[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 64 (Thursday, May 15, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4588-S4606]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. BUMPERS (for himself, Ms. Landrieu, Mr. Cleland, Mr. 
        Kerry, and Mr. Daschle):
  S. 745. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to modify 
the partial exclusion from gross income of gain on certain small 
business stock, to provide a rollover of capital gains on certain small 
business investments, and for other purposes; to the Committee on 
Finance.


        THE SMALL BUSINESS CAPITAL GAINS ENHANCEMENT ACT OF 1997

  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Small 
Business Capital Gains Enhancement Act of 1997, which will make several 
important improvements to section 1202 of the Internal Revenue Code, a 
measure I authored in 1993 to provide an incentive for investment in 
entrepreneurial efforts. Section 1202 provides a 50 percent exclusion 
for capital gains from qualified small business stock held at least 5 
years.
  The purpose of section 1202 is clear. Because small businesses are 
inherently riskier than large businesses,

[[Page S4589]]

most investors are reluctant to invest in the smaller enterprises. 
This, obviously, tends to create a dearth of capital for entrepreneurs. 
But maintaining a healthy investment environment for small businesses 
is extremely important for the well-being of our economy. Most new jobs 
come from small businesses, not large ones. From 1991-95, businesses 
with fewer than 500 employees created 22 million new jobs, while 
businesses of greater than 500 employees cut 3 million jobs. And it was 
because of this dynamic small business impact on our economy that 
Congress passed section 1202 with great bipartisan support in both 
chambers: we wanted to create a capital formation incentive for small 
business.
  Now, for two reasons, it has become crucial that we make certain 
improvements to section 1202. First, section 1202 is not adequate. The 
small business incentive I originally proposed in 1993 was considerably 
more extensive than section 1202. After years of discussions among 
entrepreneurs and tax experts regarding what would be helpful and 
workable, we had determined that the incentive should, for example, 
include companies of up to $100 million in assets, allow corporate 
investors, and not be subject to the alternative minimum tax. But 
because of budget concerns during the Omnibus Reconciliation Act of 
1993, the proposal was scaled back to include only companies of $50 
million or less, allow no corporate investors, and subject 50 percent 
of the benefit to the alternative minimum tax. The bill my cosponsors 
and I are introducing today will expand section 1202 to provide the 
kind of incentive originally envisioned and more.
  The second reason that today's legislation is crucial is to preserve 
the incentive in the face of other impending capital gains cuts which 
would effectively nullify it. As we all know, it appears that we are 
headed toward an across-the-board capital gains cut following the 
recent budget agreement between the Clinton administration and 
Republican congressional leaders. Ironically, an across-the-board cut 
could obliterate the small business incentive if the latter is not 
adjusted accordingly.

  Here is how that would happen. Under the GOP capital gains proposal 
in S. 2, the top regular capital gains rate will be 19.8 percent, while 
the top rate for small business capital gains will remain at 14 
percent. In other words, an investor could buy stock in, say, 
Microsoft, hold that stock 1 year, sell the stock, and, if a gain were 
realized, pay a maximum tax of 19.8 percent. Alternatively, the 
investor could make that investment in, say, a new biotech firm, hold 
that stock 5 years, sell the stock, and, if a gain were realized, pay a 
maximum tax of 14 percent. The logical choice would be clear: the 
investor would choose the big business over the small business. After 
all, who would choose a risky 5-year small business investment over a 
1-year Microsoft investment for a tax differential of only 5.8 percent? 
Clearly, a major across-the-board tax cut without a corresponding 
increase in the exclusion for small business investments will 
obliterate section 1202's effectiveness. Small business will be left 
without a viable capital gains incentive.
  Not only would the situation described above nullify the small 
business incentive for the future, it would be unfair to those who have 
already made small business investments based on section 1202--those 
who accepted the risk of investing in a small business stock for the 
promise of preferential capital gains treatment. We would be saying, 
``Thanks for taking a risk with your small business investment, but 
we've decided to change the rules. We're gonna give you about the same 
tax rate we give other people for their less-risky Fortune 500 
investments.'' As a matter of fairness to those who have already 
invested in a small business based on section 1202, we must maintain a 
substantial difference between small business and big business capital 
gains taxes. This bill will make that adjustment by increasing the 
exclusion for small business capital gains from 50 percent to 75 
percent.
  Here is a list of all the improvements our legislation would make to 
section 1202. Increase the small business deduction from 50 percent to 
75 percent; increase the asset limit for ``qualified small businesses'' 
from $50 to $100 million; make the incentive available to corporate 
investors; exempt the incentive from alternative minimum tax 
calculations; change the working capital spend-down period (intended to 
prevent abuse through inactivity) from 2 years to 5 years to allow 
companies to raise adequate capital before beginning to spend it; 
increase the per-taxpayer benefit limit to $20 million or 10 times 
investment. Presently, the limit is $10 million or 10 times investment; 
and allow the tax-deferred rollover of capital gains from one qualified 
small business to another.

  Although we have not yet received a Joint Tax Committee revenue 
estimate on this measure, it would appear from previous estimates to 
cost under $500 million over 5 years and under $1 billion over 10 
years. Compared to the cost of an across-the-board capital gains tax 
cut and other major tax cuts being considered by this Congress, this is 
a pittance.
  Mr. President, section 1202 is the major, if not the only, capital 
formation incentive for small business in the entire Tax Code. It would 
be a tragedy and a slap in the face of America's entrepreneurs if we 
fail to maintain this measure in viable form. The bill we are 
introducing today will do that, and I urge my colleagues to support it.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in 
the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 745

       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 ``Small Business Capital Gains 
     Enhancement Act of 1997''.

     SEC. 2. MODIFICATIONS TO EXCLUSION OF GAIN ON CERTAIN SMALL 
                   BUSINESS STOCK.

       (a) Increased Exclusion.--
       (1) In general.--Subsection (a) of section 1202 of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to 50-percent 
     exclusion for gain from certain small business stock) is 
     amended--
       (A) by striking ``50 percent'' and inserting ``75 
     percent'', and
       (B) by striking ``50-percent'' in the heading and inserting 
     ``75-percent''.
       (2) Conforming amendments.--
       (A) The heading for section 1202 of such Code is amended by 
     striking ``50-percent'' and inserting ``75-percent''.
       (B) The table of sections for part I of subchapter P of 
     chapter 1 of such Code is amended by striking ``50-percent'' 
     in the item relating to section 1202 and inserting ``75-
     percent''.
       (b) Exclusion Available to Corporations.--
       (1) In general.--Subsection (a) of section 1202 of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended by subsection (a), 
     is amended by striking ``other than a corporation''.
       (2) Technical amendment.--Subsection (c) of section 1202 of 
     such Code is amended by adding at the end the following new 
     paragraph:
       ``(4) Stock held among members of controlled group not 
     eligible.--Stock shall not be treated as qualified small 
     business stock if such stock was at any time held by any 
     member of the parent-subsidiary controlled group (as defined 
     in subsection (d)(3)) which includes the qualified small 
     business.''
       (c) Repeal of Minimum Tax Preference.--
       (1) In general.--Section 57(a) of the Internal Revenue Code 
     of 1986 (relating to items of tax preference) is amended by 
     striking paragraph (7).
       (2) Technical amendment.--Section 53(d)(1)(B)(ii)(II) of 
     such Code is amended by striking ``, (5), and (7)'' and 
     inserting ``and (5)''.
       (d) Stock of Larger Businesses Eligible for Exclusion.--
       (1) Section 1202(d)(1) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 
     (relating to qualified small business) is amended by striking 
     ``$50,000,000'' each place it appears and inserting 
     ``$100,000,000''.
       (2) Section 1202(d) of such Code is amended by adding at 
     the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(4) Inflation adjustment of asset limitation.--In the 
     case of stock issued in any calendar year after 1997, the 
     $100,000,000 amount contained in paragraph (1) shall be 
     increased by an amount equal to--
       ``(A) such dollar amount, multiplied by
       ``(B) the cost-of-living adjustment determined under 
     section 1(f)(3) for the calendar year in which the taxable 
     year begins, determined by substituting `calendar year 1996' 
     for `calendar year 1992' in subparagraph (B) thereof.

     If any amount as adjusted under the preceding sentence is not 
     a multiple of $1,000,000, such amount shall be rounded to the 
     next lower multiple of $1,000,000.''
       (e) Per-Issuer Limitation.--Section 1202(b)(1)(A) of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to per-issuer 
     limitation on taxpayer's gain) is amended by striking 
     ``$10,000,000'' and inserting ``$20,000,000''.
       (f) Other Modifications.--

[[Page S4590]]

       (1) Working capital limitation.--Section 1202(e)(6) of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to working capital) 
     is amended by striking ``2 years'' each place it appears and 
     inserting ``5 years''.
       (2) Redemption rules.--Section 1203(c)(3) of such Code 
     (relating to certain purchases by corporation of its own 
     stock) is amended by adding at the end the following new 
     subparagraph:
       ``(D) Waiver where business purpose.--A purchase of stock 
     by the issuing corporation shall be disregarded for purposes 
     of subparagraph (B) if the issuing corporation establishes 
     that there was a business purpose for such purchase and one 
     of the principal purposes of the purchase was not to avoid 
     the limitation of this section.''
       (g) Effective Dates.--
       (1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), the 
     amendments made by this section shall apply to stock issued 
     after the date of the enactment of this Act.
       (2) Special rule.--The amendments made by subsection (c), 
     (e), and (f) shall apply to stock issued after August 10, 
     1993.

