Congressional Record, Volume 143 Issue 32 (Thursday, March 13, 1997)

[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 32 (Thursday, March 13, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2274-S2284]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

By Mr. ROTH (for himself, Mr. Moynihan, Mr. Lautenberg, Mr.
Wyden, Mr. Jeffords, Mr. Biden, Mr. Kerry, Mr. DeWine, Mr.
Leahy, and Mr. Specter):

S. 436. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide
for the establishment of an intercity passenger rail trust fund, and
for other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.

AMTRAK TRUST FUND LEGISLATION

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation that would
create a dedicated source of capital funding for Amtrak. Joining me as
cosponsors are Senators Moynihan, Lautenberg, Wyden, Jeffords, Biden,
Kerry, DeWine, Leahy, and Specter.
Mr. President, all major modes of transportation have a dedicated
source of capital funding, except for intercity passenger rail.
My legislation would correct this inequity and create a secure and
reliable capital trust fund for Amtrak, no different than what other
major modes of transportation now have.
My legislation would transfer one-half cent of the 4.3 cent per
gallon motor fuels tax currently going to the general fund, to a new
intercity passenger rail trust fund.
This rail trust fund would total approximately $3.9 billion dollars
over 5 years to be used for capital improvement projects. After the
fifth year, the revenues from the half cent would revert back to the
general fund. My bill would create contract authority to allow Amtrak
to enter into contracts necessary for long-term capital projects. For
States that do not have Amtrak service, it would provide funding for
qualified transportation expenses.
This capital funding proposal is critical to Amtrak's future.
Amtrak needs capital funding to bring it's equipment, facilities, and
tracks into a state of good repair. Much of Amtrak's equipment and
infrastructure has exceeded its projected useful life. The costs of
maintaining this aging fleet and the need to modernize and overhaul
facilities through capital improvements to the system are serious
financial challenges for Amtrak. My proposal would help reverse these
problems and give Amtrak the resources necessary to meet its capital
investment needs.
Mr. President, Amtrak, and the National Commission on Intermodal
Transportation have called for a secure source of capital funding for
Amtrak. I believe that now is the time for this Congress to reverse our
current policy that favors building more highways at the expense of
alternative means of transportation such as intercity passenger rail.
Despite rail's proven safety, efficiency, and reliability in Europe,
Japan, and elsewhere, inter-city passenger rail remains severely
underfunded in the United States. In fact, over half of the Department
of Transportation's spending authority is devoted to highways and
another quarter to aviation; rail still ranks last with roughly 3
percent of total spending authority.
Last year we spent $20 billion for highways while capital investment
for Amtrak was less than $450 million.
In relative terms, between fiscal year 1980 and fiscal year 1994,
transportation outlays for highways increased 73 percent, aviation
increased 170 percent, and transportation outlays for rail went down by
62 percent. In terms of growth, between 1982 and 1992 highway spending
grew by 5 percent, aviation by 10 percent, while rail decreased by 9
percent.
A problem that is going to increase is the congestion on our roads.
Between 1983 and 1990, Vehicle Miles Traveled increased nationwide by
41 percent. If current trends continue, delays due to congestion will
increase by more than 400 percent on our highways and by more than 1000
percent on urban roads. Highway congestion costs the United States $100
billion annually, and this figure does not include the economic and
societal costs of increased pollution and wasted energy resources.
Air travel is equally congested. Commercial airlines in the U.S.
presently

[[Page S2275]]

transport over 450 million passengers each year. A recent
transportation safety board study revealed that 21 of the 26 major
airports experienced serious delays and it is projected to get worse.
Again, the costs are enormous. A 1990 DOT study estimated the financial
cost of air congestion at $5 billion each year, and it expects this
number to reach $8 billion by 2000.
Congestion is a problem and it must be addressed. However, the
current path we are on directs more money for highways and airports.
For us in the Northeast, building more roads is simply not an option.
We do not have the land nor the financial resources to build more
highways or more airports. For these reasons, we must provide more than
just good roads but a good passenger rail system as well.
Adequately funded passenger rail can successfully address highway
gridlock and ease airport congestion. Passenger rail ridership between
New York and Washington is equal to 7,500 fully booked 757's or 10,000
DC-9's. Between New York and Washington, Amtrak has over 40 percent of
the air-rail market.
Improved Northeast rail service will also have the same positive
impact on road congestion--5.9 billion passenger miles were taken on
Amtrak in 1994. These are trips that were not taken on crowded highways
and airways. Improved rail service in the Northeast is projected to
eliminate over 300,000 auto trips each year from highways as well as
reduce auto congestion around the airports.
Improved rail service will also have a positive affect on rural
areas. Twenty-two of Amtrak's 55 million passengers depend on Amtrak
for travel between urban centers and rural locations which have no
alternative modes of transportation.
Mr. President, now is the time to invest in our rail system.
Opponents of my legislation have said that we should not use revenues
from our motor fuels tax to pay for Amtrak. I disagree. States are
currently using revenues collected from our motor fuels tax for many
non-highway uses. For example, Virginia uses its motor fuels tax
receipts on mass transit and ports; New Hampshire uses its motor fuels
receipts to bolster their Fish and Game Department; Wyoming uses its
portion of the motor fuels tax for snowmobile trails and boating
facilities; Florida and Arkansas use the motor fuels tax for
environmental protection. Like these States have already done, I
believe Congress should spend the revenues raised by the motor fuels
tax on those programs it feels best serve our transportation needs. I
think passenger rail should be one of those programs.

Another argument I often hear is that we should stop subsidizing
Amtrak. Amtrak needs to be self-sufficient.
I would like to see that happen, but to date, I am not aware of any
transportation system that supports itself without Federal assistance.
Further, I am not aware of any transportation system that supports
itself through user fees. According to the Department of
Transportation, in fiscal year 1994 nearly $6 billion more was spent on
highways than was collected in user fees.
In fiscal year 1995 nearly $8 billion more was spent on highways than
was collected in user fees. Transit which is exempt from the motor
fuels tax, received $3 billion in revenues in motor fuels revenues last
year. I repeat, no mode is self-financed.
In closing, our national passenger rail system is important.
My legislation would provide capital funding to help improve and
maintain the corporation's infrastructure. Amtrak will not be able to
make it to zero operating subsidies by the year 2002 without it. If we
are to adequately fund our passenger rail system like we fund our
highways and other major modes of transportation, Amtrak will need this
trust fund.
______

By Mr. DOMENICI (for himself, Mr. Inouye, Mr. Campbell, Mr.
Johnson, Mr. Murkowski, Mr. Stevens, and Mr. Bingaman):
S. 437. A bill to improve Indian reservation roads and related
transportation services, and for other purposes; to the Committee on
Indian Affairs.

THE AMERICAN INDIAN TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 1997

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise to introduce a bill on behalf of
myself, Senator Inouye, Senator Campbell, Senator Johnson, Senator
Murkowski, Senator Stevens, and Senator Bingaman.
Our bill, the American Indian Transportation Improvement Act of 1997,
says that the U.S. Congress desires to treat the Indian people of the
United States fairly when we pass a new ISTEA; that is, a new highway
and transportation and transit bill. As everybody who knows anything
about our Indian reservations and Indian pueblos knows, the Indian
people buy gasoline just like average Americans. They have cars and
pickup trucks. But they have a road system that is maintained for the
most part by the Bureau of Indian Affairs. Now, if there is not a
dedicated source of revenue, then obviously you have to take money out
of the Bureau of Indian Affairs general funding to build roads.
For a number of years we have decided--and I am pleased that I took
the leadership--to set aside some significant portion of money out of
the highway trust fund that should go to Indian roads.
Today, I am introducing a bill that says to our 557 Indian tribes and
the Alaskan Native villages, which are served by about 50,000 miles of
road--about 42 percent of these roads are Bureau of Indian Affairs
roads, as I indicated--we are going to try to begin a program that will
not only build some more roads but will maintain them and will give the
Indian people their share of each category of ISTEA money for their
road needs, be it construction of bridges, transit programs, highway
safety, scenic byways, or the like.
Mr. President, our Nation's 557 Indian tribes and Alaska Native
villages are served by over 50,000 miles of roads. About 42 percent of
these roads are Bureau of Indian Affairs [BIA] system roads. Beginning
in the 1982 Surface Transportation Assistance Act, these BIA system
roads were included in the national highway trust fund for the first
time in history. The gasoline tax, paid by every Indian who buys
gasoline, was invested on Indian reservations through the Indian
Reservation Roads [IRR] Program. Indian tribes were included in
subsequent major highway legislation, most recently in the Intermodal
Surface Transportation Efficiency Act [ISTEA], where annual funding has
been $191 million for the past 5 years. Prior to ISTEA, annual IRR
funding was $80 million per year.
Our best estimates indicate that at least $300 million is needed
annually to begin to bring the IRR system up to par with the rest of
American roads and highways. Today, I am proud to be joined by Senators
Inouye, Campbell, and Johnson in introducing the American Indian
Transportation Improvement Act of 1997. Our legislation increases the
Indian Reservation Roads Program from $191 million per year to $250
million in fiscal year 1998; $275 million in fiscal year 1999; and $300
million each year for fiscal years 2000 through 2002. These funds are
primarily used for the design and construction of the BIA road system
in Indian country. It is significant to most tribes that our bill also
includes road maintenance as an eligible activity.
In addition to increasing the planning, design, construction, and
maintenance money in our bill, we make other significant changes in the
IRR Program and related ISTEA Programs to improve the transportation
system on our Nation's Indian reservations. These changes will improve
the bridge construction program; provide a set-aside for transit
systems; allow DOT certification to directly operate DOT programs;
provide a set-aside for highway enhancements like lighting and transfer
points to buses; create a competitive grant process for scenic byways;
exclude State roads on tribal lands from the apportionment adjustment
provisions of ISTEA; and increase funding for Indian Technical Centers
from $200,000 each to one million dollars each for the six existing
centers.
In the ISTEA Bridge Program, which now requires each State to set
aside 1 percent of its ISTEA Bridge Program funds for Indian tribes,
our bill would consolidate the 50 separate State set-asides into one
national pool. This national set-aside is then distributed to all
tribes using to the BIA National Bridge Inventory Standards Program.
This BIA Bridge Program rates each Indian bridge and gives it a
national

