCK OWNERSHIP PLANS LEGISLATION

  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I today am introducing legislation that 
would take a small but significant step toward improving the 
productivity of American businesses and workers. My bill would permit 
certain employee stock ownership plans [ESOP's] to be beneficiaries of 
charitable remainder trusts under estate tax law.
  We have all heard stories about closely held companies being sold and 
broken up in order to raise cash to pay a large estate tax bill to the 
Internal Revenue Service. Not infrequently, a company that has been 
built over a period of decades is dismantled, cutting adrift employees 
with years of service.
  My bill would provide a way for an owner of a nonpublicly traded 
company to benefit company employees without having the estate tax 
stand in the way. It would permit the owner under certain circumstances 
to donate his or her shares to the company's ESOP through the use of a 
charitable/ESOP remainder trust. If carried out in accordance with the 
restrictions set forth in the bill, the transfer would be eligible for 
an estate tax deduction. By being transferred to an ESOP, the stock 
would be allocated directly to company employees.
  The legislation includes a number of safeguards against abuse. First, 
stock transferred to an ESOP in this fashion could not be used to 
benefit any ESOP participant who was related to the decedent or who 
owned more than 5 percent of the company. This safeguard is aimed at 
ensuring that no estate tax deduction would be available where the 
transfer benefited the decedent's family members or the company's major 
stockholders. Second, the bill would require that the transferred stock 
be allocated to ESOP participants over time. This would provide an 
incentive for employees to continue to build the business. It would 
also prevent the creation of instant windfalls for employees that could 
encourage them to terminate employment.
  Any owner of a non-publicly traded company would be free to take 
advantage of this legislation to preserve a business beyond his or her 
death. I believe that quite a few family and closely held businesses 
will find the legislation of interest, as these firms tend to be run by 
people who take an interest in their employees and would like to see 
their companies make a continuing contribution to their communities. I 
salute these entrepreneurs and propose this modest legislation in an 
effort to help them realize that goal.
  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. 2110

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

     SECTION 1. GRATUITOUS TRANSFERS FOR THE BENEFIT OF EMPLOYEES.

       (a) In General.--Subparagraph (C) of section 664(d)(1) of 
     the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 and subparagraph (C) of 
     section 664(d)(2) of such Code are each amended by striking 
     the period at the end and inserting ``or, to the extent the 
     remainder interest is in qualified employer securities (as 
     defined in paragraph (3)(B)), is to be transferred to an 
     employee stock ownership plan (as defined in section 
     4975(e)(7)) in a qualified gratuitous transfer (as defined by 
     paragraph (3)).''
       (b) Qualified Gratuitous Transfer Defined.--Subsection (d) 
     of section 664 of such Code is amended by redesignating 
     paragraph (3) as paragraph (4) and by inserting after 
     paragraph (2) the following new paragraph:
       ``(3) Qualified gratuitous transfer of qualified employer 
     securities.--
       ``(A) In general.--For purposes of this section, the term 
     `qualified gratuitous transfer' means a transfer of qualified 
     employer securities to an employee stock ownership plan (as 
     defined in section 4975(e)(7)) but only to the extent that--
       ``(i) the securities transferred previously passed from a 
     decedent to a trust described in paragraph (1) or (2);
       ``(ii) no deduction under section 404 is allowable with 
     respect to such transfer;
       ``(iii) such plan provides that the securities so 
     transferred are allocated to plan participants in a manner 
     consistent with section 401(a)(4);
       ``(iv) such plan treats such securities as being 
     attributable to employer contributions but without regard to 
     the limitations otherwise applicable to such contributions 
     under section 404;
       ``(v) such plan provides that such securities are held in a 
     suspense account under the plan to be allocated each year, up 
     to the limitations under section 415(c), after first 
     allocating all other annual additions for the limitation 
     year, up to the limitations under sections 415 (c) and (e); 
     and
       ``(vi) the employer whose employees are covered by the plan 
     described in this subparagraph files with the Secretary a 
     verified written statement consenting to the application of 
     sections 4978 and 4979A with respect to such employer.
       ``(B) Qualified employer securities.--For purposes of this 
     section, the term `qualified employer securities' means 
     employer securities (as defined in section 409(l)) which are 
     issued by a domestic corporation which has no outstanding 
     stock which is readily tradable on an established securities 
     market.
       ``(C) Treatment of securities allocated by employee stock 
     ownership plan to persons related to decedent or 5-percent 
     shareholders.--
       ``(i) In general.--If any portion of the assets of the plan 
     attributable to securities acquired by the plan in a 
     qualified gratuitous transfer are allocated to the account 
     of--

       ``(I) any person who is related to the decedent (within the 
     meaning of section 267(b)), or
       ``(II) any person who, at the time of such allocation or at 
     any time during the 1-year period ending on the date of the 
     acquisition of qualified employer securities by the plan, is 
     a 5-percent shareholder of the employer maintaining the plan,

     the plan shall be treated as having distributed (at the time 
     of such allocation) to such person or shareholder the amount 
     so allocated.
       ``(ii) 5-percent shareholder.--For purposes of clause (i), 
     the term `5-percent shareholder' means any person who owns 
     (directly or through the application of section 318(a)) more 
     than 5 percent of--

       ``(I) any class of outstanding stock of the corporation 
     which issued such qualified employer securities or of any 
     corporation which is a member of the same controlled group of 
     corporations (within the meaning of section 409(l)(4)) as 
     such corporation, or
       ``(II) the total value of any class of outstanding stock of 
     any such corporation; and

     For purposes of the preceding sentence, section 318(a) shall 
     be applied without regard to the exception in paragraph 
     (2)(B)(i) thereof.
       ``(iii) Cross reference.--

  ``For excise tax on allocations described in clause (i), see section 
4979A.''

       (c) Conforming Amendments.--

[[Page S11179]]

       (1) Section 401(a)(1) of such Code is amended by inserting 
     ``or by a charitable remainder trust pursuant to a qualified 
     gratuitous transfer (as defined in section 664(d)(3)(A)),'' 
     after ``stock bonus plans),''.
       (2) Section 404(a)(9) of such Code is amended by inserting 
     after subparagraph (B) the following new subparagraph:
       ``(C) A qualified gratuitous transfer (as defined in 
     section 664(d)(3)(A)) shall have no effect on the amount or 
     amounts otherwise deductible under paragraph (3) or (7) or 
     under this paragraph.''
       (3) Section 415(c)(6) of such Code is amended by adding at 
     the end the following new sentence:
     ``The amount of any qualified gratuitous transfer (as defined 
     in section 664(d)(3)(A)) allocated to a participant for any 
     limitation year shall not exceed the limitations imposed by 
     this section, but such amount shall not be taken into account 
     in determining whether any other amount exceeds the 
     limitations imposed by this section.''
       (4) Section 415(e) of such Code is amended--
       (A) by redesignating paragraph (6) as paragraph (7), and
       (B) by inserting after paragraph (5) the following new 
     paragraph:
       ``(6) Special rule for qualified gratuitous transfers.--Any 
     qualified gratuitous transfer of qualified employer 
     securities (as defined by section 664(d)(3)) shall not be 
     taken into account in calculating, and shall not be subject 
     to, the limitations provided in this subsection.''
       (5) Paragraph (3) of section 644(e) of such Code is amended 
     to read as follows:
       ``(3) acquired by a charitable remainder annuity trust (as 
     defined in section 664(d)(1)) or a charitable remainder 
     unitrust (as defined in sections 664(d) (2) and (4)), or''.
       (6) Subparagraph (B) of section 664(d)(1) of such Code and 
     subparagraph (B) of section 664(d)(2) of such Code are each 
     amended by inserting ``and other than qualified gratuitous 
     transfers described in subparagraph (C)'' after 
     ``subparagraph (A)''.
       (7) Paragraph (4) of section 674(b) of such Code is amended 
     by inserting before the period ``or to an employee stock 
     ownership plan (as defined in section 4975(e)(7)) in a 
     qualified gratuitous transfer (as defined in section 
     664(d)(3))''.
       (8)(A) Section 2055(a) of such Code is amended--
       (i) by striking ``or'' at the end of paragraph (3),
       (ii) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (4) and 
     inserting ``; or'', and
       (iii) by inserting after paragraph (4) the following new 
     paragraph:
       ``(5) to an employee stock ownership plan if such transfer 
     qualifies as a qualified gratuitous transfer of qualified 
     employer securities within the meaning of section 
     664(d)(3).''
       (B) Clause (ii) of section 2055(e)(3)(C) of such Code is 
     amended by striking ``section 664(d)(3)'' and inserting 
     ``section 664(d)(4)''.
       (9) Paragraph (8) of section 2056(b) of such Code is 
     amended to read as follows:
       ``(8) Special rule for charitable remainder trusts.--
       ``(A) In general.--If the surviving spouse of the decedent 
     is the only beneficiary of a qualified charitable remainder 
     trust who is not a charitable beneficiary nor an ESOP 
     beneficiary, paragraph (1) shall not apply to any interest in 
     such trust which passes or has passed from the decedent to 
     such surviving spouse.
       ``(B) Definitions.--For purposes of subparagraph (A)--
       ``(i) Charitable beneficiary.--The term `charitable 
     beneficiary' means any beneficiary which is an organization 
     described in section 170(c).
       ``(ii) Esop beneficiary.--The term `ESOP beneficiary' means 
     any beneficiary which is an employee stock ownership plan (as 
     defined in section 4975(e)(7)) that holds a remainder 
     interest in qualified employer securities (as defined in 
     section 664(d)(3)) to be transferred to such plan in a 
     qualified gratuitous transfer (as defined in section 
     664(d)(3)).
       ``(iii) Qualified charitable remainder trust.--The term 
     `qualified charitable remainder trust' means a charitable 
     remainder annuity trust or a charitable remainder unitrust 
     (described in section 664).''
       (10) Section 4947(b) of such Code is amended by inserting 
     after paragraph (3) the following new paragraph:
       ``(4) Section 507.--The provisions of section 507(a) shall 
     not apply to a trust which is described in subsection (a)(2) 
     by reason of a distribution of qualified employer securities 
     (as defined in section 664(d)(3)) to an employee stock 
     ownership plan (as defined in section 4975(e)(7)) in a 
     qualified gratuitous transfer (as defined by section 
     664(d)(3)).''
       (11) The last sentence of section 4975(e)(7) of such Code 
     is amended by inserting ``and section 664(d)(3)'' after 
     ``section 409(n)''
       (12) Subsection (a) of section 4978 of such Code is amended 
     by inserting ``or acquired any qualified employer securities 
     in a qualified gratuitous transfer to which section 664(d)(3) 
     applied'' after ``section 1042 applied''.
       (13) Paragraph (2) of section 4978(b) of such Code is 
     amended--
       (A) by inserting ``or acquired in the qualified gratuitous 
     transfer to which section 664(d)(3) applied'' after ``section 
     1042 applied'', and
       (B) by inserting ``or to which section 664(d)(3) applied'' 
     after ``section 1042 applied'' in subparagraph (C) thereof.
       (14) Subsection (c) of section 4978 of such Code is amended 
     by striking ``written statement'' and all that follows and 
     inserting ``written statement described in section 
     664(d)(3)(A)(vi) or in section 1042(b)(3) (as the case may 
     be).''
       (15) Paragraph (2) of section 4978(e) of such Code is 
     amended by striking the period and inserting ``; except that 
     such section shall be applied without regard to subparagraph 
     (B) thereof for purposes of applying this section and section 
     4979A with respect to securities acquired in a qualified 
     gratuitous transfer (as defined in section 664(d)(3)(A)).''
       (16) Subsection (a) of section 4979A of such Code is 
     amended to read as follows:
       ``(a) Imposition of Tax.--If--
       ``(1) there is a prohibited allocation of qualified 
     securities by any employee stock ownership plan or eligible 
     worker-owned cooperative, or
       ``(2) there is an allocation described in section 
     663(d)(3)(C)(i),