     SEC. 3. ROLLOVER OF CAPITAL GAINS ON CERTAIN SMALL BUSINESS 
                   INVESTMENTS.

       (a) In General.--Part III of subchapter O of chapter 1 of 
     the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to common 
     nontaxable exchanges) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following new section:

     ``SEC. 1045. ROLLOVER OF GAIN ON SMALL BUSINESS INVESTMENTS.

       ``(a) Nonrecognition of Gain.--In the case of the sale of 
     any eligible small business investment with respect to which 
     the taxpayer elects the application of this section, gain 
     from such sale shall be recognized only to the extent that 
     the amount realized on such sale exceeds--
       ``(1) the cost of any other eligible small business 
     investment purchased by the taxpayer during the 6-month 
     period beginning on the date of such sale, reduced by
       ``(2) any portion of such cost previously taken into 
     account under this section.

     This section shall not apply to any gain which is treated as 
     ordinary income for purposes of this subtitle.
       ``(b) Definitions and Special Rules.--For purposes of this 
     section--
       ``(1) Purchase.--The term `purchase' has the meaning given 
     such term by section 1043(b)(4).
       ``(2) Eligible small business investment.--Except as 
     otherwise provided in this section, the term `eligible small 
     business investment' means any stock in a domestic 
     corporation, and any partnership interest in a domestic 
     partnership, which is originally issued after December 31, 
     1996, if--
       ``(A) as of the date of issuance, such corporation or 
     partnership is a qualified small business entity,
       ``(B) such stock or partnership interest is acquired by the 
     taxpayer at its original issue (directly or through an 
     underwriter)--
       ``(i) in exchange for money or other property (not 
     including stock), or
       ``(ii) as compensation for services (other than services 
     performed as an underwriter of such stock or partnership 
     interest), and
       ``(C) the taxpayer has held such stock or interest at least 
     6 months as of the time of the sale described in subsection 
     (a).

     A rule similar to the rule of section 1202(c)(3) shall apply 
     for purposes of this section.
       ``(3) Active business requirement.--Stock in a corporation, 
     and a partnership interest in a partnership, shall not be 
     treated as an eligible small business investment unless, 
     during substantially all of the taxpayer's holding period for 
     such stock or partnership interest, such corporation or 
     partnership meets the active business requirements of 
     subsection (c). A rule similar to the rule of section 
     1202(c)(2)(B) shall apply for purposes of this section.
       ``(4) Qualified small business entity.--
       ``(A) In general.--The term `qualified small business 
     entity' means any domestic corporation or partnership if--
       ``(i) such entity (and any predecessor thereof) had 
     aggregate gross assets (as defined in section 1202(d)(2)) of 
     less than $25,000,000 at all times before the issuance of the 
     interest described in paragraph (2), and
       ``(ii) the aggregate gross assets (as so defined) of the 
     entity immediately after the issuance (determined by taking 
     into account amounts received in the issuance) are less than 
     $25,000,000.
       ``(B) Aggregation rules.--Rules similar to the rules of 
     section 1202(d)(3) shall apply for purposes of this 
     paragraph.
       ``(c) Active Business Requirement.--
       ``(1) In general.--For purposes of subsection (b)(3), the 
     requirements of this subsection are met by a qualified small 
     business entity for any period if--
       ``(A) the entity is engaged in the active conduct of a 
     trade or business, and
       ``(B) at least 80 percent (by value) of the assets of such 
     entity are used in the active conduct of a qualified trade or 
     business (within the meaning of section 1202(e)(3)).

     Such requirements shall not be treated as met for any period 
     if during such period the entity is described in subparagraph 
     (A), (B), (C), or (D) of section 1202(e)(4).
       ``(2) Special rule for certain activities.--For purposes of 
     paragraph (1), if, in connection with any future trade or 
     business, an entity is engaged in--
       ``(A) startup activities described in section 195(c)(1)(A),
       ``(B) activities resulting in the payment or incurring of 
     expenditures which may be treated as research and 
     experimental expenditures under section 174, or
       ``(C) activities with respect to in-house research expenses 
     described in section 41(b)(4),

     such entity shall be treated with respect to such activities 
     as engaged in (and assets used in such activities shall be 
     treated as used in) the active conduct of a trade or 
     business. Any determination under this paragraph shall be 
     made without regard to whether the entity has any gross 
     income from such activities at the time of the determination.
       ``(3) Certain rules to apply.--Rules similar to the rules 
     of paragraphs (5), (6), (7), and (8) of section 1202(e) shall 
     apply for purposes of this subsection.
       ``(d) Certain Other Rules To Apply.--Rules similar to the 
     rules of subsections (f), (g), (h), and (j) of section 1202 
     shall apply for purposes of this section, except that a 6-
     month holding period shall be substituted for a 5-year 
     holding period where applicable.
       ``(e) Basis Adjustments.--If gain from any sale is not 
     recognized by reason of subsection (a), such gain shall be 
     applied to reduce (in the order acquired) the basis for 
     determining gain or loss of any eligible small business 
     investment which is purchased by the taxpayer during the 6-
     month period described in subsection (a).
       ``(f) Statute of Limitations.--If any gain is realized by 
     the taxpayer on the sale or exchange of any eligible small 
     business investment and there is in effect an election under 
     subsection (a) with respect to such gain, then--
       ``(1) the statutory period for the assessment of any 
     deficiency with respect to such gain shall not expire before 
     the expiration of 3 years from the date the Secretary is 
     notified by the taxpayer (in such manner as the Secretary may 
     by regulations prescribe) of--
       ``(A) the taxpayer's cost of purchasing other eligible 
     small business investments which the taxpayer claims results 
     in nonrecognition of any part of such gain,
       ``(B) the taxpayer's intention not to purchase other 
     eligible small business investments within the 6-month period 
     described in subsection (a), or
       ``(C) a failure to make such purchase within such 6-month 
     period, and
       ``(2) such deficiency may be assessed before the expiration 
     of such 3-year period notwithstanding the provisions of any 
     other law or rule of law which would otherwise prevent such 
     assessment.
       ``(g) Regulations.--The Secretary shall prescribe such 
     regulations as may be appropriate to carry out the purposes 
     of this section, including regulations to prevent the 
     avoidance of the purposes of this section through splitups, 
     shell corporations, partnerships, or otherwise and 
     regulations to modify the application of section 1202 to the 
     extent necessary to apply such section to a partnership 
     rather than a corporation.''
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--Paragraph (23) of section 
     1016(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended--
       (1) by striking ``or 1044'' and inserting ``, 1044, or 
     1045'', and
       (2) by striking ``or 1044(d)'' and inserting ``, 1044(d), 
     or 1045(e)''.
       (c) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections for part III 
     of subchapter O of chapter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code of 
     1986 is amended by adding at the end the following new item:

``Sec. 1045. Rollover of gain on small business investments.''

       (d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to taxable years ending after December 31, 1996.

  Mr. CLELAND. Mr. President, I rise this morning, to join my good 
colleague from Arkansas in support of the Small Business Capital Gains 
Enhancement Act of 1997.
  Today, our country's economy is more robust and is growing faster 
than it has in the last decade and maybe even the last several decades. 
Fostering this growth is crucial to sustain the great and important 
strides that our economy has made in these past years and I believe 
that this legislation will go a long way to improving incentives for 
investment in small businesses. Cutting the capital gains tax in this 
targeted fashion is something that small businesses have time and again 
asked for because they know, as we all do, that investing in small 
businesses and providing capital for that investment creates growth 
and, more importantly, jobs.
  Small businesses have had a striking impact on Georgia's economy. 
They are vital as job creators, and their diversity and composition 
provide a work force with endless opportunities and are easily the envy 
of the country.
  Mr. President, according to the SBA, 97.6 percent of the business 
firms in Georgia are small businesses. Women-owned businesses have 
increased 62.7 percent since 1987. African American owned firms have 
increased 79.8 percent between 1987 and 1992. Hispanic firms, including 
part-time businesses, grew 184.9 percent in the same period of time. So 
the impact of this legislation is huge. These figures are numbers that 
corporate investors cannot--cannot--

[[Page S4591]]

ignore, but if section 1202 of the Internal Revenue Code doesn't allow 
them to invest in these small businesses, then I believe we are missing 
out on far more than the taxes that we collect as the law is now. We 
must make certain that these investors have every opportunity to become 
involved in the growing of small businesses. These are the ideal 
investors, they recognize that, and so should we, Mr. President.
  I wish to add support to my colleague's comments that across-the-
board cuts, while they may sound wonderful, can in fact have a negative 
impact toward small businesses as they compete with big businesses for 
investment dollars. It is important to maintain the differences between 
small business and big business capital gains taxes. Making adjustment 
in the present law and fine tuning where needed is smarter, in my 
opinion, than the alternatives of wide ranging or all encompassing 
legislative action.

  This is an affordable tax cut and one that puts important capital 
dollars in the coffers of the men and women of this country who are 
creating jobs, creating economic opportunity, and giving hope to the 
country and I believe hope to our great future. I believe many of our 
colleagues will join us in our commitment to the small businesses of 
this country. I thank my friend from the wonderful State of Arkansas 
for his leadership and the opportunity to participate here with him 
this morning. This is a great opportunity that I look forward to 
supporting.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor and any time that may remain.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. LEVIN:
  S. 746. A bill to reaffirm and clarify the Federal relationship of 
the Burt Lake Band as a distinct federally recognized Indian tribe, and 
for other purposes; to the Committee on Indian Affairs.