[[Page S2276]]

ranking by deficiency. Funding priorities for all tribes would be set
through the BIA bridge ranking system.
To encourage and expand transit systems on Indian reservations, The
American Indian Transportation Improvement Act of 1997 [TAITIA] would
also establish a 1 percent set-aside from ISTEA--and its successor--
transit programs. While a national formula to allocate transit funds is
developed in consultation with tribes, the Federal Transit
Administration of the U.S. Department of Transportation [DOT] would
allocate the funds. Without the new set-aside, tribes would have to
continue to compete within each State for transit moneys. Our bill also
allows the conversion of up to 3 percent of IRR construction and design
funds for local transit purposes.
Under current law, tribes are not included as eligible entities for
direct certification by DOT. This situation is clearly detrimental to
tribes hoping to directly operate DOT highway programs other than those
operated by the BIA. While only a handful of tribes, like the Navajo
Nation, are potentially capable of meeting the DOT certification
standards, none are allowed to be certified under the terms of current
law. Without changing any of DOT's certification standards, this bill
would allow tribes that qualify to become certified by DOT to directly
operate Federal highway programs.
In a related certification issue, any tribe certified by DOT, as
States are now certified, would be allowed direct access to DOT highway
safety program funds. Other tribes--most tribes--would continue to fund
their highway safety programs through the BIA-DOT program.
Indian tribes need better access to the Highway Enhancements Program
for such improvements as lighting, bike trails, transfer points to
buses, and other enhancements. States are allowed to use up to 10
percent of their ISTEA funds for these types of enhancements. Our bill
creates a national Indian set-aside of 1 percent and would be
administered through the Federal Highway Administration competitive
grant process. Each tribe would be eligible to compete for these funds.

The Scenic Byways Program of ISTEA is essential to many tribes for
enhanced access to scenic areas for improved economic development
activities and other purposes. The Jicarilla Apache Tribe in New
Mexico, for example, has committed $3 million of its IRR funds--about 2
years of its total allocations--to complete its portion of the narrow
gauge scenic highway to Colorado. To improve critical roads like this
one without detracting from the more basic highway needs, our bill
would create a 1 percent set-aside for Indian scenic byways. The
Federal Highway Administration would allocate these funds through a
competitive process with priority consideration given to tribes with
the greatest potential for tourism and other economic development
activities for tribal members.
Many States commit ISTEA resources to public lands highways on Indian
reservations. Under current law, there are apportionment adjustment
hold harmless provisions between donor and donee States. If a donee
State like New Mexico decides to allocate funds for a public land
highway through an Indian reservation, that donee State's allocation
for the following year is reduced by the amount of money committed to
the public land highway through the Indian reservation--as well as
public land highways elsewhere in the State. To encourage States to
commit their ISTEA resources to these critical highways on Indian land,
like New Mexico highway 537 on the Jicarilla Apache Tribe's
reservation, our bill exempts State commitments to public lands
highways that are built on Indian land.
If The American Indian Transportation Improvement Act of 1997 were
law today, the State of New Mexico and similar donee States would not
be penalized for committing their resources to State roads like New
Mexico highway 537. Our bill does not address the more general issue of
the apportionment adjustment hold harmless provisions in ISTEA, we
simply exempt Indian land highways from those provisions.
Finally, The American Indian Transportation Improvement Act of 1997
increases the allocation of IRR funds to the Indian technical centers
from $200,000 per center for six centers to $1 million per center for
the same six centers. These centers provide training to Indian tribes
in all phases of highway planning, design, construction, maintenance,
procurement, and related bridge programs. Increasing the ability of
these centers to train Indian highway administrators, engineers, and
others involved in the IRR Program will significantly enhance the
ability of tribes to operate their own programs and improve their
transportation systems.

Mr. President, The American Indian Transportation Improvement Act of
1997, was developed in close consultation with Indian leaders. I would
like to give special recognition to Paulson Chaco and Sam Johns of the
Navajo Nation Transportation Department and Arnold Cassador of the
Jicarilla Apache Tribe and Mark Wright, their tribal roads engineer.
Their assistance in developing this bill has been essential and their
knowledge of these highway programs is impressive.
The American Indian Transportation Improvement Act of 1997 will be a
considerable improvement in the current way we do business for the BIA
roads system. This system serves over a million American Indians who
live on or near a reservation. In my home State of New Mexico, IRR
funds have made a large difference in the past decade. It is time to
accelerate this effort for the direct benefit of Indian people in
America.
Under the current relative needs formula for distributing the IRR
money, the Navajo Nation--in New Mexico and Arizona--is now scheduled
to receive about $55 million annually in IRR funds. New Mexico Pueblos
receive about $12 million and the Apache Tribes receive about $3
million in New Mexico. I know from personal observation, that these
funds are generally well spent and much needed throughout Indian
country. I believe they are critical funds for improving the poor
employment opportunities on most Indian reservations. I urge my
colleagues to study the importance of Indian roads for economic
development opportunities, and support our effort to greatly improve
the Indian Reservation Road Program as described in our bill. Our bill
will go a long way toward helping American Indians make the best use of
our Nation's highway programs to improve their daily lives.
We have not heretofore broadly applied this degree of Indian
participation in the trust fund we set up for highways and mass
transit. We have, in the past, principally put money in to build roads.
This year, the new bill that we introduced with the cosponsors that I
have spoken of, will increase the ISTEA Indian Reservation Road Program
to $250 million in 1998, to $275 million in 1999, then $300 million in
each of the years 2000, 2001 and 2002. The ISTEA Indian Reservation
[IRR] Roads program is currently funded at $191 million per year.
I want to have a list printed in the Record at this point to show the
current distribution of IRR funds by the BIA regional offices. Mr.
President, I ask unanimous consent that this be printed in the Record,
and I ask that a program activity allocation, showing how this IRR
money is currently allocated among the participating Federal agencies,
be printed in the Record at this point.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

INDIAN RESERVATION ROADS PROGRAM, DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION
[Dollars in millions]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RNF
(percent) Amount
------------------------------------------------------\1\---------------
Bureau of Indian Affairs, Central Office, $191
million:
Aberdeen..................................... 9.109 $15.2
Anadarko..................................... 2.987 5.0
Billings..................................... 6.052 10.1
Juneau....................................... 9.460 15.8
Minneapolis.................................. 5.045 8.4
Muskogee..................................... 7.705 12.9
Phoenix...................................... 9.327 15.6
Sacramento................................... 2.863 4.8
Albuquerque.................................. 7.026 11.8
Navajo....................................... 32.752 54.8
Portland..................................... 5.700 9.5
Eastern...................................... 1.974 3.3
------------------------
Total...................................... 100 \2\ 167.2
5
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ RNF=Relative Needs Formula (Allocation distribution).
\2\ Approximate amount available for design and construction after
deductions for different categories.

[[Page S2277]]

INDIAN RESERVATION ROADS [IRR] PROGRAM ALLOCATION PLAN
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Allocation
IRR Program Activity (percent) Million
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yearly Authorization......................... .......... $191.0
Less FHWA Administration......................... 3.00 5.7
Less BIA Administration.......................... 5.00 9.0
Less IRR Transportation Planning................. 2.00 3.8
Less 2 percent Tribal Transportation Planning *.. 2.00 3.8
Less Mapping..................................... .13 .25
Less LTAP........................................ .63 1.2
----------------------
Available for design and construction........ .......... 167.25
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* 23 U.S.C., Section 204(j)(b)-Up to 2% of funds made available for
Indian Reservation Roads for each fiscal year shall be allocated to
those Indian tribal governments applying for transportation planning
pursuant to the provisions of the Indian Self-Determination and
Education Assistance Act. The Indian tribal government, in cooperation
with the Secretary of the Interior, and, as may be appropriate, with a
State, local government, or metropolitan planning organization, shall
develop a transportation improvement program, that includes all Indian
reservation road projects proposed for funding. Projects shall be
selected by the Indian tribal government from the transportation
improvement program and shall be subject to the approval of the
Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary (of Transportation).