     there is hereby imposed a tax on such allocation equal to 50 
     percent of the amount involved.''
       (17) Subsection (c) of section 4979A of such Code is 
     amended to read as follows:
       ``(c) Liability for Tax.--The tax imposed by this section 
     shall be paid by--
       ``(1) the employer sponsoring such plan, or
       ``(2) the eligible worker-owned cooperative,

     which made the written statement described in section 
     664(d)(3)(A)(vi) or in section 1042(b)(3)(B) (as the case may 
     be).''
       (18) Section 4979A of such Code is amended by redesignating 
     subsection (d) as subsection (e) and by inserting after 
     subsection (c) the following new subsection:
       ``(d) Special Statute of Limitations for Tax Attributable 
     to Certain Allocations.--The statutory period for the 
     assessment of any tax imposed by this section on an 
     allocation described in subsection (a)(2) of qualified 
     employer securities shall not expire before the date which is 
     3 years from the later of--
       ``(1) the 1st allocation of such securities in connection 
     with a qualified gratuitous transfer (as defined in section 
     664(d)(3)(A)), or
       ``(2) the date on which the Secretary is notified of the 
     allocation described in subsection (a)(2).''
       (d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to transfers made by trusts to, or for the use 
     of, an employee stock ownership plan after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. McCAIN:
  S. 2111. A bill to amend the act commonly known as the Navajo-Hopi 
Land Settlement Act of 1974, and for other purposes; to the Committee 
on Indian Affairs.


         THE NAVAJO-HOPI LAND SETTLEMENT ACT AMENDMENTS OF 1996

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I introduce legislation to make certain 
amendments to the Navajo-Hopi Land Settlement Act of 1974 in order to 
bring the relocation process to an orderly conclusion within 5 years. 
This legislation will phase out the Navajo-Hopi relocation program by 
September 30, 2001, and at that time transfer any remaining 
responsibilities to the Secretary of the Interior. This legislation 
will provide a time certain for eligible Navajo and Hopi individuals to 
apply for and receive relocation benefits and after that time the 
Federal Government will no longer be obligated to provide replacement 
housing for such individual. Under this legislation, the funds that 
would have been used to provide replacement housing to such individual 
will be kept in trust by the Secretary for distribution to the 
individual or their heirs.
  Mr. President, the Navajo-Hopi Land Settlement Act of 1974 was 
enacted to resolve longstanding disputes that have divided the Navajo 
and Hopi Indian Tribes for more than a century. The origins of this 
dispute can be traced directly to the creation of the 1882 reservation 
for the Hopi Tribe and the creation of the 1934 Navajo Reservation. At 
the times these reservations were established there were Navajo 
families residing within the lands set aside for the Hopi Tribe and 
Hopi families residing on lands set aside for the Navajo Nation. 
Tensions between the two tribes continued to heighten until in 1958 
Congress, in an effort to resolve this dispute, passed legislation that 
authorized the tribes to file suit in Federal court to quiet title to 
the 1882 reservation and to their respective claims and rights. That 
legislation has given rise to more than 35 years of continuous 
litigation between the tribes in an effort to resolve their respective 
rights and claims to the land.
  In 1974, Congress enacted the Navajo-Hopi Land Settlement Act which 
established Navajo and Hopi negotiating teams under the auspices of a 
Federal mediator to negotiate a settlement to the 1882 reservation land 
dispute. The act also authorized the tribes to file suit in Federal 
court to quiet title to the 1934 reservation and to file any

[[Page S11180]]

claims for damages arising out of the dispute against each other or the 
United States. The act also established a three member Navajo-Hopi 
Indian Relocation Commission to oversee the relocation of members of 
the Navajo Nation who were residing on lands partitioned to the Hopi 
Tribe and members of the Hopi Tribe who were residing on lands 
partitioned to the Navajo Nation. Since its establishment, the 
relocation program has proven to be an extremely difficult and 
contentious process.
  When this program was first established, it was estimated that the 
cost of relocation would be roughly $40 million to provide relocation 
benefits to approximately 6,000 Navajos estimated to be eligible for 
relocation. These figures woefully underestimated the number of 
families impacted by relocation and the tremendous delays that have 
plagued this program. To date, the United States has expended over $350 
million to relocate more than 11,000 Navajo and Hopi tribal members. 
There remain over 640 eligible families who have never received 
relocation benefits and an additional 50 to 100 families who have never 
applied for relocation benefits. In addition, there are over 130 
eligibility appeals still pending. The funding for this settlement has 
exceeded the original cost estimates by more than 900 percent.

  Mr. President, we cannot continue to fund this program with no end in 
sight. I am convinced that our current Federal budgetary pressures 
require us to ensure that the Navajo-Hopi relocation housing program is 
brought to an orderly and certain conclusion. It is for that reason 
that I am introducing the Navajo-Hopi Land Settlement Act Amendments of 
1996. This legislation will phase out the Navajo-Hopi Indian relocation 
program by September 30, 2001, and transfer the remaining 
responsibilities under the act to the Secretary of the Interior. Under 
the bill, the relocation commissioner shall transfer to the Secretary 
such funds as are necessary to construct replacement homes for any 
eligible head of household who has left the Hopi partitioned land but 
has not received a replacement home by September 30, 2001. These funds 
will be held in trust by the Secretary of the Interior for distribution 
to such individual or their heirs. In addition, the bill includes 
provisions establishing an expedited procedure for handling appeals of 
final eligibility determinations.
  Mr. President, I have developed this legislation as an initial 
starting point for ongoing discussions with the representatives of the 
Office of Navajo and Hopi Indian Relocation and the administration, the 
Hopi Tribe, the Navajo Nation, and the affected families of both 
tribes. It is my hope that this bill will stimulate discussions that 
will lead to the passage of legislation in the 105th Congress that will 
bring this long and difficult process to a certain and ordered 
conclusion.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that additional material be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                S. 2111

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Navajo-Hopi 
     Land Settlement Act Amendments of 1996''.

   TITLE I--AMENDMENTS TO THE NAVAJO-HOPI LAND SETTLEMENT ACT OF 1974

     SEC. 101. REFERENCES.

       Whenever in this Act an amendment or repeal is expressed in 
     terms of an amendment or repeal to a section or other 
     provision, the references shall be considered to be made to a 
     section or other provision of the Act commonly known as the 
     Navajo-Hopi Land Settlement Act of 1974 (Public law 93-531; 
     25 U.S.C. 640 et seq.).

     SEC. 102. AMENDMENTS TO THE NAVAJO-HOPI LAND SETTLEMENT ACT 
                   OF 1974.

       (a) Repeals.--Sections 1 through 5 (25 U.S.C. 640d through 
     640d-4) and section 30 (25 U.S.C. 640d-28) are each repealed.
       (b) Amendments and Redesignations.--
       (1) Section 6 (25 U.S.C. 640d-5) is amended--
       (A) by striking the matter preceding subsection (a) through 
     subsection (c);
       (B) by inserting the following before subsection (d):

     ``SECTION 1. PARTITIONED LANDS.

       (C) by redesignating subsection (d) as subsection (a);
       (D) by striking subsections (e) and (f); and
       (E) by redesignating subsections (g) and (h) as subsections 
     (b) and (c), respectively; and
       (F) in subsection (a), as so designated, by striking, ``In 
     any partition of the surface rights to the joint use area,'' 
     and inserting the following:
       ``With regard to the final order issued by the United 
     States District Court for the District of Arizona (hereafter 
     in this Act referred to as the `District Court') on August 
     30, 1978, that provides for the partition of surface rights 
     and interest of the Navajo and Hopi tribes (hereafter in this 
     Act referred to as the `Tribes') by lands laying within the 
     reservation established by Executive order on December 16, 
     1982,''.
       (2) Section 7 (25 U.S.C. 640d-6) is amended by striking 
     ``Sec. 7. Partitioned'' and inserting the following:

     ``SEC. 2. JOINT OWNERSHIP OF MINERALS.

       ``Partitioned''.
       (3) Section 8 (25 U.S.C. 640d-7) is amended--
       (A) by striking ``Sec. 8. (a) Either tribe'' and inserting 
     the following:

     ``SEC. 3. ACTIONS.