         The Burt Lake Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians Act

  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill to 
reaffirm the Federal recognition of the Burt Lake Band of Ottawa and 
Chippewa Indians. This legislation will reestablish the government-to-
government relations of the United States and the Burt Lake Band. This 
is the same legislation which I introduced last Congress and which was 
originally introduced in the 103d Congress by my friend and colleague, 
Senator Donald Riegle.
  Federal recognition for Burt Lake is vitally important for a variety 
of reasons. With this process completed the Band can move on to the 
tasks of improving the economic and social welfare of its people. More 
important however, passage of this legislation will clarify that the 
Burt Lake Band is a historically independent tribe.
  The Band is named after Burt Lake, a small inland lake about 20 miles 
south of the straits of Mackinac. The Band already had deep roots in 
the area when a surveyor named Burt inspected the area in 1840. During 
the 1800's, the Burt Lake Band was a signatory to several Federal 
treaties, including the 1836 Treaty of Washington and the 1855 Treaty 
of Detroit. These treaties were enacted for the purpose of securing 
territory for settlement and development.
  During the mid-1800's, the Federal Government turned over to the 
State of Michigan annuity moneys on the Band's behalf in order to 
purchase land. This land was later lost by the Band through tax sales, 
although trust land is nontaxable. The Band was subsequently evicted 
from their village. In 1911, the Federal Government brought a claim on 
behalf of Burt Lake against the State of Michigan. The autonomous 
existence of the Band at this stage is clear.
  Although the Band has never had its Federal status legally 
terminated, the Bureau of Indian Affairs since the 1930's has not 
accorded the Band that status nor treated the Band as a federally 
recognized tribe. The Burt Lake Band, as well as the other tribes 
located in Michigan's lower peninsula were improperly denied the right 
to reorganize under the terms of the Indian Reorganization Act of 1934 
even though they were deemed eligible to do so by the Indian Service at 
that time.
  My Michigan colleague, Congressman Dale Kildee, has sponsored a 
similar piece of legislation. I look forward to the consideration of 
this legislation by the respective committees in both the Senate and 
the House and its enactment into law. I also ask unanimous consent that 
a copy of this bill be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 746

       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 ``Burt Lake Band of Ottawa and 
     Chippewa Indians Act''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       Congress finds that--
       (1) the Burt Lake Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians are 
     descendants and political successors to the signatories of 
     the treaty between the United States and the Ottawa and 
     Chippewa nations of Indians at Washington, D.C. on March 28, 
     1836 (7 Stat. 491 et seq.), and the treaty between the United 
     States and the Ottawa and Chippewa Indians of Michigan at 
     Detroit on July 31, 1855 (11 Stat. 621 et seq.);
       (2) the Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians, 
     the Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians, and the Bay 
     Mills Band of Chippewa Indians, whose members are also 
     descendants of the signatories to the treaties referred to in 
     paragraph (1), have been recognized by the Federal Government 
     as distinct Indian tribes;
       (3) the Burt Lake Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians 
     consists of over 650 eligible members who continue to reside 
     close to their ancestral homeland as recognized in the 
     reservations of lands under the treaties referred to in 
     paragraph (1) in the area that is currently known as 
     Cheboygan County, Michigan;
       (4) the Band continues to exist and carry out political and 
     social activities with a viable tribal government;
       (5) the Band, along with other Michigan Odawa and Ottawa 
     groups, including the tribes described in paragraph (2), 
     formed the Northern Michigan Ottawa Association in 1948;
       (6) the Northern Michigan Ottawa Association subsequently 
     submitted a successful land claim with the Indian Claims 
     Commission;
       (7) during the period between 1948 and 1975, the Band 
     carried out many governmental functions through the Northern 
     Michigan Ottawa Association, and at the same time retained 
     control over local decisions;
       (8) in 1935, the Band submitted a petition under the Act of 
     June 18, 1934 (commonly referred to as the ``Indian 
     Reorganization Act'') (48 Stat. 984 et seq., chapter 576; 25 
     U.S.C. 461 et seq.), to form a government on behalf of the 
     Band;
       (9) in spite of the eligibility of the Band to form a 
     government under the Act referred to in paragraph (8), the 
     Bureau of Indian Affairs failed to act on the petition 
     referred to in that paragraph; and
       (10) from 1836 to the date of enactment of this Act, the 
     Federal Government, the government of the State of Michigan, 
     and political subdivisions of the State have had continuous 
     dealings with the recognized political leaders of the Band.

     SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act:
       (1) Band.--The term ``Band'' means the Burt Lake Band of 
     Ottawa and Chippewa Indians.
       (2) Member.--The term ``member'' means any individual 
     enrolled in the Band pursuant to section 7.
       (3) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
     of the Interior.

     SEC. 4. FEDERAL RECOGNITION.

       (a) Federal Recognition.--Congress reaffirms the Federal 
     recognition of the Burt Lake Band of Ottawa and Chippewa 
     Indians.
       (b) Applicability of Federal Laws.--Each provision of 
     Federal law (including any regulation) of general application 
     to Indians or Indian nations, tribes, or bands, including the 
     Act of June 18, 1934 (commonly referred to as the ``Indian 
     Reorganization Act'') (48 Stat. 984 et seq., chapter 576; 25 
     U.S.C. 461 et seq.), that is inconsistent with any specific 
     provision of this Act shall not apply to the Band or any of 
     its members.
       (c) Federal Services and Benefits.--
       (1) In general.--
       (A) In general.--The Band and its members shall be eligible 
     for all services and benefits provided by the Federal 
     Government to Indians because of their status as federally 
     recognized Indians.
       (B) Services and benefits.--Notwithstanding any other 
     provision of law, the services and benefits referred to in 
     subparagraph (A) shall be provided after the date of 
     enactment of this Act to the Band and its members without 
     regard to--
       (i) whether an Indian reservation exists for the Band; or
       (ii) the location of the residence of any member on or near 
     an Indian reservation.
       (2) Service areas.--
       (A) In general.--For purposes of the delivery of Federal 
     services to the enrolled members of the Band, the area of the 
     State of Michigan within a 70-mile radius of the boundaries 
     of the reservation for the Burt Lake Band, as set forth in 
     the seventh paragraph of Article I of the treaty between the 
     United States and the Ottawa and Chippewa Indians of 
     Michigan, done at Detroit on July 31, 1855 (11 Stat. 621 et 
     seq.), shall be deemed to be within or near an Indian 
     reservation.

[[Page S4592]]

       (B) Effect of establishment of an indian reservation after 
     the date of enactment of this act.--If an Indian reservation 
     is established for the Band after the date of enactment of 
     this Act, subparagraph (A) shall continue to apply on and 
     after the date of the establishment of that reservation.
       (C) Provision of services and benefits outside the service 
     area.--Unless prohibited by Federal law, the services and 
     benefits referred to in paragraph (1) may be provided to 
     members outside the service area described in subparagraph 
     (A).

     SEC. 5. REAFFIRMATION OF RIGHTS.

       (a) In General.--To the extent consistent with the 
     reaffirmation of the recognition of the Band under section 
     4(a), all rights and privileges of the Band and its members, 
     which may have been abrogated or diminished before the date 
     of enactment of this Act, are reaffirmed.
       (b) Existing Rights of Tribe.--Nothing in this Act may be 
     construed to diminish any right or privilege of the Band or 
     its members that existed before the date of enactment of this 
     Act. Except as otherwise specifically provided, nothing in 
     this Act may be construed as altering or affecting any legal 
     or equitable claim the Band may have to enforce any right or 
     privilege reserved by or granted to the Band that was 
     wrongfully denied to the Band or taken from the Band before 
     the date of enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 6. TRIBAL LANDS.

       The tribal lands of the Band shall consist of all real 
     property held by, or in trust for, the Band. The Secretary 
     shall acquire real property for the Band. Any property 
     acquired by the Secretary pursuant to this section shall be 
     held in trust by the United States for the benefit of the 
     Band and shall become part of the reservation of the Band.

     SEC. 7. MEMBERSHIP.

       (a) In General.--Not later than 18 months after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Band shall submit to the Secretary 
     a membership roll consisting of all individuals currently 
     enrolled for membership in the Band at the time of the 
     submission of the membership roll.
       (b) Qualifications.--The Band shall, in consultation with 
     the Secretary, determine, pursuant to applicable laws 
     (including ordinances) of the Band, the qualifications for 
     including an individual on the membership roll.
       (c) Publication of Notice.--The Secretary shall publish 
     notice of receipt of the membership roll in the Federal 
     Register as soon as practicable after receiving the 
     membership roll pursuant to subsection (a).
       (d) Maintenance of Roll.--The Band shall maintain the 
     membership roll of the Band prepared pursuant to this section 
     in such manner as to ensure that the membership roll is 
     current.

     SEC. 8. CONSTITUTION AND GOVERNING BODY.