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I send the bill to the desk and ask it
be referred to the appropriate committee or committees.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill will be received and appropriately
referred.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I send a summary of the provisions, the
purpose and various provisions. This document will show that Indian
reservation bridges, for example, will be handled in a better way. Our
bill continues the basic design and construction of Indian roads. We
also add road maintenance as an eligible activity. We also provide
transit, scenic byways, highway enhancements, and other Indian set-
asides in our bill.
We include scenic byways, especially those that will help to develop
reservation economies. We think if there are byways that are scenic in
Indian country and can add to the reservation economy, they ought to
get their share of these highway trust funds. We allow DOT
certification for tribes who can qualify to directly operate DOT
programs without going through the Bureau of Indian Affairs. We
increase funding for Indian technical centers to enhance tribal
capabilities in the entire range of highway planning, design,
construction, and maintenance.
I ask that this bill summary be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the summary was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

The American Indian Transportation Improvement Act of 1997

Purpose

To increase the Indian Reservation Roads (IRR) Program of
the Intermodal Surface Transportation Improvement Act (ISTEA)
from $191,000,000 per year to $300,000,000 per year, and to
include Indian tribes in other relevant programs of ISTEA as
described below.

IRR Funding Amounts and Road Maintenance

IRR Program funding will be increased from $191 million in
fiscal year 1997 to $250 million in fiscal year 1998; $275
million in FY 1999; and $300 million in fiscal years 2000
through 2002. Road maintenance is made an eligible activity.

Indian Reservation Bridges

The current Indian reservation bridge program in ISTEA is
operated through the states. Each state has a set-aside of
one percent for Indian bridges. The American Indian
Transportation Improvement Act of 1997 (TAITIA) creates a
single national bridge program from amounts previously
allocated to the states. TAITIA allocates one percent to the
Secretary of Transportation for Indian bridges. Priorities
for distribution among tribes will be determined by the
Bureau of Indian Affairs' (BIA) National Bridge Inspection
Standards Program which determines deficiency levels for
Indian reservation bridges. Priority for TAITIA funds will be
given to bridges with the highest level of deficiency.

Indian Transit Set-Aside

In The American Indian Transportation Improvement Act of
1997, one percent of the ISTEA Mass Transit funds will be set
aside for transportation services to Indian tribes. The
Secretary of Transportation will develop an allocation
formula in consultation with tribes. Until the allocation
formula is formally developed, the Administrator of the
Federal Transit Administration of DOT will establish a
temporary allocation formula. the funds through a temporary
formula.

Scenic Byways Program

One percent of the funds for scenic byways are set-aside
for Indian tribes in a competitive grant process for the
planning, design, and development of Indian tribe scenic
byway programs. These scenic byways are important for tribal
economic development programs.

Certification Acceptance and Highway Safety

The American Indian Transportation Improvement Act of 1997
allows tribes with advanced transportation planning and
construction capabilities to be certified by DOT for direct
participation in DOT programs in a manner that is now allowed
for qualified states. Under current law, even a qualified
tribe is not allowed to be certified by DOT. This
certification acceptance provision will allow tribes that are
able to meet the national standards to be accepted by DOT.
TAITIA makes no changes in the certification standards.
Tribes that are able to achieve certification acceptance by
DOT will also be eligible for direct access to DOT highway
safety funds, Section 402 of ISTEA. These activities include
traffic safety, traffic law education, seatbelt law
enforcement, and free infant restraints.

Indian Technical Centers

The six Indian Technical Centers are now funded at a level
of $200,000 each. To improve tribal capacity to plan, design,
construct, maintain, and otherwise operate their own Indian
Reservation Roads Programs, TAITIA will increase each
center's amount to one million dollars, adding $4.8 million
for this vital function.

Transportation Enhancement Activities

ISTEA allows each state to use up to ten percent of its
allocation for transportation enhancements such as bike
trails, transfer points to buses, and lighting. Tribes are
allowed to compete for these funds in each state. TAITIA sets
aside one percent of the national transportation enhancement
pool to be used by the Secretary of Transportation to make
competitive grants to Indian tribes.

Public Lands Highways

TAITIA exempts states from the apportionment adjustment
provisions of ISTEA for Public Lands Highways built on Indian
reservations. Although these are not IRR funds, states are
currently discouraged from committing their resources to
Public Lands Highways in Indian Country due to the hold
harmless provisions of the apportionment adjustment
requirements. This exemption is intended to encourage states
to make commitments of state ISTEA resources to Public Lands
Highways on Indian reservations.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I would like to indicate the
distinguished former chairman of the Indian Affairs Committee, Senator
McCain, is very interested in the bill, and has indicated his support
when it reaches his committee.
Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, as Chairman of the Committee on
Indian Affairs, I am pleased to join Senator Domenici and Vice Chairman
Inouye in introducing the American Indian Transportation Improvement
Act of 1997, to amend the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency
Act. [ISTEA].
More than any other communities in the United States, Indian tribes
and Alaska Native villages suffer from a lack of adequate
infrastructure, and the necessary tools to build and maintain that
infrastructure. The United States has a special responsibility to
Indian tribal governments to help them achieve economic self-
sufficiency and political self-determination.
Economies today, whether State, tribal, or national, are increasingly
dependent on interstate and international commerce for their
livelihoods. Solid physical infrastructure is the foundation for those
economies.
Federal ISTEA funding to tribal governments has lagged behind
spending for States and local governments over the years, despite acute
and unmet needs in Indian country. Poor and unsafe roads and highways,
crumbling bridges, and nonexistent transit and transportation systems
all contribute to and result in tribal economies that are third world
in nature.
In addition to facilitating the delivery of basic social services
such as health, education, and nutrition to tribal members, solid
physical infrastructures act as an incentive to outside investors to
invest in tribal economies and to locate their businesses on tribal
lands.
The legislation I am cosponsoring today recognizes the special
Federal obligations, and will assist in the development and maintenance
of Indian transportation infrastructures and in the process pave the
way for higher levels of economic growth and job creation.
By increasing the funds available for the Indian reservation roads
program, this bill will provide immediate relief to those tribes that
have a backlog of road development and maintenance. By strengthening
the capacity of tribes through transportation enhancement activities,
the reservation bridges programs, and technical centers, this
legislation will ensure that Indian tribes are not precluded from
building stronger, more vibrant communities.
I urge my colleagues to join in enacting this legislation so critical
to tribal governments and economies across the Nation.

[[Page S2278]]

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I rise today to join my esteemed
colleague, Senator Pete V. Domenici of New Mexico, as a cosponsor of
legislation that he has authored which proposes an increase in the
funding for the Indian Reservation Roads Program and which would
improve the quality of Indian roads by directly including Indian tribes
in Federal transportation service programs.
Indian reservation roads are the lifeline of tribal economic and
social wellbeing, with about 50,000 miles of roads serving Indian
tribes and Alaska Native villages nationwide. Over 90 percent of these
roads are comprised of State and county roads and roads constructed and
maintained by the Bureau of Indian Affairs.
The Bureau of Indian Affairs' road system includes approximately
21,000 miles of roads which comprise about 42 percent of all roads
serving Indian country. The overwhelming majority of these Bureau of
Indian Affairs' roads--about 89 percent--are rated as being in poor
condition. This is an alarming statistic which this legislation is
designed to remedy.
Historically, funding for the construction and maintenance of Bureau
of Indian Affairs' roads has failed to keep pace with tribal
transportation needs and the result has been inferior Indian road
conditions. In the 1950's, BIA funding reached a high of $10 million
per fiscal year. By 1979, funding levels rose to $80 million per year.
Thereafter, BIA funding significantly declined.
The Surface Transportation Assistance Act of 1982 made the Indian
Reservation Roads Program eligible for support from the Highway Trust
Fund at $100 million for fiscal years 1984 to 1986. Between 1987 and
1991, funding from the Highway Trust Fund decreased to $80 million. In
1992, funding rose to $159 million and from 1993 to 1997, funding for
Indian roads increased to $191 million.
Although funding for Indian reservation road construction and
maintenance improved, the increases were nonetheless woefully
inadequate to meet tribal construction needs and to improve Indian
roads so that they might be able to meet national standards.
Furthermore, the current funding level of $191 million falls well short
of the estimated national tribal transportation need of $300 million
annually. Unless funding is increased, tribal roads will continue to
fall behind national standards to the economic and social detriment of
Indian tribes.
The American Indian Transportation Improvement Act of 1997 includes
necessary funding increases and significant changes to the Indian
Reservation Roads Program and to relevant Federal transportation
programs that will provide Indian tribes with greater opportunities to
meet their transportation needs. The improvements to Indian
transportation include the following:
One, funding for the Indian Reservation Roads Program would be
increased from $191 million annually to $250 million for fiscal year
1998, $275 million for fiscal year 1999, and $300 million for fiscal
years 2000 through 2002. Funds are primarily to be used for the design
and construction of roads in the BIA system.
Two, identified as high priority by tribes, the bill includes Indian
reservation road maintenance as an eligible activity for funding under
the Indian Reservation Roads Program. For BIA roads, Indian Reservation
Roads Program funds would be used to supplement the nominal funding
provided for road maintenance.
Three, to encourage donee States to fund public land highway projects
that serve Indian country, the bill exempts funds expended on a public
land highway constructed on an Indian reservation from the
apportionment adjustment hold harmless requirement which has in the
past had the effect of decreasing a State's surface transportation
program allocation by the amount a State expended on a public land
highway located on or running through an Indian reservation.