       ``(a) Authorizations to Commence and Defend Actions in 
     District Court.--Either tribe'';
       (B) in subsection (b), by inserting ``Allocation of Land to 
     Respective Reservations Upon Determinations of Interests.--'' 
     after ``(b)'';
       (C) in subsection (c)--
       (i) by inserting ``Actions for Accounting, Fair Value of 
     Grazing, and Claims for Damages to Land.--'' after ``(c)''; 
     and
       (ii) by striking ``section 18'' each place it appears and 
     inserting ``section 12'';
       (D) in subsection (d), by inserting ``Rule of 
     Construction.--'' after ``(d)'';
       (E) in subsection (e), by inserting ``Payment of Legal 
     Fees, Court Costs, and Other Expenses.--'' after ``(e)''; and
       (F) by striking subsection (f).
       (4) Section 9 (25 U.S.C. 640d-8) is amended by striking 
     ``Sec. 9. Notwithstanding'' and inserting the following:

     ``SEC. 4. PAUITE INDIAN ALLOTMENTS.

       ``Notwithstanding''.
       (5) Section 10 (25 U.S.C. 640d-9) is amended--
       (A) by striking ``Sec. 10. (a) Subject'' and inserting the 
     following:

     ``SEC. 5. PARTITIONED AND OTHER DESIGNATED LANDS.

       ``(a) Navajo Trust Lands.--'';
       (B) in subsection (a), by striking ``sections 9 and 16(a)'' 
     and inserting ``sections 4 and 10(a)'';
       (C) in subsection (b)--
       (i) by inserting ``Hopi Trust Lands.--'' after ``(b)'';
       (ii) by striking ``sections 9 and 16(a)'' and inserting 
     ``sections 4 and 10(a)'';
       (iii) by striking ``sections 2 and 3'' and inserting 
     ``section ``1'' and
       (iv) by striking ``section 8'' and inserting ``section 3'';
       (D) in subsection (c)--
       (i) by inserting ``Protection of Rights and Property.--'' 
     after ``(c)''; and
       (ii) by striking the comma after ``pursuant thereto'' and 
     all that follows through the end of the subsection and 
     inserting a period;
       (E) in subsection (d), by inserting ``Protection of 
     Benefits and Services.--'' after ``(d)''; and
       (F) in subsection (e)--
       (i) by inserting ``Tribal Jurisdiction Over Partitioned 
     Lands.--'' after ``(e)''; and
       (ii) in the last sentence, by striking ``life tenants 
     and''.
       (6) Section 11 (25 U.S.C. 640d-10) is amended--
       (A) by striking ``Sec. 11. (a) The Secretary'' and 
     inserting the following:

     ``SEC.   6. RESETTLEMENT LANDS FOR NAVAJO TRIBE.

       ``(a) Transfer of Lands.--The Secretary'';
       (B) in subsection (b), by inserting ``Proximity of Lands To 
     Be Transferred or Acquired.--'' before ``(b)'';
       (C) in subsection (c)--
       (i) by inserting ``Selection of Lands To Be Transferred or 
     Acquired.--'' after ``(c)''; and
       (ii) by striking the period at the end and inserting the 
     following: ``: Provided further, That the authority of the 
     Commissioner to select lands under this subsection shall 
     terminate on September 30, 2000.'';
       (D) in subsection (d), by inserting ``Reports.--'' after 
     ``(d)'';
       (E) in subsection (e), by inserting ``Payments.--'' after 
     ``(e)'';
       (F) in subsection (f), by inserting ``Acquisition of Title 
     To Surface and Subsurface Interests.--'' after ``(f)'';
       (G) in subsection (g), by inserting ``Lands Not Available 
     for Transfer.--'' after ``(g)''; and
       (H) in subsection (h)--
       (i) by inserting ``Administration of Lands Transferred or 
     Acquired.--'' after ``(h)'';
       (ii) by striking the period at the end and inserting the 
     following: ``: Provided further, That, in order to facilitate 
     relocation, in the discretion of the Commissioner, the 
     Commissioner may grant homesite leases on land acquired 
     pursuant to this section to members of the extended family of 
     a Navajo who is certified as eligible to receive benefits 
     under this Act, except that the Commissioner may not expend, 
     or otherwise make available funds made available by 
     appropriations to the Commissioner to carry out this Act, to 
     provide housing to those extended family members.''; and
       (I) in subsection (i)--
       (i) by inserting ``Negotiations Regarding Land Exchanges or 
     Leases.'' after ``(i); and
       (ii) by striking ``section 23'' and inserting ``section 
     18''.
       (7) Section 12 (25 U.S.C. 640d-11) is amended--

[[Page S11181]]

       (A) by striking ``Sec. 12. (a) There is hereby'' and 
     inserting the following:

     ``SEC.    7. OFFICE OF NAVAJO AND HOPI INDIAN RELOCATION.

       ``(a) Establishment.--There is hereby'';
       (B) in subsection (b), by inserting ``Appointment.--'' 
     after ``(b)'';
       (C) in subsection (c), by inserting ``Continuation of 
     Powers.--'' after ``(c)'';
       (D) in subsection (d), by inserting ``Powers of 
     Commissioner.--'' after ``(d)'';
       (E) in subsection (e), by inserting ``Administration.--'' 
     after ``(e)'';
       (F) in subsection (f) and by inserting the following:
       ``(f) Termination.--The Office of Navajo and Hopi Indian 
     Relocation shall cease to exist on September 30, 2001. On 
     that date, any functions of the Office that have not been 
     fully discharged, as determined in accordance with this Act 
     shall be transferred to the Secretary of the Interior in 
     accordance with title III of the Navajo-Hopi Land Settlement 
     Act Amendments of 1996.''; and
       (G) by adding at the end the following new subsections:
       ``(g) Office of Relocation.--Effective on October 1, 2001, 
     there is established in the Department of the Interior an 
     Office of Relocation. The Secretary of the Interior, acting 
     through the Office of Relocation, shall carry out the 
     functions of the Office of Navajo and Hopi Indian Relocation 
     transferred to the Secretary of the Interior in accordance 
     with title III of the Navajo-Hopi Land Settlement Act 
     Amendments of 1996.
       ``(h) Termination of Office of Relocation.--The Office of 
     Relocation shall cease to exist on the date on which the 
     Secretary of the Interior determines that the functions of 
     the Office have been fully discharged.''.
       (8) Section 13 (25 U.S.C. 640d-12) is amended--
       (A) by striking ``Sec. 13. (a) Within'' and inserting the 
     following:

     ``SEC. 13. REPORT CONCERNING RELOCATION OF HOUSEHOLD AND 
                   MEMBERS OF EACH TRIBE.

       ``(a) In General.--Within'''
       (B) in subsection (b), by inserting ``Content of Report.--
     '' after ``(b)''; and
       (C) in subsection (c), by inserting ``Detailed Plan for 
     Relocation.--'' after ``(c)'';
       (9) Section 14 (25 U.S.C. 640d-13) is amended--
       (A) by striking ``Sec. 14. (a) Consistent'' and inserting 
     the following:

     ``SEC. 8. RELOCATION OF HOUSEHOLDS AND MEMBERS.

       ``(a) Authorization.--;
       (B) in subsection (a)--
       (i) in the first sentence--
       (I) by striking ``section 8'' each place it appears and 
     inserting ``section 3''; and
       (II) by striking ``sections 2 and 3'' and inserting 
     ``section 1''; and
       (ii) by striking the second sentence;
       (C) in subsection (b)--
       (i) by inserting ``Additional Payments to Heads of 
     Households'' after ``(b)''; and
       (ii) by striking ``section 15'' and inserting ``section 
     9'';
       (D) in subsection (c), by inserting ``Payments for Persons 
     Moving After a Certain Date.--''; and
       (E) by adding at the end the following new subsection:
       ``(d) Prohibition.--No payment for benefits under this Act 
     may be made to any head of a household if, as of September 
     30, 2001, that head has not been certified as eligible to 
     receive those payments.''.
       (10) In section 15 (25 U.S.C. 640d-14)--
       (A) by striking ``Sec. 15. (a) The Commission'' and 
     inserting the following:

     ``SEC. 9. RELOCATION HOUSING.