       (a) Constitution.--
       (1) Adoption.--Not later than 2 years after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall conduct, by secret 
     ballot, elections for the purpose of adopting a new 
     constitution for the Band. The elections shall be held 
     according to the procedures applicable to elections under 
     section 16 of the Act of June 18, 1934 (commonly referred to 
     as the ``Indian Reorganization Act'') (48 Stat. 987, chapter 
     576; 25 U.S.C. 476).
       (2) Interim governing documents.--Until such time as a new 
     constitution is adopted under paragraph (1), the governing 
     documents in effect on the date of enactment of this Act 
     shall be the interim governing documents for the Band.
       (b) Officials.--
       (1) Elections.--Not later than 180 days after the Band 
     adopts a constitution and bylaws pursuant to subsection (a), 
     the Band shall conduct elections by secret ballot for the 
     purpose of electing officials for the Band as provided in the 
     governing constitution of the Band. The elections shall be 
     conducted according to the procedures described in the 
     governing constitution and bylaws of the Band.
       (2) Interim governments.--Until such time as the Band 
     elects new officials under paragraph (1), the governing 
     bodies of the Band shall include each governing body of the 
     Band in effect on the date of the enactment of this Act, or 
     any succeeding governing body selected under the election 
     procedures specified in the applicable interim governing 
     documents of the Band.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. ROTH (for himself, Mr. Moynihan, Mr. Chafee, Mr. Graham, 
        Mr. Hatch, Ms. Moseley-Braun, Mr. Grassley, Mr. Baucus, Mr. 
        Gramm, Mr. Conrad, Mr. Nickles, Mr. Breaux, Mr. Jeffords, Mr. 
        Bryan, Mr. Rockefeller, Mr. Kerrey, Mr. Murkowski, Mr. D'Amato, 
        and Mr. Lott):
  S. 747. A bill to amend trade laws and related provisions to clarify 
the designation of normal trade relations; to the Committee on Finance.


                   normal trade relations legislation

  Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill to clarify 
the meaning of the term, ``most-favored-nation trading status.'' I do 
so because the term gives the false impression that MFN is some sort of 
special privilege or reward.
  In fact, MFN is not a special privilege or reward. It designates the 
most ordinary, most normal trading relationship among countries. Since 
the founding of our Republic, the principle of nondiscrimination 
embodied in MFN has served as the cornerstone of U.S. international 
trade policy.
  In its most basic trade application, this principle requires a 
country to apply the same tariff duty rate on a particular product from 
one country as it applies to imports of the same product from all other 
countries.
  For example, if the U.S. tariff on imported clock radios is 5 
percent, all clock radios imported from countries with MFN status are 
subject to a 5-percent tariff. Imports from countries that do not have 
MFN status--and there are only six countries that fall into this 
category--are subject to far higher duty rates.
  Another important point about MFN is that it is not a one-way street. 
When we give MFN status to a particular country, that country, in 
return, gives the United States most-favored-nation status.
  Therefore, because we give Singapore MFN status, the clock radios we 
import from that country are subject to the same tariff rates as clock 
radios from Thailand, Spain, or any other country to which we extend 
MFN.
  In return, when Singapore imports our computer chips, it imposes the 
same tariff on United States chips as those imported from Japan, Korea, 
Great Britain, or any other country to which it extends MFN.
  What does the United States get out of all this? American companies 
get to compete on fair and equal terms with their foreign rivals.
  Let me emphasize again: MFN status does not confer--let alone imply--
special treatment.
  In fact, when we decide to give special treatment to imports from 
other countries--as Congress has expressly chosen to do for certain 
products from over 130 nations--those imports are subject to tariff 
rates substantially below the MFN rate. Sometimes we even allow 
specified countries to export products to the United States duty free.
  In short, MFN status denotes the standard, not the exceptional, 
trading relationship. Ending this standard trading relationship by 
revoking MFN is an extreme measure. In fact, because MFN is so 
fundamental to trade relations among countries, some correctly liken 
its withdrawal to a declaration of economic war.
  Because of the confusion created by the phrase, ``most-favored-nation 
trading status,'' Senator Moynihan and I and virtually all the Members 
of the Finance Committee have agreed to introduce legislation to 
replace the phrase wherever appropriate in U.S. trade law with a more 
suitable term--``normal trade relations''--a term that underscores the 
unexceptional nature of the MFN concept. I believe that if we adopt 
this legislation, we will all better understand the issue, and our 
discussions on extending normal trade relations to various countries 
will be more constructive.
  It should be clear to our trading partners that creating this new 
term will not alter our international rights and obligations. Rather, 
in choosing the term ``normal trade relations'' we aim to describe more 
accurately the nondiscriminatory principles underlying U.S. trade law 
and policy.
  Last year, similar legislation passed the Senate unanimously. I ask 
my colleagues to do the same again this year.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I am pleased to join once again with the 
distinguished Chairman of the Finance Committee, Senator Roth, to 
reintroduce legislation that will, we believe, help to dispel the fog 
that sometimes shrouds our discussions of trade policy. This bill 
would, simply and directly, replace the term ``most favored nation'' 
with the phrase ``normal trade relations''--a more accurate, less 
muddled phrase that better describes this fundamental principle of 
trade policy.
  The concept is well established. It has been traced by historians to 
the 13th century. More particularly, to a clause in the treaty of 
November 8, 1226, in which the Emperor Frederick II conceded to the 
city of Marseilles the privileges previously granted to the citizens of 
Pisa and of Genoa. Not greater privileges, but merely the same as had 
been extended to others.
  The term itself--``most favored nation''--dates to the end of the 
17th century. And has been nearly as long a

[[Page S4593]]

cornerstone of American trade policy. Since the 18th century, our trade 
policy has been grounded on the principle of nondiscrimination: the 
vast majority of our trading partners receive treatment equal to the 
treatment we give every other trading partner. In no sense can this 
fairly be characterized as most favored treatment; rather it is the 
treatment that we normally accord our trading partners.
  And yet we continue to use that 17th century term in treaties and 
agreements, in executive orders and in trade laws, a term that, even at 
the beginning, was a misnomer. There is, Mr. President, no single most 
favored nation. There never really was.
  As noted in a 1919 report to the Congress by the United States Tariff 
Commission, known today as the United States International Trade 
Commission:

       It is neither the purpose nor the effect of the most-
     favored-nation clause to establish a ``most favored nation''; 
     on the contrary its use implies the intention that the 
     maximum of advantages which either of the parties to a treaty 
     has extended or shall extend to any third State--for the 
     moment the ``most-favored''--shall be given or be made 
     accessible to the other party.

  That is, the most favored nation is not the nation with which we are 
negotiating, but rather a third nation altogether that happens to 
benefit at the moment from lower tariffs or other preferences with 
respect to some particular product. The most-favored-nation principle 
means merely that we will grant to our negotiating partner the same 
terms that we have given to that third country, for the moment more 
favored.

  Little wonder, then, that the term has created confusion. And yet we 
must continue to discuss the concept for the simple reason that there 
exists still, in U.S. law, a very unfavorable tariff--the Smoot-Hawley 
tariff (stemming from the 1930 act of the same name). This was the last 
tariff schedule enacted line-by-line by the Congress and it produced 
the highest tariff rates, overall, in our history. It is still on the 
books, though it applies only to a handful of countries.
  In response to the disaster that followed enactment of the Smoot-
Hawley tariff, which, at the time applied to all of our trading 
partners, Congress authorized the Roosevelt administration to negotiate 
a series of trade agreements aimed at reducing tariffs worldwide. These 
efforts culminated in a series of trade agreements with individual 
countries, and ultimately paved the way for a series of broad 
multilateral negotiations under the auspices of the General Agreement 
on Tariffs and Trade that reduced American tariffs, just as they 
slashed tariffs worldwide. These much lower tariff rates are the 
tariffs that we call our most-favored-nation tariff rates and they 
apply, in fact, to the vast majority of countries. They are thus the 
norm, and not in any way more favorable tariffs.
  They are, indeed, not the lowest tariff rates that the United States 
applies. We have free-trade arrangements with Canada, Israel, and 
Mexico that call for the complete elimination of tariffs. We have 
eliminated tariffs on certain imports from developing countries under 
the Generalized System of Preferences, from Caribbean nations under the 
Caribbean Basin Initiative and from Andean countries under the Andean 
Trade Preferences Act. The tariff rates under these regimes are, in all 
cases, lower than what we now call our most-favored-nation tariff 
rates. Hence the confusion, and hence the need to find a more apt 
phrase.
  Mr. President, this legislation will be familiar to most of my 
colleagues. The identical bill was introduced in the 104th Congress 
with the cosponsorship of the entire Finance Committee and it passed 
the Senate by unanimous consent. I expect that we will be able to 
repeat that victory in the 105th Congress, and I hope that we can do so 
promptly.
  Let me underscore that this legislation in no way alters the bedrock 
principles of equal treatment or nondiscrimination. It merely drops an 
outdated term in favor of one that ought to help make our trade policy 
more comprehensible to the American public.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, today Senators Roth, Moynihan, and I, 
along with others on the Finance Committee, are introducing legislation 
to clarify the meaning of most favored nation [MFN] trading status--a 
change I have advocated for some time.
  Over the past few years, MFN has gained notoriety as a special favor 
that the U.S. grants to other nations. Not true. Indeed, MFN is a 
misnomer if there ever was one.
  Rather, MFN refers to a centuries-old concept used by all trading 
nations--the concept that no nation shall be granted trade treatment 
less favorable than that granted to the most-favored-nation. In other 
words, no playing favorites! Every nation is to receive equal treatment 
when it comes to the terms of trade.
  Thus, the MFN concept represents the lowest common denominator of 
trade status.
  Over the centuries, this simple non-discrimination concept came to be 
known as most favored nation status. Frankly, that is unfortunate. That 
particular terminology has fostered the mistaken view that MFN is a 
special treatment granted only to a privileged few. Yet just the 
opposite is true: MFN, as the basic trading status between nations, is 
granted to virtually all nations with whom the U.S. trades. The 
exceptions can almost be counted on one hand: Serbia, Laos, 
Afghanistan, Vietnam, Cuba, and North Korea.
  In sum, while the concept of MFN is sound, the term used to denote 
that concept is misleading and has resulted in a good deal of 
mischief--a fact that Senators Moynihan and I have lamented often 
during Senate Finance Committee hearings. It is high time that we 
called the MFN nondiscrimination concept by a term that more accurately 
represents its meaning.
  Therefore, today my colleagues and I are introducing this bill to 
amend U.S. law, where appropriate, to replace the term ``MFN'' with the 
term ``NTR''; normal trade relations. From this point on, we will 
discuss legislation and hold debate on the nondiscrimination concept 
using the term ``NTR'' in place of MFN.
  Will the concept of MFN remain the same? Yes. Are we signalling a 
change in domestic policy, or modifying our international obligations 
in any way? No. But we are making perfectly clear to everyone the true 
meaning and purpose of this centuries-old concept. And it is my hope 
that our legislation will result in a better understanding of 
international trade relations, both here in the Congress and in the 
eyes of the public.
  Last year, Senators Roth, Moynihan, and I introduced a virtually 
identical bill, again with the support of Finance Committee members. 
That bill sailed through the Senate unanimously, and was sent to the 
House of Representatives. However, the house was not able to act on the 
bill prior to the date of adjournment of the 104th Congress. It is my 
hope that by introducing this bill tody, there will be more than enough 
time this year to move the measure through both chambers and send it to 
the President for his signature. I therefore urge swift consideration 
of our legislation by the Senate.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. BINGAMAN (for himself, Mrs. Hutchison, Ms. Mikulski, Mr. 
        Bumpers, Ms. Collins, and Mr. Robb):
  S. 748. A bill to provide for college affordability and high 
standards; to the Committee on Labor and Human Resources.