Four, this bill would establish a 1-percent set-aside of funds
allocated for the National Scenic Byway Program for the development of
an Indian scenic byway program to enhance access to scenic areas for
economic development and other purposes with funding to be distributed
through competitive grants.
Five, currently, tribes qualified to meet the requirements of direct
certification in order to operate their own Federal highway programs
are not eligible to do so. The bill overcomes this impediment by
authorizing the eligibility of Indian tribes for certification by the
State or tribal highway department to directly operate Federal highway
programs. For example, certified tribal governments will have direct
access to Federal highway safety funds and be able to manage the
highway safety programs.
Six, to promote tribal highway enhancement activities on Indian
roads, including bus transfer points and highway lighting, the bill
authorizes the transfer of 1 percent of the funds available to States
for transportation enhancement for competitive grants to Indian tribes.
Seven, in order to remedy the inefficient distribution of Indian
bridge funds, the bill would establish a national Indian bridge program
by consolidating the 1 percent of funds the States set aside for Indian
bridges. The Secretary of Transportation would distribute the funding
with priority given to bridges with the highest level of deficiency as
determined by the BIA National Bridge Inspection Standards. This
process efficiently allocates Indian bridge funds based on demonstrable
need.
Eight, to enhance the capability of Indian tribes to improve their
transportation systems and qualify for direct certification, $1 million
per fiscal year is authorized for each of six Indian technical centers
where tribal members receive training in areas including highway
planning, construction, and maintenance.
Nine, finally, to address the inability of Indian tribes to apply
directly for mass transportation funds and to meet increasing transit
needs, the bill provides authority for a 1-percent set-aside of mass
transportation funding for tribes with the allocation formula to be
established by the Secretary of Transportation following negotiations
with the tribes. In addition, the bill authorizes the conversion of up
to 3 percent of Indian reservation road funds to provide mass
transportation services to Indian tribes.
The American Indian Transportation Improvement Act of 1997 will
significantly improve surface transportation service on or near Indian
Reservations--improvements that will provide greater mobility for
tribal members, increase economic opportunities for the tribe,
including much-needed employment, and improve the overall quality of
life.
Mr. President, I want to recognize the outstanding leadership
demonstrated by Senator Pete Domenici in developing this important
legislation. I urge my colleagues to join the chairman of the Indian
Affairs Committee, the Honorable Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell,
Senator Pete Domenici, and me in acting favorably on this bill when it
comes before the Senate for consideration.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise to speak briefly about the
American Indian Transportation Improvement Act of 1997. This is an act
that is long overdue. It would ensure that the native American
communities in our country received the necessary funding to keep up
with their growing infrastructure needs, in this case, roads. This bill
would also ensure that we continue the Federal responsibility and
commitment to native Americans. In addition, Mr. President, the
American Indian Transportation Improvement Act would go a long way
toward providing native American communities the necessary means toward
economic and rural development to attract more business enterprises,
tourism and thereby, job creation.
As my distinguished colleague from New Mexico, Senator Domenici, has
aptly described today, Indian tribes and Alaskan communities must
maintain over 50,000 miles of roadways. Many of our Nation's bridges
and roadways are in great need of repair and upgrade, and tribal roads
and bridges are by no means an exception. This year as we work toward
ISTEA reauthorization, we must address many complicated issues. For
example, we must determine whether and to what extent distribution
formulas should be adjusted, whether to provide States added
flexibility in administering programs, and whether and to what extent
current environmental protections should be enhanced.

[[Page S2279]]

But as we toil to address these issues, we must realize that tribal
communities are facing and must address transportation issues just as
challenging as those we address on a State and national Level. Tribes
have the same needs and are just as interested as our Nation's urban
dwellers in improving roads and bridges. Tribal communities are
interested in establishing and maintaining mass transit systems
especially to assist their elderly, disabled, and youth get to and from
places for goods, services, health care, and after-school activities.
Mr. President, our investment in city, State, county, and tribal
transportation systems is an investment from which we will certainly
reap larger economic benefits and a much greater quality of life for
communities greatly in need of help.
______

By Mr. GRASSLEY:

S. 438. A bill to provide for implementation of prohibitions against
payment of Social Security benefits to prisoners, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on Finance.

THE NO CASH FOR CONVICTS ACT

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, today I am introducing
legislation to prohibit the payment of Social Security benefits to
convicted criminals who are incarcerated at the expense of hard-working
taxpayers.
The fate of the Social Security program has become a major topic of
debate in Washington and in the homes of the American people. In the
news, on Capitol Hill, and in the conversations of people all across
this country the question of how to address the pending financial
problems of Social Security has caused considerable anxiety. Congress
must face one of its stiffest challenges in the next couple of years to
enact legislation that will rescue the Social Security program for the
long term.
However, there are other flaws in the Social Security program that we
must not overlook. Because Social Security provides a lifelong
entitlement to cash and health care, it is often a target of fraud and
abuse. In the last couple of years, we have taken action to suspend
benefits paid to drug addicts and alcoholics and have increased funding
so the Social Security Administration can perform continuing disability
reviews which ensure that beneficiaries who may have recovered are no
longer receiving benefits.
Just last year, Congress enacted legislation to help SSA identify
prisoners who received benefits from the Supplemental Security Income
Program. Unfortunately, Congress was unable to provide similar help to
the Social Security Disability Insurance Program.
No one incarcerated for a crime should continue to collect Social
Security Disability Insurance. Criminals should not be allowed to
double dip and receive Federal money earmarked for the purchase of food
and clothing while they are part of a prison system which provides
these necessities already. The average SSDI payment in January of 1996
was $682. When an individual's shelter, food, and clothing needs are
already being paid for at government expense--at least $13,000 a year
in some States--paying out additional Federal funds is inexcusable.
Under current law, criminals are prohibited from collecting
disability insurance benefits if they are incarcerated and if that
incarceration arises from a conviction punishable by imprisonment of
more than one year. However, this narrow standard applies to a limited
number of criminals.
In order to fully confront this problem we must enact legislation
that accomplishes two goals. First, the law needs to be expanded to
close the existing loophole that allows criminals who are serving time
for misdemeanors or who receive a sentence of less than one year to
continue to collect benefits. Second, we must amend the law to
facilitate the flow of information between Federal, State, county and
local officials.
Right now, SSA is able to identify only a few of the individuals who
have been imprisoned to stop their benefits. The Social Security Act
already requires that any Federal, State, county or local agency send
the SSA the names and social security numbers of anyone who is confined
to a penal institution or correctional facility in writing.
What's needed is an incentive for State and local law enforcement
authorities to report to the SSA any inmate illegally collecting DI
benefits. In testimony to the House Ways and Means Oversight Committee
on March 4, 1996, the General Accounting Office testified that SSA
lacks timely and accurate information to stop benefit payments to
prisoners.
My bill provides State and local law enforcement agencies with a
financial incentive to report convicted criminals who are receiving
benefits while serving time in jail. The bill awards $400 for each
criminal reported to SSA within the first 30 days of confinement, and
$200 if the required information is reported to SSA after the 30 day
period ends. If the local authorities do not notify SSA within 90 days
after confinement begins, no award will be made.
Last year, as part of welfare reform we took steps to stop the
flagrant abuse of the Social Security system with respect to SSI
payments. Now we must finish the job by extending the law to include
the illegal collection of DI benefits.
By passing this legislation we will protect the financial soundness
of Social Security disability insurance and preserve the program for
the people it is meant to assist. The only way to protect the hard-
earned money of the American taxpayer is to insure that every penny is
being spent properly. This legislation is projected to save $35 million
over the next 7 years. In this day of hundreds of billions of dollars
in deficit this may not seem overwhelming, but it will ease the
administrative burden on SSA and most importantly, help restore
confidence in this vital program.
______

By Mr. MURKOWSKI (for himself, Mr. Akaka, Mr. Domenici, and Mr.
Kyl):
S. 439. A bill to provide for Alaska State jurisdiction over small
hydroelectric projects, to address voluntary licensing of hydroelectric
projects on fresh waters in the State of Hawaii, to provide an
exemption for portion of a hydroelectric project located in the State
of New Mexico, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Energy and
Natural Resources.