       ``(a) Purchase of Habitation and Improvements.--The 
     Commission'';
       (B) in the last sentence of subsection (a), by striking 
     ``as determined under section 13(b)(2) of this title'';
       (C) in subsection (b), by inserting ``Rembursement for 
     Moving Expenses and Payment for Replacement Dwelling.--'' 
     after ``(b)'';
       (D) in subsection (c)--
       (i) by inserting ``Standards; Certain Payments.--'' after 
     ``(c)'';
       (ii) by striking ``section 8'' and inserting ``section 3''; 
     and
       (iii) by striking ``section 3 or 4 of this title'' and 
     inserting ``section 1'';
       (E) in subsection (d), by inserting ``Methods of Payment.--
     ''after ``(d)'';
       (F) by striking subsection (g);
       (G) by redesignating subsections (e) and (f) as subsections 
     (g) and (h), respectively;
       (H) by inserting after subsection (d) the following new 
     subsections:
       ``(e) Benefits Held in Trust.--
       ``(1) In general.--On September 30, 2001, the Commissioner 
     shall notify the Secretary of the Interior (hereafter in this 
     subsection referred to as the `Secretary') of the identity of 
     any head of household that is certified as eligible to 
     receive benefits under this Act (hereafter in this subsection 
     referred to as an `eligible head of household') who, as of 
     such date--
       ``(A) does not reside on lands that have been partitioned 
     to the tribe of that eligible head of household; and
       ``(B) has not received a replacement home.
       ``(2) Transfer of funds.--On the date specified in 
     paragraph (1), the Commissioner shall transfer to the 
     Secretary any unexpended funds that were made available to 
     the Commissioner for the purpose of making payments under 
     this Act to the eligible heads of household referred to in 
     paragraph (1).
       ``(3) Disposition of transferred funds.--
       ``(A) In general.--The Secretary shall hold the funds 
     transferred under paragraph (2) in trust for the eligible 
     heads of household referred to in paragraph (1). The 
     Secretary shall provide payments in amounts that would have 
     otherwise have been made to an eligible head of household 
     before the date specified in paragraph (1) from the amounts 
     held in trust--
       ``(i) upon request of the eligible head of household, to be 
     used for a replacement home; or
       ``(ii) if the eligible head of household does not make a 
     request under clause (i), upon the death of the eligible head 
     of household, in accordance with subparagraph (B).
       ``(B) Distribution of funds upon the death of an eligible 
     head of household.--If, upon the death of an eligible head of 
     household, the Secretary holds funds in trust under this 
     paragraph for that eligible head of household, the Secretary 
     shall--
       ``(i) determine and notify the heirs of the head of 
     household; and
       ``(ii) distribute the funds to--
       ``(I) the heirs who have attained the age of 18; and
       ``(II) each remaining heir, at the time that the heir 
     attains the age of 18.
       ``(f) Notification.--
       ``(1) In general.--Not later than 180 days after the date 
     of enactment of the Navajo-Hopi Land Settlement Act 
     Amendments of 1996, the Commissioner shall, in accordance 
     with section 700.138 of title 25, Code of Federal 
     Regulations, notify each eligible head of household who has 
     not entered into a lease with the Hopi Tribe to reside on 
     lands partitioned to the Hopi Tribe.
       ``(2) List.--Upon the expiration of the notice periods 
     referred to in section 700.139 of title 25, Code of Federal 
     Regulations, the Commissioner shall forward to the Secretary 
     and the United States Attorney for the District of Arizona a 
     list containing the name and address of each eligible head of 
     household who--
       ``(A) continues to reside on lands that have not been 
     partitioned to the tribe of that eligible head of household; 
     and
       ``(B) has not entered into a lease to reside on those 
     lands.
       ``(3) Construction of replacement homes.--Before July 1, 
     1999, the Commissioner may commence construction of a 
     replacement home on the lands acquired under section 6 not 
     later than 90 days after receiving a notice of the imminent 
     removal of a relocatee from the lands partitioned under this 
     Act to the Hopi Tribe from--
       ``(A) the Secretary; or
       ``(B) the United States Attorney for the District of 
     Arizona.'';
       (I) in subsection (g), as redesignated by subparagraph 
     (G)--
       (i) by inserting ``Disposal of Acquired Dwellings and 
     Improvements.--'' after ``(g)''
       (ii) by striking ``section 8'' and inserting ``section 3''; 
     and
       (iii) by striking ``section 3 or 4 of this title'' and 
     inserting ``section 1'';
       (J) in subsection (h), as redesignated by subparagraph (G), 
     by inserting ``Preferential Treatment for Heads of House-
     holds of the Navajo Tribe Evicted from the Hope Reservation 
     by Judicial Decision.--''; and
       (K) by adding after subsection (h) the following new 
     subsections:
       ``(i) Appeals.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Commissioner shall establish an 
     expedited hearing procedure that shall apply to an appeal 
     relating to the denial of eligibility for benefits under this 
     Act (including the regulations issued under this Act) that 
     is--
       ``(A) pending on the date of enactment of Navajo-Hopi Land 
     Settlement Act Amendments of 1996; or
       ``(B) filed after the date specified in subparagraph (A).
       ``(2) Final determinations.--The hearing procedure 
     established under paragraph (1) shall--
       ``(A) as necessary, provide for a hearing before an 
     impartial third party; and
       ``(B) ensure the achievement of a final determination by 
     the Office of Navajo and Hopi Indian Relocation for each 
     appeal described in that paragraph not later than January 1, 
     1999.
       ``(3) Notice.--
       ``(A) In general.--Not later than 30 days after the date of 
     enactment of the Navajo-Hopi Land Settlement Act Amendments 
     of 1996, the Commissioner, shall provide written notice to 
     any individual that the Commissioner determines may have the 
     right to a determination of eligibility for benefits under 
     this Act.
       ``(B) Requirements for notice.--The notice provided under 
     this paragraph shall--
       ``(i) specify that a request for a determination of 
     eligibility referred to in subparagraph (A) shall be 
     presented to the Commission not later than 180 days after the 
     date of issuance of the notice; and
       ``(ii) be provided--
       ``(I) by mail (which may be carried out by a means other 
     than certified mail) to the last known address (if available) 
     of the recipient; and
       ``(II) in a newspaper of general circulation in the 
     geographic area in which an address referred to in subclause 
     (I) is located.
       ``(j) Procurement of Services.--
       ``(1) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     this Act, to ensure the full and fair evaluation of the 
     requests referred to in subsection (i)(3)(A) (including an 
     appeal hearing before an impartial third party referred to in 
     subsection (i)(2)(A)), the Commissioner may enter into such 
     contracts or

[[Page S11182]]

     agreements to procure such services, and employ such 
     personnel (including attorneys), as are necessary.
       ``(2) Detail of administrative law judges or hearing 
     officers.--The Commissioner may request the Secretary to act 
     through the Director of the Office of Hearings and Appeals of 
     the Department of the Interior, to make available, by detail 
     or other appropriate arrangement, to the Office of Navajo and 
     Hopi Indian Relocation, an administrative law judge or other 
     hearing officer with appropriate qualifications to review the 
     requests referred to in subsection (i)(3)(A).
       ``(k) Appeal to United States Circuit Court of Appeals.--
       ``(l) In general.--Subject to paragraph (3), any individual 
     who, under the procedures established by the Commissioner 
     under this section, is determined not to be eligible to 
     receive benefits under this Act may appeal that determination 
     to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth 
     Circuit (hereafter in this subsection referred to as the 
     `Circuit Court').
       ``(2) Review.--
       ``(A) In general.--The Circuit Court shall, with respect to 
     each appeal referred to in paragraph (1)--
       ``(i) review the entire record (as certified to the Circuit 
     Court under paragraph (3) on which a determination of the 
     ineligibility of the appellant to receive benefits under this 
     Act was based; and
       ``(ii) on the basis of that review, affirm or reverse that 
     determination.
       ``(B) Standard of review.--The Circuit Court shall affirm 
     any determination that the Circuit Court determines to be 
     supported by substantial evidence.
       ``(3) Notice of appeal.--
       ``(A) In general.--An individual who appeals a 
     determination of ineligibility under paragraph (1) shall, not 
     later than 30 days after the date of that determination, file 
     a notice of appeal with--
       ``(i) the Circuit Court; and
       ``(ii) the Commissioner.
       ``(B) Certification of record.--Upon receipt of a notice 
     provided under subparagraph (A)(ii), the Commissioner shall 
     certify to the Circuit Court the record on which the 
     determination that is the subject of the appeal was made.
       ``(C) Review period.--The Circuit Court shall conduct a 
     review and render a decision under paragraph (2) not later 
     than 60 days after receiving a certified record under 
     subparagraph (B).
       ``(D) Binding decision.--A decision made by the Circuit 
     Court under this subsection shall be final and binding on all 
     parties.
  (11) Section 16 (25 U.S.C. 640d-15) is amended--
  (A) by striking ``Sec. 16. (a) The Navajo'' and inserting the 
following:

     ``SEC. 10. PAYMENT OF FAIR RENTAL VALUE FOR USE OF LANDS.

       ``(a) In General.--The Navajo'';
       (B) in subsection (a), by striking ``sections 8 and 3 or 
     4'' and inserting ``sections 1 and 3''; and
       (C) in subsection (b)--
       (i) by inserting ``Payment.--'' after ``(b)''; and
       (ii) by striking sections 8 and 3 or 4'' and inserting 
     ``sections 1 and 3''.
       (12) Section 17 (25 U.S.C. 640d-16) is amended--
       (A) by striking ``Sec. 17. (a) Nothing'' and inserting the 
     following:

     ``SEC. 11. STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION.

       (a) In General.--Nothing''; and
       (B) in subsection (b), by inserting ``Federal Employees.-- 
     after ``(b)''.
       (13) Section 18 (25 U.S.C. 640d-17) is amended--
       (A) by striking ``Sec. 18. (a) Either'' and inserting the 
     following:

     ``SEC. 12. ACTIONS FOR ACCOUNTING, FAIR VALUE OF GRAZING, AND 
                   CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES TO LAND.

       ``(a) Either'';
       (B) in the matter preceding paragraph (1) in subsection 
     (a), by striking ``section 3 or 4'' and inserting ``section 
     1'';
       (C) in subsection (b)--
       (i) by inserting ``Defenses.--'' after ``(b)'';
       (ii) by striking ``section 3 or 4'' and inserting ``section 
     1'';
       (D) in subsection (c), by inserting ``Further Original, 
     Ancillary, or Supplementary Acts To Insure Quiet Enjoyment.--
     '' after ``(c)'';
       (E) in subsection (d), by inserting ``United States as 
     Party; Judgments Against the United States'' after ``(d)''; 
     and
       (F) in subsection (e), by inserting ``Remedies'' after 
     ``(e)''.
       (14) Section 19 (25 U.S.C. 640d-18) is amended--
       (A) by striking ``Sec. 19. (a) Notwithstanding'' and 
     inserting the following:

     ``SEC. 14. REDUCTION IN LIVESTOCK WITH JOINT USE.

       ``(a) In General.--Notwithstanding'';
       (B) in subsection (a), by striking ``section 3 or 4'' and 
     inserting ``section 1'';
       (C) in subsection (b)--
       (i) by inserting ``Survey Location of Monuments and Fencing 
     of Boundaries.--'' after ``(b)'';
       (ii) by striking ``sections 8 and 3 or 4'' and inserting 
     ``sections 1 and 3'';
       (D) in subsection (c)--
       (i) by inserting ``Completion of Surveying, Monumenting, 
     and Fencing Operations; Livestock Reduction Program.--'' 
     after ``(c)'';
       (ii) by striking ``section 4 of this title'' and inserting 
     ``section 1''; and
       (iii) by striking ``section 8'' and inserting ``section 
     3''.
       (15) Section 20 (25 U.S.C. 640d-19) is amended by striking 
     ``Sec. 20. The members'' and inserting the following:

     ``SEC. 15. PERPETUAL USE OF CLIFF SPRINGS FOR RELIGIOUS 
                   CEREMONIAL USES; PIPING OF WATER FOR USE BY 
                   RESIDENTS.