        the college affordability and high standards act of 1997

  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, during the last few years, many of us 
have been trying to figure out how to solve some of the troubling 
questions surrounding public education. These issues include two core 
questions, one about inadequate academic standards and the the other 
about the skyrocketing cost of going on to college.
  What can we do to improve the standards of academic performance in 
our schools and, how can we make college more affordable to more of our 
students?
  One very straightforward answer is to expand the number of advanced 
placement courses taught in our schools and to increase the number of 
students who have the opportunity to take those courses.
  Let me briefly describe what an advanced placement, or AP, course 
really is. The AP program is a set of college-level courses that are 
usually taught to high school juniors and seniors for college credit. 
They are taken on a voluntary basis. These courses are now

[[Page S4594]]

taught in a majority of our high schools. They use locally developed 
materials. However, the year-end AP exams are evaluated on a uniform 
basis, making test scores comparable nationwide. Overall, there are 30 
different AP courses, although most students take them in the areas of 
math and history and science and English.
  Today, I rise to introduce the College Affordability and High 
Standards Act of 1997, which is also being cosponsored by Senators 
Hutchison, Mikulski, Bumpers and Collins. This legislation will allow 
thousands of additional high school students to participate in AP 
courses. The bill focuses on low-income and minority students who often 
attend school in less affluent or in isolated areas.
  I am introducing this bill based in part on several recent visits to 
New Mexico high schools, where I learned that what students want is 
more well-trained teachers. They are asking for more challenging 
academic work. In my home State, in schools like West Mesa High School 
in Albuquerque and Las Cruces High School, AP students told me they 
never thought they could succeed in classes that are this challenging. 
There is great satisfaction and pride, evidenced by their ability to 
succeed.
  While it may seem new, this is not an entirely new approach to 
raising academics and lowering college costs. In fact, we have had 
legislation proposed before by Senator Kassebaum and a bipartisan group 
of other Members, which became law in 1992 and is still in effect. We 
are just building on this approach. In addition, Secretary Riley, the 
late President of the AFT Al Shanker, and Boston Schools Superintendent 
Tom Payzant have spoken out on this.
  Most importantly, 23 States today provide some type of incentive 
program to encourage more AP participation. I have a chart I want to 
show my colleagues to make the point, which shows where there are 
initiatives to promote AP instruction.
  The States in white do not have an incentive program in place. We 
need to supplement the 23 States listed on this map with AP programs in 
the other 27 States, and we need to have every State in the Union 
promoting more advance placement courses. In essence, that is the 
purpose of this legislation.
  There is a long-outdated myth that I want to address very briefly 
about what type of students take these AP courses. There has been in 
the past the impression that AP courses are only for the elite. The 
truth is, more and more students from minority groups from various 
backgrounds are taking AP courses today, as this chart shows, with out 
a decrease in rigor or quality.
  Roughly 1.5 million students participated--80 percent from public 
schools, 55 percent female, and 30 percent minority.
  Almost 60 percent of all high schools offered AP courses, and over 
800,000 exams were taken.
  As a result of this growth, the AP program is the most widely 
accepted program of high academic standards in the nation.


                  THE BENEFITS OF PARTICIPATING IN AP

  Participation is skyrocketing and States are spending funds on AP 
largely because of the benefits of the program:
  AP test scores of 3 or better are valuable because they are accepted 
for credit at nearly 3,000 colleges and universities nationwide.
  AP programs raise academic standards in schools and improve students' 
academic performance in college.
  For students who plan to go directly to work, AP programs provide a 
world-class education with high-level skills that can be easily 
compared among prospective job candidates.


                    GROWTH IN MINORITY PARTICIPATION

  Largely as a result of the 23 State AP incentive programs, overall 
participation and in particular the number of minority participants 
have increased tremendously:
  The overall number of exams taken by minorities has increased to over 
200,000 students in 1996--an increase of 36,000 students--21 percent--
in just 2 years.
  Minority participation in the New Mexico program increased 74 percent 
for Hispanic students and 950 percent for native Americans from 1994 to 
1996.
  Participation among Hispanics in Texas nearly tripled over the last 4 
years, from under 2,000 students to over 5,000.
  These figures are showing us that low-income and underserved students 
have the same ability to meet the academic challenge and the same need 
to lower college costs.


                             STATE PROGRAMS

  Each of the States trying to increase AP participation does it a 
little bit differently, with annual budgets that range from $50,000 to 
over $2 million.
  Some States focus more on training more AP teachers, some on helping 
schools with start-up funding for new classes and labs, and others on 
subsidizing part of the AP test fee for some students.
  However, despite the growing number of State programs, AP programs 
are still often distributed unevenly among regions, States, and even 
among high schools in the same districts.
  Some States like Texas are quickly catching up to the rising national 
participation rate by dedicating a significant amount of consistent 
State funding.
  Meanwhile, other States such as New Mexico are struggling to keep up, 
with relatively small annual budgets that rise and fall each year.


                       WHAT THE LEGISLATION DOES

  The legislation I am introducing today will both help the remaining 
States start new programs and help the States that are already involved 
continue and expand their efforts.
  To help expand access to these courses more evenly, this legislation 
is designed to accommodate the variety of programs that States have 
designed.
  At its core, the bill focuses on supporting State programs that help 
increase AP participation among underserved groups of students, and 
helping pay for part of the AP test fees for low-income students.
  In addition, it would help make AP programs a part of other federal 
education initiatives, encouraging States and districts to use 
education technology and teacher training funds to provide AP courses 
to underserved areas.
  Several Star Schools and State Eisenhower Program grantees are 
already taking this approach, with tremendous success being reported.


                               CONCLUSION

  Let me conclude by pointing out that this approach has a long, 
bipartisan history, and was originally advocated by Members including 
Senators Stevens, Kassebaum, and Seymour, as well as Congressmen 
Cunningham, Goodling, Owens, Becerra, and Miller.
  Having seen from New Mexico's experience what tremendous good can 
come out of even a small investment in AP incentives.
  For these reasons, I urge my colleagues to consider the many benefits 
of this approach and support this legislation and the $6 million 
appropriations request for 1998 that has already been made by the 
administration.
  Mr. President, I encourage my colleagues to support this legislation 
as the session proceeds.
  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. 748

       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 ``College Affordability and 
     High Standards Act of 1997''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSES.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
       (1) far too many students are not being provided sufficient 
     academic preparation in secondary school, which results in 
     limited employment opportunities, college dropout rates of 
     over 25 percent for the first year of college, and 
     remediation for almost one-third of incoming college 
     freshmen;
       (2) there is a growing consensus that raising academic 
     standards, establishing high academic expectations, and 
     showing concrete results are at the core of improving public 
     education;
       (3) modeling academic standards on the well-known program 
     of advanced placement courses is an approach that many 
     education leaders and almost half of all States have 
     endorsed;
       (4) advanced placement programs already are providing 
     almost 30 different college-level courses, serving almost 60 
     percent of all secondary schools, reaching a 1,500,000 
     student population (of which 80 percent attend public 
     schools, 55 percent are females, and 30 percent are 
     minorities), and providing test scores that are accepted for 
     college credit at

[[Page S4595]]

     almost 3,000 colleges and universities, every university in 
     Germany, France, and Austria, and most institutions in Canada 
     and the United Kingdom;
       (5) 24 States are now funding programs to increase 
     participation in advanced placement programs, including 19 
     States that provide funds for advanced placement teacher 
     professional development, 3 States that require that advanced 
     placement courses be offered, 10 States that pay the fees for 
     advanced placement tests for some or all students, and 4 
     States that require that their universities grant uniform 
     academic credit for scores of 3 or better on advanced 
     placement tests; and
       (6) the State programs described in paragraph (5) have 
     shown the responsiveness of schools and students to such 
     programs, raised the academic standards for both students 
     participating in such programs and other children taught by 
     teachers who are involved in advanced placement courses, and 
     shown tremendous success in increasing enrollment, 
     achievement, and minority participation in advanced placement 
     programs.
       (b) Purposes.--The purposes of this Act are--
       (1) to encourage more of the 600,000 students who take 
     advanced placement courses but do not take advanced placement 
     exams each year to demonstrate their achievements through 
     taking the exams;
       (2) to build on the many benefits of advanced placement 
     programs for students, which benefits may include the 
     acquisition of skills that are important to many employers, 
     Scholastic Aptitude Tests (SAT) scores that are 100 points 
     above the national averages, and the achievement of better 
     grades than the grades of students who have not participated 
     in the programs;
       (3) to support State and local efforts to raise academic 
     standards through advanced placement programs, and thus 
     further increase the number of students who participate and 
     succeed in advanced placement programs;
       (4) to increase the availability and broaden the range of 
     schools that have advanced placement programs, which programs 
     are still often distributed unevenly among regions, States, 
     and even secondary schools within the same school districts, 
     while also increasing and diversifying student participation 
     in the programs;
       (5) to build on the State programs described in subsection 
     (a)(5) and demonstrate that larger and more diverse groups of 
     students can participate and succeed in advanced placement 
     programs; and
       (6) to provide access to advanced placement courses for 
     secondary school juniors at schools that do not offer 
     advanced placement programs, increase the rate of secondary 
     school juniors and seniors who participate in advanced 
     placement courses to 25 percent of the secondary school 
     student population, and increase the numbers of students who 
     receive advanced placement test scores for which college 
     academic credit is awarded.