THE FEDERAL POWER ACT AMENDMENT ACT OF 1997

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, along with Senators Akaka,
Domenici, and Kyl, I am today introducing legislation to address
several issues associated with hydroelectric projects.
Section 1 gives the State of Alaska jurisdiction over small
hydroelectric projects 5 megawatts or smaller. Section 2 precludes the
voluntary licensing of hydroelectric projects on fresh waters in the
State of Hawaii. Section 3 provides an exemption from licensing for the
transmission line portion of a hydroelectric project located in the
State of New Mexico. Section 4 gives the FERC the authority to extend
for up to 10 years the deadline for commencement of construction of
hydroelectric projects.
Sections 1, 2, and 3 of this bill are virtually identical to sections
7, 8, and 9 of S. 737 as reported in the 104th Congress. By unanimous
vote, S. 737 was ordered reported by the Committee on Energy and
Natural Resources (Report No. 104-77). On September 27, 1996, the
Senate unanimously passed S. 737 (Senate Calendar No. 100).
Unfortunately, just a few days later, on October 6, the House of
Representatives went out of session not having acted on the Senate-
passed bill.
Sections 2 and 3 are of direct interest to Senators Akaka and
Domenici, and they will speak separately on their merits. I will
discuss sections 1 and 4, which are of direct interest to me.
Section 1 gives the State of Alaska jurisdiction over hydroelectric
projects 5 megawatts or smaller. It goes into effect when the Governor
of Alaska notifies the Secretary of Energy that the State has in place
a comprehensive process for regulating these facilities. The required
process is modeled on the one contained in the Federal Power Act for
the FERC. The authority granted to the State of Alaska would apply only
to projects that are located entirely within the State. Moreover, these
projects may not be located on an Indian reservation, a unit of the
National Park System, a component of the Wild and Scenic Rivers System,
or a segment of a river designated for study for potential addition to
such system. In the case of a project that is

[[Page S2280]]

already licensed by the FERC, the project sponsor may elect to make it
subject to State authority. Projects located on Federal lands are
subject to the approval of the Secretary of the Federal agency having
jurisdiction, and that Secretary may include such terms and conditions
as may be necessary for the protection of the public interest. The
provisions specifically provide that nothing preempts the application
of Federal environmental, natural, or cultural resources protection
laws according to their terms.
Section 4 amends section 13 of the Federal Power Act to give the FERC
authority to extend for up to 10 years the deadline for the
commencement of a hydroelectric project. Under existing law, a project
must commence construction within 2 years of the date of the issuance
of the license. That deadline can be extended by the FERC one time for
as much as 2 additional years, for a total of 4 years. If construction
has not commenced at the end of the statutory time period, the license
must be terminated by the FERC. Termination not only results in the
licensee losing its investment of time and many tens of thousands of
dollars to obtain the license, it also delays the construction of the
project by requiring a new licensee to start the licensing process all
over.
In the past, 4 years was adequate time to commence construction.
However, with growing uncertainty in the electric power market, it is
proving increasingly difficult for licensees to obtain the power
purchase contract necessary to secure financing so as to permit
commencement of construction. This has resulted in a number of
individual requests to Congress to legislatively extend on a case-by-
case basis the commencement of construction deadline. During the 104th
Congress, for example, 28 bills were introduced in the House and Senate
to extend the deadline for individual projects. Acting on these
individual requests proved to be very time consuming for the committee
and for the Congress. Had this provision been enacted, all of these
requests could have been accommodated administratively by the FERC.
Hence, I am introducing this bill to give the FERC the generic
authority to extend the deadline for the commencement of construction
for up to 10 years.
Mr. President, it is for these reasons that I am introducing this
legislation along with Senators Akaka, Domenici, and Kyl.
Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, the State of Hawaii, its delegation
in Congress, and conservation organizations throughout the State are
deeply concerned about Federal efforts to regulate hydroelectric power
projects on State waters. The question of who should have authority for
hydropower regulation--the State or the Federal Government--is very
contentious.
Those who care for Hawaii's rivers and streams recognize that
continued Federal intervention may have serious repercussions for our
fresh water resources and the ecosystems that depend upon them.
Whenever a hydroelectric power project is proposed, a number of
environmental considerations must be weighed before approval is
granted. Important issues must be evaluated, such as whether the
proposed dam or diversion will impair the stream's essential flow
characteristics, or what effect the hydropower project will have on the
physical nature of the stream bed or the chemical makeup of the water.
Will a dam or diversion diminish flow rates and reduce the scenic value
of one of Hawaii's waterfalls? Will it harm recreational opportunities?
These, and other questions must be answered.
The effect of a new dam or diversion on the State's disappearing
wetlands must be weighed. Wetlands provide vital sanctuary for
migratory birds, as well as habitat for endangered Hawaiian waterfowl.
They serve as reservoirs for storm water, filtering water-borne
pollutants before they reach the fragile coastal habitat, and provide a
recharge area for groundwater.
Historic resources may be at risk on streams when hydropower projects
are proposed. When Polynesians first settled our islands, Hawaiian
culture was linked to streams as much as it was linked to the sea. The
remnants of ancient Hawaiian settlements can be found along many State
rivers. Will the Federal Government give adequate attention to stream
resources that have unique natural or cultural significance when it
issues a hydroelectric license or permit?
Most important of all, hydropower development must be compatible with
preserving native aquatic resources. Hawaiian streams support many
species that depend on undisturbed habitat. Perhaps the most remarkable
of these species is the gobie, which can climb waterfalls and colonize
stream sections that are inaccessible to other fish. These are some of
the complex factors that must be considered during Federal hydropower
decisionmaking.
Federal agencies that have responsibility for fish, wildlife, and
natural resource protection have raised questions about the State of
Hawaii's commitment to protecting stream resources. They assert that
the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission is better equipped than the
State to protect environmental values.
Nothing could be further from truth. The State of Hawaii has
demonstrated its commitment to protect stream resources by instituting
a new water code, adopting instream flow standards, launching a
comprehensive Hawaii stream assessment, and organizing a stream
protection and management task force.

Meanwhile, FERC has shown little regard for stream protection and has
granted a preliminary permit to a hydropower developer on the Hanalei
River. This is the same river that the Fish and Wildlife Service is
fighting to preserve. The Hanalei National Wildlife Refuge is the
largest refuge on the island of Kauai, and is home to four endangered
water birds. Sixty percent of the State's taro crop is grown in the
wetlands adjacent to the river. When it comes to protecting
environmental values, FERC is off to a very poor start.
The experience with the proposed Hanalei hydropower project raises
serious questions about appropriateness of the Federal efforts to
regulate hydropower in Hawaii. Our rivers and streams bear no
resemblance to the wide, deep, long, and relatively flat rivers of the
continental United States. Hawaiian streams generally comprise groups
of short riffles, runs, falls, and deep pools. There are only five
streams with a length of 40 miles or more. Only two streams have a
median flow rate greater than 100 cubic feet per second. By comparison,
the mean discharge of the Mississippi River is nearly 40,000 times the
annual flow of Hawaii's longest river, the Kiikii River.
The Federal interest in protecting the vast interconnected river
systems of North America is misplaced in our isolated mid-Pacific
location. When it comes to regulating hydropower in Hawaii, FERC is a
fish out of water.
Chairman Murkowski has agreed to include the text of my legislation
to exempt Hawaii from the FERC hydropower jurisdiction in section 2 of
the hydropower legislation he introduced today. Section 2 would
terminate FERC's jurisdiction over hydropower projects on the fresh
water of the State of Hawaii. Section 2 is identical to the legislation
passed by the Senate during the 103d Congress as part of an omnibus
hydropower bill, but the House and Senate could not resolve their
differences on the bill. In the 104th Congress, the Senate Energy and
Natural Resources Committee again approved the bill. I will continue to
fight for the passage of this legislation during the 105th
Congress.
______

By Mr. FEINGOLD (for himself and Mr. Brownback):
S. 440. A bill to deauthorize the Animas-La Plata Federal reclamation
project and to direct the Secretary of the Interior to enter into
negotiations to satisfy, in a manner consistent with all Federal laws,
the water rights interests of the Ute Mountain Ute Indian Tribe and the
Southern Ute Indian Tribe; to the Committee on Energy and Natural
Resources.

ANIMAS-LA PLATA PROJECT LEGISLATION

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, today I am introducing
legislation to deauthorize the construction of the Animas-La Plata
water project in Colorado. I am very pleased to be joined in this
effort by the Senator from Kansas [Mr. Brownback]. This measure is
identical to a bipartisan effort in the other body introduced on
February 13, 1997, by my colleague from Wisconsin [Mr. Petri] and my
colleague from Oregon [Mr. DeFazio].