     The members''.
       (16) Section 21 (25 U.S.C. 640d-20) is amended by striking 
     ``Sec. 21. Notwithstanding'' and inserting the following;

     ``SEC. 16. USE AND RIGHT OF ACCESS TO RELIGIOUS SHRINES ON 
                   RESERVATION OF OTHER TRIBE.

     Notwithstanding''.
       (17) Section 22 (25 U.S.C. 640d-21) is amended by striking 
     ``Sec. 22. The availability '' and inserting the following:

     ``SEC. 17. EXCLUSION OF PAYMENTS FROM CERTAIN FEDERAL 
                   DETERMINATIONS OF INCOME.

     The availability''.
       (18) Section 23 (25 U.S.C. 649d-22) is amended--
       (A) by striking ``Sec. 23. The Navajo'' and inserting the 
     following:

     ``SEC. 18. AUTHORIZATION FOR EXCHANGE OF RESERVATION LANDS.

     The Navajo''; and
       (B) by striking ``sections 14 and 15'' and inserting 
     ``sections 8 and 9''.
       (19) Section 24 (25 640d-23) is amended by striking ``Sec. 
     24. If'' and inserting the following:

     ``SEC. 19. SEVERABILITY OF PROVISIONS.

     If''.
       (20) Section 25 (25 U.S.C. 640d-24) is amended to read as 
     follows:

     ``SEC. 20 AUTHORIZATIONS OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       ``(a) In General.--
       ``(1) Relocation of households and members.--For the 
     purposes of carrying out the provisions of section 9, there 
     are authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be 
     necessary for each of fiscal years 1998 through 2002.
       ``(2) Return to carrying capacity and institution of 
     conservation practices.--For the purposes of carrying out 
     section 14(a), there are authorized to be appropriated 
     $10,000,000.
       ``(3) Survey location of monuments and fencing of 
     boundaries.--For the purpose of carrying out section 14(b), 
     there are authorized to be appropriated $500,000.
       ``(4) Relocation of households and members.--For the 
     purposes of carrying out section 8(b) there are authorized to 
     be appropriated $13,000,000.''.
       (21) Section 26 (88 Stat. 1723) is repealed.
       (22) Section 27 (25 U.S.C. 640d-25) is amended--
       (A) by striking ``Sec. 27.'' and all that follows through 
     subsection (b)'' and inserting the following:

     ``SEC. 21. FUNDING AND CONSTRUCTION OF HOPI HIGH SCHOOL AND 
                   MEDICAL CENTER.''; and

       (B) in subsection (c), by striking ``(c)''.
       (23) Section 28 (25 U.S.c. 640d-26) is amended-
       (A) by striking ``Sec. 28. (a) No action'' and inserting 
     the following:

     ``SEC. 22. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT; APPLICABILITY OF WILDERNESS 
                   STUDY; CANCELLATION OF GRAZING LEASES AND 
                   PERMITS.

       ``(a) In General.--No action'';
       (B) in subsection (b), by inserting ``Effect of Wilderness 
     Study.--'' after ``(b)''; and
       (C) by adding at the end the following new subsection:
       ``(c) Construction Requirements.--
       ``(1) In general.--Any construction activities that are 
     undertaken under this Act shall be conducted in compliance 
     with sections 3 through 7 of Public Law 86-523 (16 U.S.C. 
     469a-1 through 469c).
       ``(2) Compliance with other requirements.--With respect to 
     any construction activity referred to in paragraph (1), 
     compliance with the provisions referred to in that paragraph 
     shall be considered to satisfy the applicable requirements 
     of--
       ``(A) the Act entitled ``an Act to establish a program for 
     the preservation of additional historic properties throughout 
     the Nation, and for other purposes'', approved October 15, 
     1966 (Public Law, 89-665); and
       ``(B) the Act entitled ``An Act for the preservation of 
     American antiquities'', approved June 8, 1906 (34 Stat. 225, 
     chapter 3060).''.
       (24) Section 29 (25 U.S.C. 640d-27) is amended--
       (A) by striking ``Sec. 29. (a) In any'' and inserting the 
     following:

     ``SEC. 23. ATTORNEY FEES, COSTS AND EXPENSES FOR LITIGATION 
                   OR COURT ACTION.

       ``(a) Payment by Secretary; Authorization of 
     appropriations.--In any;
       (B) in subsection (b) by inserting ``Award by Court.--'' 
     after ``(b)'';
       (C) in subsection (c) by inserting ``Excess Difference.--'' 
     after ``(c)''; and
       (D) in subsection (d)--
       (i) by inserting ``Litigation of Court Actions 
     Applicable.--'' after ``(d)''; and
       (ii) by striking ``section 8'' and inserting ``section 3''.
       (25) Section 31 (25 U.S.C. 640d-29) is amended--
       (A) by striking ``Sec. 31. (a) Except'' and inserting the 
     following:

     ``SEC. 24. LOBBYING.

       ``(a) In General.--Except''; and
       (B) in subsection (b), by inserting ``Applicability.--'' 
     before ``(b)''.
       (26) The first section designated as section 32 (25 U.S.C. 
     640d-30), as added by section 7 of

[[Page S11183]]

     the Navajo-Hopi Relocation Act Amendments of 1988, is 
     amended--
       (A) by striking ``Sec. 32. (a) There'' and inserting the 
     following:

     ``SEC. 25. NAVAJO REHABILITATION TRUST FUND.

       (a) In General.--There'';
       (B) in subsection (b), by inserting ``Deposit of Income 
     into Fund.--'' after ``(b)'';
       (C) in subsection (c), by inserting ``Investment of 
     Funds.--'' after ``(c)'';
       (D) in subsection (d), by inserting ``Availability of 
     Funds.--'' after ``(d);
       (E) in subsection (e), by inserting ``Expenditure of 
     Funds.--'' after ``(e)'';
       (F) in subsection (f), by inserting ``Termination of Trust 
     Fund.--'' after ``(f)''; and
       (G) in subsection (g), by inserting ``Authorization of 
     Appropriations.--'' after ``(g)''.
       (27) Section 32 (25 U.S.C. 640d-31), as added by section 
     407 of the Arizona-Idaho Conservation Act of 1988m, is 
     amended by striking ``Sec. 32. Nothing'' and inserting the 
     following:

     ``SEC. 26. AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS FOR RELOCATION ASSISTANCE 
                   REGARDLESS OF PLACE OF RESIDENCE.

     Nothing''.

 TITLE II--PERSONNEL OF THE OFFICE OF NAVAJO AND HOPI INDIAN RELOCATION

     SEC. 201. RETENTION PREFERENCE.

       The second sentence of section 3501(b) of title 5, United 
     States Code, is amended--
       (1) by striking by striking ``or'' after ``Senate'' and 
     inserting a comma;
       (2) by striking ``or'' after ``Service'' and inserting a 
     comma; and
       (3) by inserting '', or to an employee of the Office of 
     Navajo and Hopi Indian Relocation before the period.

     SEC. 202. SEPARATION PAY.

       (a) In General.--Chapter 55 title 5, United States Code, is 
     amended by adding at the end the following new section:

     ``Sec. 5598 Separation pay for certain employees of the 
       Office of Navajo and Hopi Indian Relocation

       ``(a) In General.--Except as provided in subsections (b) 
     and (c), the Commissioner of the Office of Navajo and Hopi 
     Indian Relocation shall establish a program to offer 
     separation pay to employees of the Office of Navajo and Hopi 
     Indian Relocation (hereafter in this section referred to as 
     the `Office') in the same manner as the Secretary of 
     Defense offers separation pay to employees of a defense 
     agency under section 5597.
       ``(b) Separation Pay.--
       ``(1) In general.--Under the program establish under 
     subsection (a), the Commissioner of the Office may offer 
     separation pay only to employees within the occupational 
     groups or at pay levels that will minimize disruption of 
     ongoing Office programs at the time that the separation pay 
     is offered.
       ``(2) Requirement.--Any separation pay offered under this 
     subsection shall--
       ``(A) be paid in a lump sum;
       ``(B) be in an amount equal to $25,000, if paid on or 
     before December 31, 1998;
       ``(C) be in an amount equal to $20,000, if paid after 
     December 31, 1998, and before January 1, 2000;
       ``(D) be in an amount equal to $15,000, if paid after 
     December 31, 1999, and before January 1, 2001;
       ``(E) not--
       ``(i) be a basis for payment;
       ``(ii) be considered as income for the purposes of 
     computing any other type of benefit provided by the Federal 
     Government; and
       ``(F) if an individual is otherwise entitled to receive any 
     severance pay under section 5595 on the basis of any other 
     separation, not be payable in addition to the amount of the 
     severance pay to which that individual is entitled under 
     section 5595.
       ``(c) Prohibition.--No amount shall be payable under this 
     section to any employee of the Office for any separation 
     occurring after December 30, 2000.''
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--The chapter analysis for chapter 
     55 of title 5 is amended by adding at the end the following 
     new item:

``5598. Separation pay for certain employees of the Office of Navajo 
              and Hopi Indian Relocation.''.

     SEC. 203. IMMEDIATE RETIREMENT.

       Section 8336(j)(1)(B) of title 5, United States Code, is 
     amended by inserting ``or was employed by the Office of 
     Navajo and Hopi Indian Relocation during the period beginning 
     on January 1, 1990, and ending on the date of separation of 
     that employee'' before the final comma.

     SEC. 204. COMPUTATION OF ANNUITY.