     SEC. 3. ADVANCED PLACEMENT DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM GRANTS.

       (a) Grants Authorized.--
       (1) In general.--Subject to subsection (e) and from amounts 
     appropriated under the authority of subsection (g) for a 
     fiscal year, the Secretary shall award grants, on a 
     competitive basis, to eligible entities for the fiscal year 
     to enable the eligible entities to carry out the authorized 
     activities described in subsection (c).
       (2) Duration and payments.--
       (A) Duration.--The Secretary shall award a grant under this 
     section for a period of 3 years.
       (B) Payments.--The Secretary shall make grant payments 
     under this section on an annual basis.
       (3) Definition of eligible entity.--In this section, the 
     term ``eligible entity'' means a State educational agency, or 
     in the case of a State for which the State educational agency 
     does not receive a grant under this section, a local 
     educational agency in the State.
       (b) Priority.--In awarding grants under this section the 
     Secretary shall give priority to eligible entities submitting 
     applications under subsection (d) that demonstrate--
       (1) a pervasive need for access to advanced placement 
     incentive programs;
       (2) the involvement of business and community organizations 
     in the activities to be assisted;
       (3) a focus on developing or expanding advanced placement 
     programs and participation in the core academic areas of 
     English, mathematics, and science; and
       (4) the availability of matching funds from State or local 
     sources.
       (c) Authorized Activities.--An eligible entity may use 
     grant funds under this section to expand access for low-
     income individuals to advanced placement incentive programs 
     that involve--
       (1) teacher training;
       (2) preadvanced placement course development;
       (3) curriculum coordination and articulation between grade 
     levels that prepares students for advanced placement courses;
       (4) curriculum development; and
       (5) any other activity related to expanding access to and 
     participation in advanced placement incentive programs for 
     low-income individuals.
       (d) Application.--Each eligible entity desiring a grant 
     under this section shall submit an application to the 
     Secretary at such time, in such manner, and accompanied by 
     such information as the Secretary may require.
       (e) Special Rule.--The Secretary shall award a grant under 
     this section for a fiscal year only if the College Board 
     expends for the College Board Fee Assistance Program for the 
     fiscal year at least the amount of funds the College Board 
     expended for the program for the preceding fiscal year.
       (f) Data Collection and Reporting.--
       (1) Data collection.--Each eligible entity receiving a 
     grant under this section shall annually report to the 
     Secretary--
       (A) the number of advanced placement tests taken by 
     students served by the eligible entity;
       (B) the scores on the advanced placement tests; and
       (C) demographic information regarding individuals taking 
     the advanced placement tests.
       (2) Report.--The Secretary shall annually compile the 
     information received from each eligible entity under 
     paragraph (1) and report to Congress regarding the 
     information.
       (g) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this section $25,000,000 for 
     fiscal year 1998, and such sums as may be necessary for each 
     of the 4 succeeding fiscal years.

     SEC. 4. ADDITIONAL PRIORITIES FOR ADVANCED PLACEMENT.

       (a) Student Incentives.--
       (1) Byrd scholarships.--Section 419G(a) of the Higher 
     Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1070d-37(a)) is amended by 
     adding at the end the following: ``The criteria shall take 
     into consideration participation and performance in advanced 
     placement courses.''.
       (2) Dissemination of advanced placement information.--Each 
     institution of higher education receiving Federal funds for 
     research or for programs assisted under the Higher Education 
     Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1001 et seq.)--
       (A) shall distribute to secondary school counselors or 
     advanced placement coordinators in the State information with 
     respect to the amount and type of academic credit provided to 
     students at the institution of higher education for advanced 
     placement test scores; and
       (B) shall standardize, not later than 4 years after the 
     date of enactment of this Act, the form and manner in which 
     the information described in subparagraph (A) is disseminated 
     by the various departments, offices, or other divisions of 
     the institution of higher education.
       (b) State and Local Initiatives.--
       (1) Javits gifted and talented students.--Section 10205(a) 
     of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 
     U.S.C. 8035(a)) is amended--
       (A) in paragraph (1), by striking ``and'' after the 
     semicolon;
       (B) in paragraph (2), by striking the period and inserting 
     ``; and''; and
       (C) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(3) to programs and projects for gifted and talented 
     students that build on or otherwise incorporate advanced 
     placement courses and tests.''.
       (2) Upward bound program.--Section 402C of the Higher 
     Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1070a-13) is amended by 
     adding at the end the following:
       ``(f) Priority.--The Secretary shall give priority in 
     awarding grants under this section to upward bound projects 
     that focus on increasing secondary school student 
     participation and success in advanced placement courses.''.
       (3) Eisenhower professional development.--
       (A) Federal activities.--Section 2101 of the Elementary and 
     Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6621) is amended 
     by adding at the end the following:
       ``(c) Priority.--The Secretary shall give priority in 
     awarding grants and entering into contracts and cooperative 
     agreements under this part to activities that involve 
     training in advanced placement instruction.''.
       (B) State and local activities.--Section 2207 of the 
     Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 
     6647) is amended--
       (i) in paragraph (12), by striking ``and'' after the 
     semicolon;
       (ii) in paragraph (13), by striking the period and 
     inserting ``; and''; and
       (iii) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(14) providing professional development activities 
     involving training in advanced placement instruction.''.
       (4) Technology.--
       (A) Star schools.--Section 3204 of the Elementary and 
     Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6894) is amended 
     by adding at the end the following:
       ``(i) Advanced Placement Instruction.--Each eligible entity 
     receiving funds under this part is encouraged to deliver 
     advanced placement instruction to underserved communities.''.
       (B) Education technology grants.--Subpart 2 of part A of 
     title III of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 
     1965 (20 U.S.C. 6841 et seq.) is amended--
       (i) in section 3134 (20 U.S.C. 6844)--

       (I) in paragraph (5), by striking ``and'' after the 
     semicolon;
       (II) in paragraph (6), by striking the period and inserting 
     ``; and''; and
       (III) by adding at the end the following:

       ``(7) providing education technology for advanced placement 
     instruction.''; and
       (ii) in section 3136(c) (20 U.S.C. 6846(c))--

       (I) in paragraph (4), by striking ``and'' after the 
     semicolon;

[[Page S4596]]

       (II) in paragraph (5), by striking the period and inserting 
     ``; and''; and
       (III) by adding at the end the following:

       ``(6) the project will use education technology for 
     advanced placement instruction.''.

     SEC. 5. ADVANCED PLACEMENT TEST FEE REDUCTION PROGRAM.

       Part G of title XV of the Higher Education Amendments of 
     1992 (20 U.S.C. 1070a-11 note) is amended to read as follows:

        ``PART G--ADVANCED PLACEMENT TEST FEE REDUCTION PROGRAM

     ``SEC. 1545. ADVANCED PLACEMENT TEST FEE REDUCTION PROGRAM.