[[Page S2281]]

The Animas-La Plata project is a $744 million water development
project planned for southwest Colorado and northwest New Mexico that is
largely taxpayer funded. Designed to supply 191,230 feet of water, it
will consist of 2 major reservoirs, 7 pumping plants, and 200 miles of
canals and pipes. The project will pump water over 1,000 feet uphill,
consuming enough power to run a city of 60,000, to supply municipal,
industrial, and irrigation interests.
The legislation I am introducing today deauthorizes the Animas-La
Plata Federal reclamation project and directs the Secretary of the
Interior to work with the Southern Ute and Ute Mountain Ute Tribes to
find an alternative to satisfy their water rights needs. It is
supported by a broad coalition of taxpayer and environmental groups
that includes: Taxpayers for Common Sense, Americans for Tax Reform,
Citizens Against Government Waste, Citizens for a Sound Economy, and
National Taxpayers Union. This legislation was also profiled in the
1997 Green Scissors Report, and the Animas project has shown up on a
number of deficit reduction target lists, including one recently
proposed by the Chairman of the Budget Committee of the other body [Mr.
Kasich].
I believe that Federal legislation to terminate the Animas-La Plata
project is needed for four reasons. First, as a Senator who is
extremely concerned about the Federal deficit and debt, this project
has an extremely high price tag--a projected total cost of $744 million
in fiscal year 1998. That total projected cost estimate has increased
$30 million over the fiscal year 1997 estimate of $714 million. The
Federal share of that cost now exceeds half a billion dollars, $503
million to be exact, which is nearly 68 percent of the total cost. I
believe, especially in these times of tight budgets, that commencement
of significant Federal discretionary spending should be critically
evaluated.

By no measure or metric is this project cost effective, Mr.
President. A July 1995 economic analysis by the Bureau of Reclamation,
the only analysis that used economic procedures approved for Bureau
analyses and a current discount rate, reported that the project's
benefit-cost ratio is 0.36:1. In other words, Mr. President, the
project will return only 36 cents for every taxpayer dollar invested. I
am additionally concerned, Mr. President, because recent GAO reports
have highlighted that Federal water projects, once built, do not recoup
the costs of the projects from the users, who are supposed to be paying
the government back for its investment. Municipal and industrial users
are required under the Water Supply Act of 1958 to fully repay all the
construction costs and operation and maintenance costs attributable to
the supply of municipal and industrial water. Those repayment contracts
are to be in place before construction begins. Currently, the Bureau
has signed a repayment contract with two non-Indian project
beneficiaries. Those that have been signed do not cover the
construction costs of the full project, due to cost increases. It is
questionable if the project will ever comply with the law and obtain
full reimbursement of municipal and industrial costs from the project
beneficiaries.
Second, I am introducing this legislation because I believe that the
Congress should support the State of Colorado's ongoing dialog over
lower cost alternatives rather than proceed to initiate construction.
The Animas-La Plata project has been the focus of controversy and
litigation for many years. In response to legislative activities last
Congress, which I will describe in further detail, Colorado Gov. Roy
Romer and Lt. Gov. Gail Schoettler convened a discussion process in
October 1996 with the Bureau of Reclamation, the Southern Ute and Ute
Mountain Ute Tribes, interested water districts, irrigators, and
environmentalists in an attempt to resolve disputes among the parties.
To assist in the success of this process, the Bureau and the other
parties executed a legal ``stand still'' agreement establishing basic
ground rules for the dialog and identifying the activities that could
take place outside the process. While the eventual outcome is not
known, a recommendation for a different formulation of the project is
possible.
Thus far, the Department of the Interior, acting through the Bureau,
is committed to finding a solution acceptable to the parties in
general, and to the Colorado Ute Tribes specifically, due to the
Federal Government's tribal trust responsibility. My legislation will
codify that direction by specifically directing the Bureau to continue
with these negotiations, rather than proceed with Animas-La Plata.
Third, this legislation has been drafted to acknowledge the
importance of demonstrating support for ensuring that the Federal
Government's obligations to the Colorado Ute Tribes are fulfilled.
During debate over the fiscal year 1997 energy and water appropriations
bill, colleagues will remember that I offered an amendment to terminate
funding for Animas-La Plata. I believe that amendment was not
successful last year due to concerns by colleagues that the project is
necessary to fulfill Ute tribal water rights.
As I made clear to colleagues during the appropriations debate,
despite the contention that the project will address the Ute claims,
Animas-La Plata was not initiated as a way to address these claims.
This project was authorized in 1968 to supply irrigation water to
farmers growing forage crops in arid areas. Even back then, in the
heyday of big water projects, this one was riddled with so many
problems it couldn't get going. In 1988, nearly 20 years after it was
authorized, the settlement of the Ute Indian water rights claims became
an additional justification for pushing this project through.

Construction of this project has not yet begun because of a variety
of factors, including concerns raised about the adequacy of the April
1996 Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement, issues surrounding
cost-sharing and repayment agreements, and compliance problems with New
Mexico's water quality standards.
Both the Ute Mountain Ute and the Southern Ute tribal governments
formally support construction of Animas-La Plata. The water that the
Utes will be provided from the project, however, is only a fraction of
the project's total capacity. Of the 191,230 acre-feet of water the
project will supply, two-thirds will go to nontribal interests with
only 62,000 acre feet of the total to be supplied to both tribes. There
is dissent within the Southern Ute Tribe about the wisdom of this
project, and I am pleased that this legislation terminating the project
has received the support of the Southern Ute Grassroots Organization.
I am concerned that the Animas-La Plata as currently proposed cannot
meet the needs of the tribes because the initial construction phase of
the project will neither provide the delivery system nor the quantity
of water needed to fully honor the Federal Government's commitments. We
should not spend hundreds of million of dollars and still find the
tribal needs potentially unmet. Rather, I want to see that the Bureau
is engaged in actively solving these problems rather than half-
heartedly moving forward with construction and at the negotiating table
to examine alternatives. The Ute Tribes' water rights settlement says
that if the project isn't built and fully functional by the year 2000,
the tribes may void the settlement and go back into negotiations or
litigation. Last year, the Bureau indicated that it cannot complete the
project before 2003. It is not unreasonable to expect that the Utes may
seek to void their settlement, wherein the non-Indian irrigators will
get their expensive project and Congress in the year 2005 or so will
have to fund a new water rights settlement.
Finally, I believe that there needs to be a proactive legislative
solution put forward to address the Animas-La Plata project because the
political support for continued appropriations for this project is
eroding. Last year, during the 104th Congress, the other body voted 221
to 200 to stop the funding for the Animas-La Plata project as it is
currently designed. The chairman of the Budget Committee in the other
body has put Animas-La Plata on a target list of corporate welfare
cuts. I believe that during the appropriations cycle for fiscal year
1998, the other body will again vote to terminate funding for this
project.
Politically, we may go back and forth for a few years with the other
body terminating funding and this

[[Page S2282]]

body restoring the money. But eventually, both Houses of Congress will
resist and we will have wasted millions of dollars.
My bill seeks to put this project back on a positive track. It
directs the Bureau of Reclamation to address legitimate water needs and
explore all the alternatives to meeting those needs, and terminates
this project that we can no longer afford. I ask unanimous consent that
this measure be printed in the Record.
Three being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:

S. 440

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

SECTION 1. DEAUTHORIZATION OF ANIMAS-LA PLATA FEDERAL
RECLAMATION PROJECT.

(a) Deauthorization.--The Animas-La Plata Project, Colorado
and New Mexico (a participating project under the Act of
April 11, 1956 (commonly known as the ``Colorado River
Storage Project Act'') (70 Stat. 105, chapter 203; 43 U.S.C.
620 et seq.), and the Colorado River Basin Project Act (43
U.S.C. 1501 et seq.)) is not authorized after the date of
enactment of this Act.
(b) Conforming Amendment.--The first section of the Act of
April 11, 1956 (70 Stat. 105, chapter 203; 43 U.S.C. 620), is
amended in the proviso by striking ``Animas-La Plata,''.
(c) Negotiations.--The Secretary of the Interior shall
promptly seek to enter into negotiations with the Ute
Mountain Ute Indian Tribe and the Southern Ute Indian Tribe
to satisfy, in a manner consistent with all Federal laws, the
water rights interests of those tribes that were intended to
be satisfied with water supplied from the Animas-La Plata
Project.
______

By Mr. HARKIN (for himself and Mr. Specter):
S. 441. A bill to improve health care quality and reduce health care
costs by establishing a national fund for health research that would
significantly expand the Nation's investment in medical research; to
the Committee on Finance.