       Section 8339(d) of title 5, United States Code is amended 
     by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(8) The annuity of an employee of the Office of Navajo 
     and Hopi Indian Relocation described in section 8336(j)(1)(B) 
     shall be determined under subsection 9a), except that with 
     respect to service of that employee on or after January 1, 
     1990, the annuity of that employee shall be--
       ``(A)(i) 2\1/2\ percent of the employee's average pay; 
     multiplied by
       ``(ii) so much of the employee's service on or after 
     January 1, 1990, as does not exceed 10 years; plus
       ``(B)(i) a percent of the average pay of the employee; 
     multiplied by
       ``(ii) so much of the service of the employee on or after 
     January 1, 1990, as exceeds 10 years.''.

     SEC. 205. IMMEDIATE RETIREMENT.

       Section 8412 of title 5, United States Code, is amended by 
     adding at the end the following new subsection:
       ``(i) An employee of the Office of Navajo and Hopi Indian 
     Relocation is entitled to an annuity if that employee--
       ``(1) has been continuously employed in the Office of 
     Navajo and Hopi Indian Relocation during the period beginning 
     on January 1, 1990, and ending on the date of separation 
     of that individual; and
       ``(2)(A) has completed 25 years of service at any age; or
       ``(B) has attained the age of 50 years and has completed 20 
     years of service.''.

     SEC. 206. COMPUTATION OF BASIC ANNUITY.

       Section 8415 of title 5, United States Code, is amended by 
     adding at the end the following new subsection:
       ``(h) The annuity of an employee retiring under section 
     8412(i) shall be determined under subsection (d), except that 
     with respect to service during the period beginning on 
     January 1, 1990, the annuity of the employee shall be--
       ``(1)(A) 2 percent of the average pay of that individual; 
     multiplied by
       ``(B) so much of the total service of that individual as 
     does not exceed 10 years; plus
       ``(2)(A) 1\1/2\ percent of the average pay of the 
     individual; multiplied by
       ``(B) so much of the total service of that individual as 
     exceeds 10 years.''.

        TITLE III--TRANSFER OF FUNCTIONS AND SAVINGS PROVISIONS

     SEC. 301. DEFINITIONS.

       For purposes of this title, unless otherwise provided or 
     indicated by the context--
       (1) the term ``Federal agency'' has the meaning given to 
     the term ``agency'' by section 551(1) of title 5, United 
     States Code;
       (2) the term ``function'' means any duty, obligation, 
     power, authority, responsibility, right, privilege, activity, 
     or program; and
       (3) the term ``office'' includes any office, 
     administration, agency, institute, unit, organizational 
     entity, or component thereof.

     SEC. 302. TRANSFER OF FUNCTIONS.

       Effective on the date specified in section 307, there are 
     transferred to the Department of the Interior all functions 
     which Office of Navajo and Hopi Relocation exercised before 
     the date of the enactment of this title (including all 
     related functions of any officer or employee of the Office of 
     Navajo and Hopi Relocation) relating to functions of the 
     Office that have not been fully discharged, as determined in 
     accordance with the Act commonly known as the ``Navajo-Hopi 
     Land Settlement Act of 1974'' (Public law 93-531; 25 U.S.C. 
     640 et seq.).

     SEC. 303. TRANSFER AND ALLOCATIONS OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       Except as otherwise provided in this Act and the amendments 
     made by this Act, the assets, liabilities, contracts, 
     property, records, and unexpended balances of appropriations, 
     authorizations, allocations, and other funds employed, used, 
     held, arising from, available to, or to be made available in 
     connection with the functions transferred by this title, 
     subject to section 1531 of title 31, United States Code, 
     shall be transferred to the Department of the Interior. 
     Unexpended funds transferred pursuant to this section shall 
     be used only for the purposes for which the funds were 
     originally authorized and appropriated.

     SEC. 304. SAVINGS PROVISIONS.

       (a) Continuing Effect of Legal Documents.--All orders, 
     determinations, rules, regulations, permits, agreements, 
     grants, contracts, certificates, licenses, registrations, 
     privileges, and other administrative actions--
       (1) which have been issued, made, granted, or allowed to 
     become effective by the President, any Federal agency or 
     official thereof, or be a court of competent jurisdiction, in 
     the performance of functions which are transferred under 
     this title, and
       (2) which are in effect at the time this title takes 
     effect, or were final before the effective date of this title 
     and are to become effective on or after the effective date of 
     this title,

     shall continue in effect according to their terms until 
     modified, terminated, superseded, set aside, or revoked in 
     accordance with law by the President, the Secretary of the 
     Interior or other authorized official, a court of competent 
     jurisdiction, or by operation of law.
       (b) Proceeding Not Affected.--The provisions of this title 
     shall not affect any proceedings, including notices of 
     proposed rulemaking, or any application for any license, 
     permit, certificate, or financial assistance pending before 
     the Office of Navajo and Hopi Relocation at the time this 
     title takes effect, with respect to functions transferred by 
     this title but such proceedings and applications shall be 
     continued. Orders shall be issued in such proceedings, 
     appeals shall be taken therefrom, and payments shall be made 
     pursuant to such orders, as if this title had not been 
     enacted, and orders issued in any such proceedings shall 
     continue in effect until modified, terminated, superseded, or 
     revoked by a duly authorized official, by a court of 
     competent jurisdiction, or by operation of law. Nothing in 
     this subsection shall be deemed to prohibit the 
     discontinuance or modification of any such proceeding under 
     the same terms and conditions and to the same extent that 
     such proceeding could have been discontinued or modified if 
     this title had not been enacted.
       (c) Suits Not Affected.--The provisions of this title shall 
     not affect suits commenced before the effective date of this 
     title, and in

[[Page S11184]]

     all such suits, proceedings shall be had, appeal taken, and 
     judgments rendered in the same manner and with the same 
     effect as if this title had not been enacted.
       (d) Nonabatement of Actions.--No suit, action, or other 
     proceeding commenced by or against Office of Navajo and Hopi 
     Relocation, or by or against any individual in the official 
     capacity of such individual as an Office of Navajo and Hopi 
     Relocation, shall abate by reason of the enactment of this 
     title.
       (e) Administrative Actions Relating to Promulgation of 
     Regulations.--Any administrative action relating to the 
     preparation or promulgation of a regulation by Office of 
     Navajo and Hopi Relocation relating to a function transferred 
     under this title may be continued by the Department of the 
     Interior with the same effect as if this title had not been 
     enacted.
                                                                    ____



   Section-By-Section Summary of the Navajo-Hopi Land Settlement Act 
                           Amendments of 1996

       Section 1. Short Title. This section provides that the bill 
     may be cited as the ``Navajo-Hopi Land Settlement Act 
     Amendments of 1996''.