       ``(a) Grants Authorized.--
       ``(1) In general.--Subject to subsection (g) and from 
     amounts appropriated under the authority of subsection (j) 
     for a fiscal year, the Secretary shall award grants to State 
     educational agencies for the fiscal year to enable the State 
     educational agencies to carry out the authorized activities 
     described in subsection (d).
       ``(2) Amount.--
       ``(A) In general.--The Secretary shall award a State 
     educational agency a grant under this section for a fiscal 
     year in an amount based on $25 for each eligible low-income 
     individual in the State who takes an advanced placement test 
     for the fiscal year.
       ``(B) Adjustments.--The Secretary may adjust the dollar 
     figure in subparagraph (A) to reflect changes in inflation or 
     in amounts appropriated under the authority of subsection 
     (j).
       ``(b) Information Dissemination.--The State educational 
     agency shall disseminate information on the activities 
     assisted under this section to low-income individuals through 
     secondary school teachers and guidance counselors.
       ``(c) Priority.--The Secretary shall give priority in 
     awarding grants under this section for a fiscal year to State 
     educational agencies serving States that--
       ``(1) expend State funds--
       ``(A) to lower advanced placement test fees for eligible 
     low-income individuals; or
       ``(B) to expand the State pool of teachers prepared to 
     teach advanced placement courses to low-income individuals or 
     in underserved communities;
       ``(2) use more than a negligible amount of funds provided 
     under title II of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act 
     of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6601 et seq.) or other Federal funds to 
     increase participation in advanced placement incentive 
     programs; or
       ``(3) operate, on the date of enactment of the College 
     Affordability and High Standards Act of 1997, an advanced 
     placement incentive program.
       ``(d) Authorized Activities.--A State educational agency 
     may use grant funds under this section for activities that 
     are related to expanding access for low-income individuals or 
     in underserved communities to advanced placement tests, and 
     involve--
       ``(1) establishing or expanding an advanced placement test 
     fee reduction program for eligible low-income individuals 
     that may include--
       ``(A) varying the amount or type of advanced placement test 
     fee reimbursement for eligible low-income individuals; or
       ``(B) establishing a sliding scale advanced placement test 
     fee reimbursement program based on an eligible low-income 
     individual's annual gross income; or
       ``(2) only in the case of a State that operates an advanced 
     placement test fee reduction program on the date of enactment 
     of the College Affordability and High Standards Act of 1997, 
     expanding the program or carrying out any activity that meets 
     the requirements of subparagraph (A) or (B) of subsection 
     (c)(1).
       ``(e) Special Rules.--
       ``(1) Remaining funds.--If any funds authorized to be 
     appropriated under the authority of subsection (j) for a 
     fiscal year remain available after the Secretary awards 
     grants to State educational agencies under this section for 
     the fiscal year, then the Secretary shall use the remaining 
     funds to award grants under this section for the succeeding 
     fiscal year.
       ``(2) Maintenance of effort.--The State educational agency, 
     in utilizing the proceeds of a grant received under this 
     section, shall maintain the expenditures of the State 
     educational agency for advanced placement incentive programs 
     at a level of such expenditures maintained by the State 
     educational agency for the fiscal year preceding the fiscal 
     year for which the grant is received.
       ``(f) Application.--Each State educational agency desiring 
     a grant under this section shall submit to the Secretary an 
     application at such time, in such manner, and accompanied by 
     such information as the Secretary may require.
       ``(g) Requirement.--The Secretary shall award a grant under 
     this section for a fiscal year only if the College Board 
     expends for the College Board Fee Assistance Program for the 
     fiscal year at least the amount of funds the College Board 
     expended for such program for the preceding fiscal year.
       ``(h) Data Collection and Reporting.--
       ``(1) Data collection.--Each State educational agency 
     receiving a grant under this section shall annually report to 
     the Secretary--
       ``(A) the number of advanced placement tests taken by 
     students served by the State educational agency;
       ``(B) the scores on the advanced placement tests; and
       ``(C) demographic information regarding individuals taking 
     the advanced placement tests.
       ``(2) Report.--The Secretary shall annually compile the 
     information received from each State educational agency under 
     paragraph (1) and report to Congress regarding the 
     information.
       ``(i) Definitions.--In this section:
       ``(1) Advanced placement incentive program.--The term 
     `advanced placement incentive program' means a program that 
     provides advanced placement activities and services to low-
     income individuals.
       ``(2) Advanced placement test.--The term `advanced 
     placement test' means an advanced placement test administered 
     by the College Board or approved by the Secretary.
       ``(3) Eligible low-income individual.--The term `eligible 
     low-income individual' means a low-income individual (as 
     defined in section 402A(g)(2) of the Higher Education Act of 
     1965 (20 U.S.C. 1070a-11(g)(2)) who is academically prepared 
     to successfully take an advanced placement test as determined 
     by a secondary school teacher or advanced placement 
     coordinator taking into consideration factors such as 
     enrollment and performance in an advanced placement course or 
     superior academic ability.
       ``(4) Secondary school; and state educational agency.--The 
     terms `secondary school' and `State educational agency' have 
     the meanings given the terms in section 14101 of the 
     Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 
     8801).
       ``(5) Secretary.--The term `Secretary' means the Secretary 
     of Education.
       ``(6) State.--The term `State' means each of the several 
     States of the United States, the District of Columbia, the 
     Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, the United 
     States Virgin Islands, the Republic of the Marshall Islands, 
     the Federated States of Micronesia, and the Republic of 
     Palau.
       ``(j) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are 
     authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section 
     $6,000,000 for fiscal year 1998 and such sums as may be 
     necessary for each of the 4 succeeding fiscal years.''.

     SEC. 6. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act:
       (1) Advanced placement incentive program.--The term 
     ``advanced placement incentive program'' means a program that 
     provides advanced placement activities and services to low-
     income individuals.
       (2) Advanced placement test.--The term ``advanced placement 
     test'' means an advanced placement test administered by the 
     College Board or approved by the Secretary.
       (3) Eligible low-income individual.--The term ``eligible 
     low-income individual'' means a low-income individual (as 
     defined in section 402A(g)(2) of the Higher Education Act of 
     1965 (20 U.S.C. 1070a-11(g)(2)) who is academically prepared 
     to successfully take an advanced placement test as determined 
     by a school teacher or advanced placement coordinator taking 
     into consideration factors such as enrollment and performance 
     in an advanced placement course or superior academic ability.
       (4) Institution of higher education.--The term 
     ``institution of higher education'' has the meaning given the 
     term in section 1201(a) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 
     (20 U.S.C. 1141(a)).
       (5) Local educational agency; secondary school; and state 
     educational agency.--The terms ``local educational agency'', 
     ``secondary school'', and ``State educational agency'' have 
     the meanings given the terms in section 14101 of the 
     Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 
     8801).
       (6) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
     of Education.
       (7) State.--The term ``State'' means each of the several 
     States of the United States, the District of Columbia, the 
     Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, the United 
     States Virgin Islands, the Republic of the Marshall Islands, 
     the Federated States of Micronesia, and the Republic of 
     Palau.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. DORGAN (for himself and Mr. Conrad):
  S. 749. A bill to provide for more effective management of the 
national grasslands, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Energy 
and Natural Resources.


                 THE NATIONAL grasslANDS MANAGEMENT ACT

  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, today I am introducing the National 
Grasslands Management Act. I introduced this bill in the 104th Congress 
as well. This bill applies primarily to the grasslands in the Dakotas 
and half a dozen other States. I want to explain briefly what the 
objective of this bill is and how it came about. North Dakota has been 
particularly concerned about management reform because it embraces over 
25 percent and 1.2 million acres of all national grasslands. Many North 
Dakota ranching families have earned their livelihood on these lands 
for several generations.
  For several years, however, the ranchers in western North Dakota have 
been asking for a less cumbersome approach to management of the 
grasslands and both chambers of the 1995 legislature passed a 
resolution unanimously asking for management reform on the grasslands 
as well. Here is why.
  The current regulatory regime is cumbersome mainly because the Forest

[[Page S4597]]

Service must manage the grasslands under the same framework as it does 
the rest of the National Forest System. It doesn't handle efficiently 
the day-to-day problems of the ranchers and grazing associations. For 
example, ranchers have had to wait for as long as 2 to 3 years to get 
approval for a stock tank because of the labyrinth of regulations that 
the Forest Service overlays on the management of the grasslands. This 
legislation will change that by removing the national grasslands from 
the National Forest System and creating a new structure of rules 
specifically suited to the ecology of the grasslands.
  However, it is not only the rancher's needs that my bill addresses. 
It will also protect a broad range of uses on the public lands. All 
hunting, fishing, and recreational activities will continue as before 
and environmental protections will continue actually be strengthened. 
Further, it is my intention that the public must be involved in the 
decisionmaking process as these new rules are implemented. Only by 
working together can we solve the problems on the grasslands.
  Let me reassure the conservation community that this bill, which was 
originally incorporated as part of a larger grazing package during the 
104th Congress, will not make grazing the dominant use of the public 
lands at the expense of other uses. This bill includes specific 
provisions to protect hunting and fishing, and preserves the multiple 
uses of the national grasslands, preserves public participation in the 
management of the grasslands and keeps the link between the Grasslands 
and major environmental laws such as the Endangered Species Act, the 
Clean Air Act, and the Clean Water Act.
  I have worked diligently with the ranchers, environmentalists, and 
other recreational users of the grasslands to ensure a balanced 
approach to grasslands management. The result of that work is the 
National Grasslands Management Act that I am introducing today.
  The legislation explicitly states that there will be no diminished 
hunting or fishing opportunities, that all applicable environmental 
laws will apply to those lands, and that the grasslands will be managed 
under a multiple use policy. The bill directs the Secretary to 
promulgate regulations which both promote the efficient administration 
of livestock agriculture and provide environmental protection 
equivalent to that of the National Forest System.
  In short, I believe that the National Grasslands Management Act is a 
solid piece of legislation that will make the administration of the 
grasslands more responsive to the people who live there, without 
diminishing the rights and opportunities of other multiple users of 
this public land. It will help to preserve the historic ranching 
economy and lifestyle of western North Dakota and other areas in the 
West will be protecting the environment. I urge my colleagues to 
support this initiative.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. DORGAN (for himself and Mr. Conrad):
  S. 750. A bill to consolidate certain mineral interests in the 
National Grasslands in Billings County, North Dakota, through the 
exchange of Federal and private mineral interests to enhance land 
management capabilities and environmental and wildlife protection, and 
for other purposes; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.