the national fund for health research act

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I rise today with Senator Specter to
introduce the National Fund for Health Research Act. This legislation
is similar to legislation I introduced with Senator Hatfield during the
last Congress which gained broad bipartisan support in both the House
and Senate.
Our proposal would establish a national fund for health research to
provide additional resources for health research over and above those
provided to the National Institutes of Health [NIH] in the annual
appropriations process. The fund would greatly enhance the quality of
health care by investing more in finding preventive measures, cures,
and cost-effective treatments for the major illnesses and conditions
that strike Americans.
To finance the fund, health plans would set aside approximately 1
percent of all health premiums and transfer the funds to the Department
of the Treasury. The Department of the Treasury would then transfer the
money to the national fund for health research.
Each year under our proposal amounts within the national fund for
health research would automatically be allocated to each of the NIH
Institutes and Centers. Each Institute and Center would receive the
same percentage as they received of the total NIH appropriation for
that fiscal year. The set aside should generate sufficient funds to
provide for a nearly 50-percent increase in funding for the NIH.
In 1994, I argued that any health care reform plan should include
additional funding for health research. Health care reform has been
taken off the front burner but the need to increase our Nation's
commitment to health research has not diminished.
While health care spending devours nearly $1 trillion annually our
medical research budget is dying of starvation. The United States
devotes less than 2 percent of its total health care budget to health
research. The Defense Department spends 15 percent of its budget on
research. Does this make sense? The cold war is over but the war
against disease and disability continues.
Increased investment in health research is key to reducing health
costs in the long run. If we can find the cure for a disease like
Alzheimer's the savings would be enormous. Today, federally supported
funding for research on Alzheimer's disease totals $300 million yet it
is estimated that nearly $100 billion is expended annually on caring
for people with Alzheimer's.
Gene therapy and treatments for cystic fibrosis and Parkinson's could
eliminate years of chronic care costs, while saving lives and improving
patients' quality of life.
Mr. President, Senator Specter and I do everything we can to increase
funding for NIH through the appropriations process. But, given the
current budget situation and freeze in discretionary spending what we
can do is limited. Without action, our investment in medical research
through the NIH is likely to continue to decline in real terms.
The NIH is not able to fund even 25 percent of competing research
projects or grant applications deemed worthy of funding. This is
compared to rates of 30 percent or more just a decade ago. Science and
cutting edge medical research is being put on hold. We may be giving up
possible cures for diabetes, Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, and countless
other diseases.
Our lack of investment in research may also be discouraging our young
people from pursuing careers in medical research. The number of people
under the age of 36 even applying for NIH grants dropped by 54 percent
between 1985 and 1993. This is due to a host of factors but I'm afraid
that the lower success rates among applicants is making biomedical
research less and less attractive to young people. If the perception is
that funding for research is impossible to obtain, young people that
may have chosen medical research 10 years ago will choose other career
paths.
Mr. President, I am pleased that over 130 groups representing
patients, hospitals, medical schools, researchers, and millions of
Americans have already endorsed our proposal.
Mr. President, health research is an investment in our future--it is
an investment in our children and grandchildren. It holds the promise
of cure or treatment for millions of Americans.
______

By Mr. WYDEN (for himself and Mr. Kerry):
S. 442. A bill to establish a national policy against State and local
government interference with interstate commerce on the Internet or
interactive computer services, and to exercise Congressional
jurisdiction over interstate commerce by establishing a moratorium on
the imposition of exactions that would interfere with the free flow of
commerce via the Internet, and for other purposes; to the Committee on
Commerce, Science, and Transportation.

the INTERNET TAX FREEDOM ACT

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, a few weeks ago, I met with a group
of small business folks at an Internet cafe in Portland. We talked
about the promise electronic commerce holds for businesses and
consumers. The Internet can give a small businessperson in Astoria, OR
access to the entire global marketplace. It can give consumers,
especially in rural areas, entry to a supernational shopping mall.
For governments, the Internet offers a different type of promise--the
chance to be a new cash cow. As Federal funds decrease, States and
local governments are looking to the Internet as a new source of
revenue. Some have already begun building tollbooths on the information
superhighway. For sales taxes alone, there are nearly 6,500 different
taxing authorities in this country. One businessman at the Internet
cafe told me he is wary of getting into electronic commerce because of
the prospect of as many as 30,000 different pairs of hands reaching
into his pockets to collect taxes. If current trends continue, State
and local levies will transform the Internet from a bright and exciting
new frontier for commerce into a dark jungle of foreboding taxes.
Under today's mishmash of State and local Internet taxes, everyone is
puzzled. Take a customer at his home computer who purchases an item
from a virtual catalogue. With the click of his mouse, the purchase is
logged, his account billed and payment made by wire transfer and the
order sent. The vendor is in another State, or even another country.
His bank is in a third State and the purchase is a gift being sent to a
relative in another State. Where did this transaction take place?

[[Page S2283]]

Where was there nexus for tax purposes--the vendor State? The
customer's State? The bank's location? Or the State where the gift is
being sent? Is the answer all of the above, some of the above, or none
of the above?
The enormity of the problem is underscored by the fact that the
hottest selling software today is software to help entrepreneurs and
companies figure out various State tax policies.
When a consumer in Corvallis, OR uses an Internet search engine in
California, is that search a taxable service? When a housewife in
Houston uses Virginia-based America Online to make a virtual purchase
from a furniture company in North Carolina, what gets taxed where? Is
an Internet service provider a public utility, as one State has ruled?
Even if a State has enacted an online tax law, collection and
enforcement are often haphazard. This system rewards ignorance and
punishes the boy scout businesses that play by the rules.
The purpose of the bill I am introducing today with Congressman Chris
Cox is to allow everyone to step back and take a deep breath. It says
let's suspend this crazy tax quilting bee so that everyone can come
together in a rational way to figure out what policy makes the most
sense.
The Internet Tax Freedom Act has three parts. First, it would impose
an indefinite moratorium on subnational taxes on electronic commerce.
Where States and local governments have already imposed taxes on
electronic commerce, their taxes would be grand fathered to the extent
that they are net income taxes, fairly apportioned business license
taxes or where the tax is collected in an identical way for mail or
telephone orders. This will assure uniformity and fairness, while
targeting inequitable technology taxes. Our intent is that the new tax
moratorium apply to all Internet and interactive computer services,
regardless of the technology--such as cable systems and wireless
networks--being used to deliver those services. It will give us a
functionally equivalent and technologically equitable tax policy. It
will assure equity and fairness among all business entities and across
technologies.

Second, the bill would call upon the administration to bring together
State and local governments, businesses and consumers, and any others
with a stake in the Internet and online commerce to develop policy
recommendations on taxation of the Internet and use of the Internet to
deliver products and services. The Executive would have 2 years in
which to prepare policy recommendations on taxation of the Internet.
Third, the bill directs the executive branch to seek an international
agreement making the Internet a duty-free zone. Just as we seek a
rational policy on electronic commerce taxation here in the United
States, our businesses cannot be expected to compete overseas if they
faced more than 160 different foreign tariff policies covering global
electronic commerce. Although about 75 percent of Web users live in
North America, most electronic commerce is between companies, rather
than companies and consumers. Forrester Research of Massachusetts
predicts business-to-business commerce will soon be worth $67 billion a
year.
Trying to find out exactly which States and local authorities are
imposing taxes on electronic commerce and what types of taxes they are
imposing is a daunting--if not outright impossible--task in itself. The
Vice President for a good-sized Internet service provider in California
said he would need a whole department to untangle the various Internet
tax laws around the country, ``It's in my nightmare pile,'' he
observed. If this has stumped some of the best accounting firms in the
country, how in the world can a small business that wants to sell over
the Internet figure out its various tax liabilities? The difference
between States in electronic commerce tax policy is mind-numbing.
Twenty States and the District of Columbia impose one or more taxes
on electronic commerce. New York levies taxes on gross receipts on the
``furnishing of information,'' but not on personal or individual
information. Ohio taxes electronic transmissions and real estate data
bases because they provide objective data but exempts news services
because they provide analysis. Texas taxes the transmission of
electronic information and software in whatever form, but does not tax
software sent out of State on a disk. Alabama's Revenue Department
ruled last fall that a utility tax applies to Internet service
providers, forcing them to pay a 4-percent public utilities tax.
Last year in Florida a small Internet service provider asked the
State's Department of Revenue whether he should add a sales tax to his
customers' monthly bills. He was certain he wouldn't have to since all
net surfers there already pay 10 percent or more in taxes for the
telephone service they use to link to the Internet. To his surprise,
the Revenue Department said his customers should have been paying a 7-
percent service tax under a decade-old telecommunications law. Then,
adding shock to surprise, the Department told him his company was
subject to an additional 2.5-percent tax on its gross annual receipts.
The uproar from users and providers led the Governor to suspend the
taxes until a panel could study the implications.
The legislation is constructed in such a way as to set up a dynamic
and productive tension. It gives those that seek revenue from
electronic commerce--the States and local governments--an incentive to
work with the administration in developing policy recommendations on
Internet taxation. Indeed, the National Conference of State
Legislatures wrote me on February 21 that they have been ``working with
a number of other State organizations as well as the impacted private
sector industries to find the common ground which will lead to the
coordination and uniformity of State tax structures which the draft
legislation desires.'' And an official with the Federal of Tax
Administrators observed last summer that ``States need to figure out
how to tax it [the Internet] and to make it a level playing field with
other services.'' I will also continue to work with the Multistate Tax
Commission to assure their efforts move forward.
But the question remains: Will the simple imperative for good public
policy outweigh the desire of cash-strapped States to tap a new source
of revenue? Without a moratorium, as proposed in this legislation, I
fear those State and local governments hungry for new sources of
revenue have little, if any, incentive to work for a fair and equitable
Internet tax policy.
I want to thank a number of groups that have helped us craft this
legislation, and which have indicated their support for this bill: the
American Electronics Association, the Software Publishers Association,
the Association of Online Professionals, the Committee on State
Taxation, the Direct Marketing Association, the Business Software
Alliance, the Information Technology Association of America, the U.S.
Telephone Association, the California State Board of Taxation, the
Massachusetts High Tech Council, CommerceNet, the Silicon Valley
Software Industry Coalition, IBM, AT&T, and other companies.
I view the legislation being introduced today as the beginning of a
process, not the end. It remains a work in progress and will hopefully
continue to be refined throughout the congressional hearing process.
There is a great deal to learn in these unchartered waters. All of
us--Congress, State and local governments, businesses and consumers--
must educate each other about how this new electronic medium works. We
must all work together to help it achieve its full potential as a
marketplace of ideas, products, and services.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and a section-by-
section analysis be printed in the Record.
Thee being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