   Title I--Amendments to the Navajo-Hopi Land Settlement Act of 1974

       Section 101. References. This section provides that 
     whenever an amendment or repeal is expressed in this Act it 
     shall be considered to be made to a section of the Navajo-
     Hopi Land Settlement Act of 1974 (25 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 640 et 
     seq.).
       Section 102. Amendments to the Navajo and Hopi Settlement 
     Act. This section sets forth amendments to the Navajo-Hopi 
     Land Settlement Act of 1974.
       Subsection (a) repeals six sections of the Act in their 
     entirety: Section 1 (25 U.S.C. Sec. 640d) relating to the 
     appointment and duties of the mediator; Section 2 (25 U.S.C. 
     Sec. 640d-1) relating to the appointment and duties of the 
     Navajo and Hopi negotiating teams; Section 3 (25 U.S.C. 
     Sec. 640-d-2) relating to the implementation of any 
     agreements reached by the tribal negotiating teams; Section 4 
     (25 U.S.C. Sec. 640d-3) relating to the procedures to be used 
     by the mediator and the Federal District Court in the event 
     that the tribal negotiating teams did not reach agreement; 
     Section 5 (25 U.S.C. Sec. 640d-4) relating to other 
     recommendations by the mediator to the Federal District 
     Court; Section 30 (25 U.S.C. Sec. 640d-28) relating to the 
     provision of life estates to Navajos residing on lands 
     partitioned to the Hopi Tribe.
       Subsection (b) redesignates section 6 (25 U.S.C. Sec. 640d-
     5) as section 1 and amends the provisions of this section 
     relating to the partition of the former Joint Use Area of the 
     1882 Executive Order reservation.
       Paragraph (2) amends section 7 by renaming it ``Joint 
     Ownership of Minerals'' and redesignates it as section 2.
       Paragraph (3) redesignates section 8 (25 U.S.C. Sec. 640d-
     7) as section 3 and amends the section by repealing 
     subparagraph (f) which contained special provisions related 
     to the payment of legal fees for the San Juan Southern Paiute 
     Tribe prior to the time of its Federal recognition.
       Paragraph (4) redesignates section 9 (25 U.S.C. Sec. 640d-
     8) as section 4 and retitles it ``Paiute Indian Allotments''.
       Paragraph (5) redesignates section 10 (25 U.S.C. Sec. 640d-
     9) as section 5 and by amending it to strike references to 
     Navajo life estates.
       Paragraph (6) redesignates section 11 (25 U.S.C. Sec. 640d-
     10) as section 6 and amending it to provide for the 
     termination of the Commissioner's authority to select lands 
     for the Navajo Nation on September 30, 2000. This section of 
     the Act is further amended to authorize the Commissioner to 
     make homesites available to extended family members of those 
     Navajos who are certified eligible for relocation benefits in 
     order to facilitate the relocation program.
       Paragraph (7) redesignates section 12 (25 U.S.C. Sec. 640d-
     11) as section 7. This section of the Act is amended to 
     provide for: the termination of the Office of Navajo and Hopi 
     Indian Relocation on September 30, 2001; the transfer of any 
     remaining duties or functions, resources, funds, property and 
     staff of the Office to the Secretary of the Department of the 
     Interior in accordance with Title III of this Act; the 
     establishment of an Office of Relocation in the Office of the 
     Secretary which shall remain in existence until the Secretary 
     determines that its functions have been fully discharged.
       Paragraph (8) retitles section 13 (25 U.S.C. Sec. 640d-12) 
     as ``Report Concerning Relocation of Households and Members 
     of Each Tribe.''
       Paragraph (9) redesignates section 14 (25 U.S.C. Sec. 640d-
     13) as section 8. This section of the Act is amended to 
     delete a reference in subsection (a) to the filing of the 
     relocation plan and the completion of the relocation program. 
     A new subsection (d) is added to prohibit the payment of any 
     benefits to any head of household who has not been certified 
     eligible by September 30, 2001.
       Paragraph (10) redesignates section 15 (25 U.S.C. 
     Sec. 640d-14) as section 9. This section of the Act is 
     amended by adding a new subsection (e) which requires the 
     Commissioner to notify the Secretary of any eligible 
     relocatees who have left the lands partitioned to the tribe 
     of which they are not members, but who have not received a 
     replacement home by September 30, 2001 and to transfer to the 
     Secretary the funds necessary to provide such homes. The 
     Secretary is authorized to hold such funds in trust for each 
     head of household until such time as the head of household 
     requests the construction of a replacement home. If the 
     Secretary still holds the funds in trust for a head of 
     household at the time of the death of the head of household, 
     then the funds shall be distributed to the heirs of the head 
     of household upon attaining 18 years of age and shall no 
     longer be held in trust.
       Paragraph (10) further amends the Act by adding a new 
     subsection (f) which directs the Commissioner to implement 
     the provisions of 25 C.F.R. Sec. 700.138 within 180 days 
     after the date of enactment of these amendments. Upon the 
     expiration of all time periods in 25 C.F.R. Sec. 700.138, 
     the Commissioner shall provide the notices to the 
     Secretary and the United States Attorney for the District 
     of Arizona which are required by 25 C.F.R. Sec. 700.139. 
     At any time prior to July 1, 1999, the Commissioner is 
     authorized to construct a replacement home within 90 days 
     of the receipt of a notice from the Secretary or the 
     United States Attorney for the District of Arizona that 
     the removal of a relocatee from the lands partitioned to 
     the Hopi Tribe is imminent.
       Finally, paragraph (10) provides that the Act is also 
     amended by striking the existing subsection (g) and inserting 
     in lieu thereof a new subsection (i) which authorizes the 
     Commissioner to establish an expedited procedure for reaching 
     final determinations on any appeals from denials of 
     eligibility. The Commissioner must provide a final notice, by 
     mail and/or publication, to anyone who may have a right to an 
     eligibility determination within 30 days from the enactment 
     of the amendments and all requests for such determinations 
     must be filed within 180 days from the date of such notice.
       A new subsection (j) is added to this section of the Act to 
     authorize the Commissioner to contract for services and 
     employ personnel in order to provide for eligibility 
     determinations and appeals. Upon request, the Director of the 
     Office of Hearings and Appeals of the Department of the 
     Interior shall provide a qualified hearing officer to the 
     Commissioner to assist in hearings to review eligibility 
     determinations.
       A new subsection (k) is added to this section of the Act to 
     provide for a final and expedited appeal of any final 
     eligibility determinations by the Office to the Circuit Court 
     of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. All such appeals shall be 
     filed within 30 days of the final action by the Office and 
     the Court shall complete its review within 60 days after 
     receipt of the certified record from the Office. All such 
     appeals shall be reviewed on the basis of the certified 
     record and any denial of eligibility which is supported by 
     substantial evidence shall be affirmed.
       Paragraph (11) redesignates section 16 (25 U.S.C. 
     Sec. 640d-15) as section 10 and retitles it ``Payment of Fair 
     Rental Value for Use of Lands''.
       Paragraph (12) redesignates section 17 (25 U.S.C. 
     Sec. 640d-16) as section 11 and retitles it ``Statutory 
     Construction''.
       Paragraph (13) redesignates section 18 (25 U.S.C. 
     Sec. 640d-17) as section 12 and retitles it ``Actions for 
     Accounting, Fair Value of Grazing, and Claims for Damages to 
     Land''.
       Paragraph (14) redesignates section 19 (25 U.S.C. 
     Sec. 640d-18) as section 14 and retitles it ``Reduction in 
     Livestock with Joint Use''.
       Paragraph (15) redesignates section 20 (25 U.S.C. 
     Sec. 640d-19) as section 15 and retitles it ``Perpetual Use 
     of Cliff Springs for Religious Ceremonial Uses; Piping of 
     Water for Use by Residents''.
       Paragraph (16) redesignates section 21 (25 U.S.C. 
     Sec. 640d-20) as section 16 and retitles it ``Use and Right 
     of Access to Religious Shrines on Reservation of Other 
     Tribe''.
       Paragraph (17) redesignates section 22 (25 U.S.C. 
     Sec. 640d-21) as section 17 and retitles it ``Exclusion of 
     Payments from Certain Federal Determination of Income''.
       Paragraph (18) redesignates section 23 (25 U.S.C. 
     Sec. 640d-22) as section 18 and retitles it ``Authorization 
     for Exchange of Reservation Lands''.
       Paragraph (19) redesignates section 24 (25 U.S.C. 
     Sec. 640d-23) as section 19 and retitles it ``Severability of 
     Provisions''.
       Paragraph (20) redesignates section 25 (25 U.S.C. 
     Sec. 640d-24) as section 20 and amends this section in 
     subsection (a) by providing authorizations for appropriations 
     of such sums as may be necessary for fiscal years 1998 
     through 2002. The authority for appropriations for the 
     mediator, life estates and special discretionary funds for 
     the Commissioner is repealed.
       Paragraph (21) repeals section 26 (88 Stat. 1723).
       Paragraph (22) redesignates section 27 (25 U.S.C. 
     Sec. 640d-25) as section 21 and amends it by repealing 
     subsections (a) and (b) and retitling it ``Funding and 
     Construction of Hopi High School and Medical Center.''
       Paragraph (23) redesignates section 28 (25 U.S.C. 
     Sec. 640d-26) as section 22 and adding a new subsection (c) 
     to require all construction activities to be undertaken in 
     compliance with 16 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 469a-1 through 469c and 
     declaring that such compliance shall also be deemed to be 
     compliance with P.L. 89-665, as amended, and P.L. 96-95, as 
     amended.
       Paragraph (24) redesignates section 29 (25 U.S.C. 
     Sec. 640d-27) as section 23 and retitles it ``Attorney Fees, 
     Costs and Expenses for Litigation or Court Action''.
       Paragraph (25) redesignates section 31 (25 U.S.C. 
     Sec. 640d-29) as section 24 and retitles it ``Lobbying''.
       Paragraph (26) redesignates section 32 (25 U.S.C. 
     Sec. 640d-30) as section 25 and retitles it ``Navajo 
     Rehabilitation Trust Fund''.
       Paragraph (27) redesignates section 32 (25 U.S.C. 
     Sec. 640d-31) as section 26 and retitles it

[[Page S11185]]

     ``Availability of Funds for Relocation Assistance Regardless 
     of Place of Residence''.


 Title II. Personnel of the Office of Navajo and Hopi Indian Relocation

       This Title contains six amendments to Title 5 of the United 
     States Code, as follows:
       Section 201. Retention Preference. This section amends 
     paragraph (b) of section 3501 to exclude employees of the 
     Office of Navajo and Hopi Indian Relocation from reduction-
     in-force regulations.
       Section 202. Separation Pay. This section amends section 
     5597 to provide a new paragraph (a)(3) and new subsections 
     (h) and (i) to include employees of the Office of Navajo and 
     Hopi Indian Relocation in the provisions for voluntary 
     separation incentive payments.
       Section 203. Immediate Retirement. This section amends 
     section 8336 to include employees of the Office of Navajo and 
     Hopi Indian Relocation in paragraph (1) to make them eligible 
     for early or optional retirement programs.
       Section 204. Computation of Annuity. This section amends 
     subsection (d) of section 8336 to modify the retirement 
     computations for those employees of the Office of Navajo and 
     Hopi Indian Relocation who can retire under early or optional 
     retirement regulations.
       Section 205. Immediate Retirement. This section amends 
     section 8412 by adding a new subsection (g) to include 
     employees of the Office of Navajo and Hopi Indian Relocation 
     in the provisions for annuities.
       Section 206. Computation of Basic Annuity. This section 
     amends section 8415 by adding a new subsection (g) to modify 
     the annuity computations for those employees of the Office of 
     Navajo and Hopi Indian Relocation who are eligible for 
     annuities.


        Title III--Transfer of Functions and Savings Provisions

       Section 301. Definitions. This section sets out the 
     definitions used in this title.
       Section 302. Transfer of Functions. This section provides 
     for the transfer of all of the functions of the Office of 
     Navajo and Hopi Relocation that have not been fully 
     discharged to the Department of the Interior.
       Section 303. Transfer and Allocations of Appropriations. 
     This section provides that the assets, liabilities, 
     contracts, property, records and unexpended balances of 
     appropriations, allocations and other funds related to the 
     functions transferred under this title, shall be transferred 
     to the Department of the Interior.
       Section 304. Savings Provisions. This section provides that 
     all orders, determinations, rulings, regulations, permits, 
     agreements, grants, contracts, licenses, privileges and other 
     administrative actions shall have continuing legal effect 
     until modified, superseded, set aside or revoked in 
     accordance with or by operation of law. It also provides that 
     proceedings, including notices of proposed rulemaking, and 
     lawsuits commenced before the effective date of this title 
     shall not be affected by the transfer.
       Section 305. Separability. This section provides that if a 
     provision of this title is held invalid, the remainder of the 
     title shall remain unaffected.
       Section 306. References. This section provides that any 
     reference to the Commissioner of the Office of Navajo and 
     Hopi Relocation and the Office of Relocation shall be deemed 
     to refer to the Secretary of the Interior and the Office of 
     Relocation of the Department of Interior respectively.
       Section 307. Effective Date. This section provides that 
     this title shall take effect on September 30, 2001.
                                 ______
                                 
      Mr. Mr. FORD:
  S. 2112. A bill to revise the boundary of the Abraham Lincoln 
Birthplace National Historic Site in Larue County, KY, and for other 
purposes; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.


the abraham lincoln birthplace national historic site boundary revision 
                              act of 1996

  Mr. FORD. 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. 2112

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

     SECTION 1. REVISION OF BOUNDARY OF ABRAHAM LINCOLN BIRTHPLACE 
                   NATIONAL HISTORIC SITE.