S. 442

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ``Internet Tax Freedom Act''.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

The Congress finds the following:
(1) As a massive global network spanning not only State but
international borders, the Internet is inherently a matter of
interstate and foreign commerce within the jurisdiction of
the United States Congress under Article I, Section 8 of the
United States Constitution.

[[Page S2284]]

(2) Even within the United States, the Internet does not
respect State lines and operates independently of State
boundaries. Addresses on the Internet are designed to be
geographically indifferent. Internet transmissions are
insensitive to physical distance and can have multiple
geographical addresses.
(3) Because transmissions over the Internet are made
through packet-switching it is impossible to determine with
any degree of certainty the precise geographic route or
endpoints of specific Internet transmissions and infeasible
to separate intrastate from interstate, and domestic from
foreign, Internet transmissions.
(4) Inconsistent and inadministrable taxes imposed on
Internet activity by State and local governments threaten not
only to subject consumers, businesses, and other users
engaged in interstate and foreign commerce to multiply,
confusing, and burdensome taxation, but also to restrict the
growth and continued technological maturation of the Internet
itself, and to call into question the continued viability of
this dynamic medium.
(5) Because the tax laws and regulations of so many
jurisdictions were established before the Internet or
interactive computer services, their application to this new
medium in unintended and unpredictable ways threatens every
Internet user, access provider, vendor, and interactive
computer service provider.
(6) The electronic marketplace of services, products, and
ideas available through the Internet or interactive computer
services can be especially beneficial to senior citizens, the
physically challenged, citizens in rural areas, and small
businesses. It also offers a variety of uses and benefits for
educational institutions and charitable organizations.
(7) Consumers, businesses, and others engaging in
interstate and foreign commerce through the Internet or
interactive computer services could become subject to more
than 30,000 separate taxing jurisdictions in the United
States alone.
(8) The consistent and coherent national policy regarding
taxation of Internet activity, and the concomitant
uniformity, simplicity, and fairness that is needed to avoid
burdening this evolving form of interstate and foreign
commerce can best be achieved by the United States exercising
its authority under Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 of the
United States Constitution.

SEC. 3. MORATORIUM ON IMPOSITION OF TAXES ON INTERNET OR
INTERACTIVE COMPUTER SERVICES.

(a) Moratorium.--Except as otherwise provided in this
section, no State or political subdivision thereof may
impose, assess, or attempt to collect a tax directly or
indirectly on--
(1) the Internet or interactive computer services; or
(2) the use of the Internet or interactive computer
services.
(b) Preservation of State and Local Taxing Authority.--
Subsection (a)--
(1) does not apply to taxes imposed on or measured by net
income derived from the Internet or interactive computer
services;
(2) does not apply to fairly apportioned business license
taxes applied to businesses having a business location in the
taxing jurisdiction; and
(3) does not affect a State or political subdivision
thereof of authority to impose a sales or use tax on sales or
other transactions effected by the use of the Internet or
interactive computer services if--
(A) the tax is the same as the tax generally imposed and
collected by that State or political subdivision thereof on
interstate sales or transactions effected by mail order,
telephone, or other remote means within its taxing
jurisdiction; and
(B) the obligation to collect the tax from sales or other
transactions effected by the use of the Internet or
interactive computer services is imposed on the same person
or entity as in the case of sales or transactions effected by
mail order, telephone, or other remote means.

SEC. 4. ADMINISTRATION POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS TO CONGRESS.

(a) Consultative Group.--The Secretaries of the Treasury,
Commerce, and State, in consultation with appropriate
committees of the Congress, consumer and business groups,
States and political subdivisions thereof, and other
appropriate groups, shall--
(1) undertake an examination of United States and
international taxation of the Internet and interactive
computer services, as well as commerce conducted thereon; and
(2) jointly submit appropriate policy recommendations
concerning United States domestic and foreign policies toward
taxation of the Internet and interactive computer services,
if any, to the President within 18 months after the date of
enactment of this Act.
(b) President.--Not later than 2 years after the date of
enactment of this Act, the President shall transmit to the
appropriate committees of Congress policy recommendations on
the taxation of sales and other transactions affected on the
Internet or through interactive computer services.
(c) Recommendations To Be Consistent With
Telecommunications Act of 1996 Policy Statement.--The
Secretaries and the President shall take care to ensure that
any policy recommendations are fully consistent with the
policy set forth in paragraphs (1) and (2) of section 230(b)
of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 230(b)).

SEC. 5. DECLARATION THAT THE INTERNET BE FREE OF FOREIGN
TARIFFS, TRADE BARRIERS, AND OTHER
RESTRICTIONS.

It is the sense of the Congress that the President should
seek bilateral and multilateral agreements through the World
Trade Organization, the Organization for Economic Cooperation
Council, or other appropriate international fora to establish
that activity on the Internet and interactive computer
services is free from tariff and taxation.

SEC. 6. DEFINITIONS.

For purposes of this Act--
(1) Internet; interactive computer service.--The terms
``Internet'' and ``interactive computer service'' have the
meaning given such terms by paragraphs (1) and (2),
respectively, of section 230(e) of the Communications Act of
1934 (47 U.S.C. 230(e)).
(2) Tax.--The term ``tax'' includes any tax, license, or
fee that is imposed by any governmental entity, and includes
the imposition of the seller of an obligation to collect and
remit a tax imposed on the buyer.
____

The Internet Tax Freedom Act--Section-by-Section Analysis

Section 1: Short title: ``The Internet Tax Freedom Act''
Section 2: Findings. Sets forth a series of findings,
including that the Internet is inherently a matter of
interstate commerce; that the Internet operates independently
of State lines; that inconsistent and unadministrable taxes
imposed on Internet activity by State and local governments
subject consumers and businesses to multiple, confusing and
burdensome taxation and are creating compliance problems for
Internet access providers, vendors and interactive computer
service providers; that consumers, businesses and others
engaging in interstate commerce through the Internet or
interactive computer services could become subject to some
30,000 separate taxing jurisdictions in the United States;
and that uniformity, simplicity and fairness are needed
regarding taxation of Internet activity to avoid burdening
this evolving form of interstate commerce.
Section 3: Moratorium on Imposition of Taxes on Internet or
Interactive Computer Services--
Subsection (a), establishes a moratorium on direct and
indirect state or local taxes on the Internet or interactive
computer services or the use of those services.
Subsection (b), preserves state and local authority for
taxes for the following types of taxes:
(1) taxes on or measured by net income derived from these
services,
(2) fairly apportioned business license taxes, and
(3) sales and use taxes on interstate electronic
transactions that are consistent with taxes on mail order and
telephone transactions.
Section 4: Administration Policy Recommendations to
Congress.
Subsection (a), Establishes a consultative group of the
Secretaries of the Treasury, Commerce and State that will
work with State and local governments, consumer and business
groups and others to examine U.S. and international taxation
of Internet and interactive computer services and submit
policy recommendations to the President within 18 months of
enactment.
Subsection (b), directs the President to transmit to
Congress any policy recommendations within two years of
enactment.
Subsection (c), seeks to ensure that any policy
recommendations are consistent with the 1996
Telecommunications Act policy statement regarding promotion
of the Internet and interactive computer services.
Section 5: Declaration that the Internet Be Free of Foreign
Tariffs, Trade Barriers, and Other Restrictions
Sets forth the sense of the Congress that the President
should seek bilateral and multinational agreements through
various international trade organizations to keep the
Internet and interactive computer services free from tariffs
and taxation.
Section 6: Definitions
(1) Internet and interactive computer service terms are
defined as they are in the Communications Act of 1934, as
amended by the 1996 Telecommunications Act.
(2) Defines tax to include any tax, license or fee imposed
by any governmental entity and includes the imposition on the
seller of an obligation to collect and remit a tax imposed on
the buyer.

____________________