       (a) In General.--On acquisition of the land known as Knob 
     Creek Farm pursuant to subsection (b), the boundary of the 
     Abraham Lincoln Birthplace National Historic Site, 
     established by the Act of July 17, 1916 (39 Stat. 385, 
     chapter 247; 16 U.S.C. 211 et seq.), is revised to include 
     the land.
       (b) Acquisition of Knob Creek Farm.--The Secretary of the 
     Interior may acquire, by donation only, the approximately 228 
     acres of land known as Knob Creek Farm in Larue County, 
     Kentucky.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. KERRY:
  S. 2113. A bill to increase funding for child care under the 
temporary assistance for needy families program; to the Committee on 
Finance.


            the working families' child care assistance act

 Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, today I am introducing the ``Working 
Families' Child Care Assistance Act'' to help the many working families 
who face great struggles to find affordable, good-quality child care.
  Mr. President, we no longer live in an era when one parent generally 
stays at home full time to take care of the children. Today, 60 percent 
of women with children younger than six are in the labor force. The 
result is that approximately 7 million children of working parents are 
cared for each month by someone other than a parent. And most of these 
children spend 30 hours or more each week in child care, according to 
the National Research Council.
  New research also confirms that our current social reality has placed 
enormous strains on working families' budgets because many families 
must pay for child care. According to a new study of 100 child care 
centers entitled ``Cost, Quality, and Child Outcomes in Child Care 
Centers,'' families spend an average of $4,940 per year to provide 
services for each enrolled child. Annual child care costs of this size 
represent a whopping 28 percent of $17,481, which is the yearly income 
of an average family in the bottom two-fifths of the income scale.
  But even for families who can afford the cost of child care, in some 
communities child care continues to be hard to obtain at any cost. Mr. 
President, in 1994, 36 States reported State child care assistance 
waiting lists, according to the children's defense fund. Eight States 
had at least 10,000 children waiting for assistance. Georgia's list was 
the longest with 41,000, while in Texas the list had 36,000 names and a 
wait of about 2 years. In Massachusetts, the statewide waiting list 
contains the names of 4,000 working families. Additionally, a 1995 U.S. 
General Accounting Office [GAO] study found that shortages of child 
care for infants, sick children, children with special needs, and 
school-age children before and after school pose difficulties for many 
families.
  I believe the child care situation may worsen because of a provision 
which I did not support in the recently passed welfare reform bill 
which cuts the title XX social services block grant by 15 percent. Many 
States currently use this funding to pay for child care for working 
families; unfortunately, this cut will result in even more families 
needing child care assistance.
  Mr. President, it is time to provide help to working families to 
afford quality child care. My bill would double the funding through the 
child care development block grant, increasing child care funding by $1 
billion per year. This would result in more than 5,000 families in 
Massachusetts alone receiving child care help.
  Working parents face an extraordinary uphill battle in trying to make 
ends meet and cover the high cost of child care. Well over half the 
women in the work force are parents of preschool children, and they 
need access to affordable, quality child care they can trust. This bill 
provides real help to working families and hopefully will send a strong 
signal that their work and their efforts to provide reliable child care 
for their children is valued and supported.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. AKAKA:
  S. 2114. A bill to amend the Animal Welfare Act to ensure that all 
dogs and cats used by research facilities are obtained legally, and for 
other purposes; to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and 
Forestry.


               the pet safety and protection act of 1996

 Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Pet 
Safety and Protection Act of 1996, a bill to amend the Animal Welfare 
Act to ensure that all dogs and cats used by research facilities are 
obtained legally.
  Medical research is an invaluable weapon in the battle against 
disease. New drugs and surgical techniques offer promise in the fight 
against AIDS, cancer, Alzheimer's, heart disease, and a host of other 
life-threatening illnesses. Orthopedic surgeons are making tremendous 
progress in designing new and improved joint-replacement materials for 
patients. Emergency medical techniques, such as CPR, have saved 
thousands of lives since they were developed.
  What do these advancements in medicine have in common? Animal 
research helped make them possible. Animal research ensures that drugs 
and surgical techniques, which benefit millions of

[[Page S11186]]

people every day, are safe and effective. Animal research is of great 
importance to our future, but there is growing evidence that, in some 
instances, research is being carried out using family pets that have 
been fraudulently obtained from the owners who love them.
  The concern that has prompted me to introduce the Pet Safety and 
Protection Act of 1996 does not relate to whether animals should or 
should not be used in medical research. Rather, this bill provides a 
sensible solution to the growing problem of stray and stolen pets being 
sold to research facilities. It addresses problems caused by unethical 
Class B ``random source'' animal dealers. The Pet Safety and Protection 
Act of 1996 will safeguard family pets while allowing essential 
research to continue in an environment free from deception and abuse.
  According to the USDA's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service 
[APHIS], there are 4,325 licensed animal dealers in the United States. 
About 1,100 of these dealers are licensed by APHIS as Class B ``random 
source'' animal dealers. This means that these dealers do not breed the 
animals themselves, but obtain their dogs and cats from other sources.
  Unfortunately, there is significant evidence to conclude that many 
Class B ``random source'' dealers are profiteering through theft or by 
deceptively acquiring animals. For example, in 1995, 50 class B dealers 
supplied 24,000 of the 89,000 dogs used for research. APHIS 
investigations of these dealers found that up to 50 percent engaged in 
fraudulent record-keeping practices. In other words, up to 11,000 of 
the dogs sold to medical facilities in 1995 may have been obtained 
through pet theft, falsified records, and other unscrupulous 
techniques.
  The provisions of current law are impossible to enforce effectively. 
In response to evidence of repeated violations of Federal law by Class 
B ``random source'' dealers, I have introduced the Pet Safety and 
Protection Act of 1996. This legislation will ensure that dogs and cats 
used by research facilities are obtained from legitimate sources.
  The problem of pet theft should not be left unchecked. Dr. Robert 
Whitney, former director of the Office of Animal Care and Use at the 
National Institutes of Health recently declared that, ``The continued 
existence of these virtually unregulatable Class B dealers erodes the 
public confidence in our commitment to appropriate procurement, care, 
and use of animals in the important research to better the health of 
both humans and animals.'' it is in the interests of consumers, pet 
owners, and researchers alike, to see that animals used for research 
purposes are obtained legitimately and treated with respect.
  I urge all of my colleagues to join in supporting this 
legislation.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. MOYNIHAN:
  S. 2116. A bill to facilitate efficient investments and financing of 
infrastructure projects and new job creation through the establishment 
of a National Infrastructure Development Corporatoin, and for other 
purposes; to the Committee on Finance.


          THE NATIONAL INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 1996

  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce legislation 
today that I hope, at the very least, will draw attention to the 
interesting possibilities of how private capital might be joined with 
public funding of our Nation's infrastructure. The bill is designed to 
facilitate investment in, and the financing of, infrastructure 
projects--which generate good-paying jobs--through the creation of a 
self-sustaining entity, the National Infrastructure Development 
Corporation.
  In 1991, I sponsored the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency 
Act [ISTEA]. One provision called for the establishment of an 
Infrastructure Investment Commission. Public investments in 
infrastructure have been declining, and so the Commission was charged 
with looking at ways to encourage the investment of private capital. 
The Commission was chaired by Daniel V. Flanagan, Jr. Under his able 
direction, the Commission released a report early in 1993. I found it 
truly compelling, and I look forward to revisiting the Commission's 
recommendations as we prepare for ISTEA II. In short, we would do well 
to listen to Mr. Flanagan, again, as we reauthorize our vitally 
important transportation infrastructure policies in the 105th Congress. 
There will be hearings, of course, and we look forward to testimony 
from the Commission as to its recommendations. I would like to point 
out that our colleague, Senator Hutchison from Texas, served as a 
member of the Commission; and I certainly look forward to working with 
her as the Environment and Public Works Committee takes up this most 
important matter next year.
  I would like to note that significant infrastructure investment 
activity by U.S. pension funds is occurring daily overseas, 
particularly in Asia and Latin America. A good part of this has been 
prompted by the evolution of the independent power generation spawned 
by the action of our Congress in creating such entities as part of the 
Energy Policy Act of 1992. As a result, we now have a project finance 
industry in existence in this country assisting those American funds in 
such infrastructure investment overseas. Also, current policies of the 
Overseas Private Investment Corporation, the Export Import Bank, and 
the World Bank, encourage this type of overseas investment through 
credit enhancements, political risk insurance, and so forth.
  The problem in the United States is that we have never provided such 
credit enhancement disciplines in our own infrastructure network. 
Clearly, there is significant political risk for the entrepreneur, the 
architect, the engineer, and even the community group that seeks to 
develop improvements and novel and innovative ways of paying for such 
services. The Commission's report suggests a ``growing of the pie'' 
approach to leverage some of our public funds by encouraging such 
private investment, and suggests that leverage ratios of approximately 
10 to 18 times the public funds involved are attainable.

  Recommendations of the Commission and Mr. Flanagan, who has testified 
several times before Congress on this subject, are incorporated in this 
legislation. For example, it suggests various insurance initiatives, 
particularly in the area of development risk, as well as other 
innovative procedures, including the reinsurance of long term revenue 
streams that would allow new economic activity to ensure either in the 
construction of new or rehabilitation of existing facilities.
  I commend my colleagues in the House of Representatives, particularly 
the Democratic leadership there, for introducing this measure in that 
body earlier this year. To me this is a bipartisan effort and we 
welcome the support of our Republican colleagues. This legislation, the 
National Infrastructure Development Act of 1996, is by no means the 
final word on this subject. But I do recommend it to all of my 
colleagues for their examination and hope it proves sufficient to 
stimulate their interest in this ingenious approach to such an exciting 
matter.

                          ____________________