                      Mineral Exchange Legislation

  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, today I am introducing a bill that will 
facilitate a mineral exchange in western North Dakota. I introduced 
this bill at the end of the last Congress and hope to move forward in 
this Congress with a proposal based on that effort. The purpose of this 
mineral exchange is to consolidate certain mineral estates of both the 
U.S. Forest Service and Burlington Resources, formerly known as 
Meridian Oil. This consolidation will produce tangible benefits to an 
economically distressed region in North Dakota and also protect 
environmentally-sensitive areas.
  For years, the land and mineral ownership pattern in Western North 
Dakota has been extremely fragmented. In many cases the Forest Service 
owns and manages the surface land while private parties, such as 
Burlington Resources, own the subsurface mineral estates. This 
fragmentation has not only frustrated the management objectives of the 
Forest Service, it has also inhibited mineral exploration and 
development.
  The bill will definitely promote environmental protection. By 
consolidating the mineral estates, the Forest Service will have the 
opportunity to protect the view-shed along the wonderfully scenic 
Little Missouri River, creating a more attractive hunting, fishing, and 
hiking area. Further, the mineral exchange will protect certain bighorn 
sheep lambing areas. The area protected by the mineral exchange is one 
of the last places that provides adequate habitat and escape cover for 
bighorn sheep. The Forest Service and Burlington have already signed a 
memorandum of understanding which will bolster the protection of 
wildlife and wildlife habitat after the exchange is concluded. The 
exchange is also supported by all major environmental groups in the 
state, the Governor of North Dakota, and the Bureau of Land 
Management's Dakotas Resource Advisory Council.

  The bill will also strengthen the regional economy. Burlington 
Resources supports this legislation. Burlington will have better 
opportunities for mineral exploration and development within its 
consolidated mineral estates. This increased development will benefit 
not only Burlington, but also Billings County and the State of North 
Dakota through increased tax revenues.
  One point that I would like to make clear is that this mineral 
exchange should in no way be seen as affecting the multiple uses of the 
land. Current multiple uses, such as recreation, livestock grazing, 
watershed protection or fish, and wildlife purposes, will continue as 
before. This is not a wilderness bill, but a proposal to swap mineral 
rights in order to enhance the environment and to stimulate economic 
activity in a depressed area. I do not favor the designation of 
wilderness within Billings County.
  May I further underscore that this mineral exchange costs the U.S. 
taxpayer nothing. The bill provides for an exchange of about the same 
number of acres with equivalent monetary values. Yet, this no-cost 
transaction will yield substantial economic, environmental, and 
management dividends.
  Further, the bill does not rely on the government imposing a 
solution. Rather, this voluntary agreement embodies a consensus reached 
between the affected parties, the mineral holders, the state and its 
citizens, the environmental organizations, and the U.S. Forest Service.

  Finally, may I stress that there is an urgent need for action on the 
exchange. I would ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill, 
letters of support from the Governor of North Dakota, the Bureau of 
Land Management's Dakotas Resource Council, and the Sierra Club, and 
the memorandum of understanding signed by the Forest Service and 
Burlington Resources be entered into the Record in order to aid my 
colleagues in their deliberations on the bill. In turn, I urge my 
colleagues to support timely passage of this bill.
  There being no objection, the items were ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 750

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

     SECTION 1. EXCHANGE OF CERTAIN MINERAL INTERESTS IN BILLINGS 
                   COUNTY, NORTH DAKOTA.

       (a) Purpose.--The purpose of this section is to consolidate 
     certain mineral interests in the Little Missouri National 
     Grasslands in Billings County, North Dakota, through the 
     exchange of Federal and private mineral interests in order to 
     enhance land management capability and environmental and 
     wildlife protection.
       (b) Exchange.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law--
       (1) if, not later than 45 days after the date of enactment 
     of this Act, Burlington Resources Oil & Gas Company (referred 
     to in this section as ``Burlington'' and formerly known as 
     Meridian Oil Inc.), conveys title acceptable to the Secretary 
     of Agriculture (referred to in this section as the 
     ``Secretary'') to rights and interests identified on the map 
     entitled ``Billings County, North Dakota, Consolidated 
     Mineral Exchange--November 1995'', by quitclaim deed 
     acceptable to the Secretary, the Secretary shall convey to 
     Burlington, subject to valid existing rights, by quit-claim 
     deed, all Federal rights and interests identified on that 
     map; and
       (2) if Burlington makes the conveyance under paragraph (1) 
     and, not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of 
     this Act,

[[Page S4598]]

     the owners of the remaining non-oil and gas mineral interests 
     identified on that map convey title acceptable to the 
     Secretary to all rights, title, and interests in the 
     interests held by them, by quitclaim deed acceptable to the 
     Secretary, the Secretary shall convey to those owners, 
     subject to valid existing rights, by exchange deed, all 
     Federal rights, title, and interests in National Forest 
     System lands and National Grasslands in the State of North 
     Dakota as are agreed to by the Secretary and the owners of 
     those interests.
       (c) Leasehold Interests.--As a condition precedent to the 
     conveyance of interests by the Secretary to Burlington under 
     this section, all leasehold and contractual interests in the 
     oil and gas interests to be conveyed by Burlington to the 
     United States under this section shall be released, to the 
     satisfaction of the Secretary.
       (d) Approximate Equal Value of Exchanges With Other 
     Interest Owners.--The values of the interests to be exchanged 
     under subsection (b)(2) shall be approximately equal, as 
     determined by the Secretary.
       (e) Land Use.--
       (1) Exploration and development.--The Secretary shall grant 
     to Burlington, and its successors and assigns, the use of 
     Federally-owned surface lands to explore for and develop 
     interests conveyed to Burlington under this Act, subject to 
     applicable Federal and State laws.
       (2) Surface occupancy and use.--Rights to surface occupancy 
     and use that Burlington would have absent the exchange under 
     this Act on its interests conveyed under this Act shall apply 
     to the same extent on the federally owned surface estate 
     overlying oil and gas rights conveyed to Burlington under 
     this Act.
       (f) Environmental Protection for Environmentally Sensitive 
     Lands.--All activities of Burlington, and its successors and 
     assigns, relating to exploration and development on 
     environmentally sensitive National Forest System lands, as 
     described in the ``Memorandum of Understanding Concerning 
     Certain Severed Mineral Estates, Billings County, North 
     Dakota'', executed by the Forest Service and Burlington and 
     dated November 2, 1995, shall be subject to the terms of the 
     memorandum.
       (g) Map.--The map referred to in subsection (b) shall be 
     provided to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources of 
     the Senate and the Committee on Resources of the House of 
     Representatives, kept on file in the office of the Chief of 
     the Forest Service, and made available for public inspection 
     in the office of the Forest Supervisor of the Custer National 
     Forest within 45 days after the date of enactment of this 
     Act.
       (h) Other Laws.--The exchange under subsection (b)(1) shall 
     be deemed to meet the requirements of all other Federal laws, 
     including all land exchange laws, environmental laws, and 
     cultural laws (such as the National Historic Preservation Act 
     (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.)), and no further compliance with any 
     other law shall be required in order to implement the 
     exchanges.
       (i) Continuation of Multiple Use.--Nothing in this Act 
     shall limit, restrict, or otherwise affect the application of 
     the principle of multiple use (including outdoor recreation, 
     range, timber, watershed, and fish and wildlife purposes) in 
     any area of the Little Missouri National Grasslands. Federal 
     grazing permits or privileges in areas designated on the map 
     entitled ``Billings County, North Dakota, Consolidated 
     Mineral Exchange--November 1995'' or those lands described in 
     the ``Memorandum of Understanding Concerning Certain Severed 
     Mineral Estates, Billings County, North Dakota'', shall not 
     be curtailed or otherwise limited as a result of the exchange 
     authorized by this Act.
                                  ____



                                       Office of the Governor,

                                      Bismarck, ND, July 25, 1996.
     Hon. Byron L. Dorgan,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Dorgan: The State of North Dakota supports the 
     introduction of a bill which would implement a proposed 
     mineral exchange between the United States Forest Service and 
     Meridian Oil, Inc. This effort will advance our ``2020'' 
     program to plan and implement sound management of the 
     Badlands well into the future.
       Current land and mineral ownership patterns in the Bullion 
     Butte and Ponderosa Pine areas of the Little Missouri 
     National Grasslands are fragmented, thereby complicating 
     management of surface and mineral resources.
       The proposed exchange is an opportunity to consolidate 
     ownership, enhance natural badlands habitat adjacent to the 
     Little Missouri River and facilitate mineral development 
     while reducing conflict by competing activities.
       Finally, I have included a summary describing more 
     completely, the intended exchange and its effect.
           Sincerely,
                                                Edward T. Schafer,
                                                         Governor.
       Enclosure.

   Legislation To Effect an Exchange of Mineral Rights in the Little 
               Missouri National Grasslands, Billings, ND

       For over a decade, the United States Forest Service (USFS) 
     and Meridian Oil, Inc. (Meridian) have been considering a 
     possible exchange of oil and gas rights in the Bullion Butte 
     and Ponderosa Pine areas of the Little Missouri National 
     Grasslands in North Dakota. The land ownership pattern in 
     those areas is very fragmented, with both federal and 
     privately owned mineral rights and federal surface and 
     private subsurface estates. This lack of unity between the 
     surface and subsurface estates and intermixture of public and 
     private mineral rights have complicated both effective 
     management of surface resource values and efficient 
     extraction of minerals. The USFS views an exchange to 
     consolidate mineral ownerships as an opportunity to protect 
     bighorn sheep and their habitat and the viewshed in the 
     Little Missouri River corridor. Meridian expects an exchange 
     to facilitate exploration for and development of oil and gas 
     by reducing the conflict such activities would have with 
     other sensitive Grasslands resources.
       At the urging of Senator Dorgan and Governor Schafer, the 
     USFS and Meridian reached an agreement last year on an 
     exchange of certain federal and private mineral rights and 
     the imposition of certain constraints on Meridian oil and gas 
     activities. The agreement would be implemented by this 
     legislation.
       What the legislation does. The legislation would accomplish 
     the following:
       Direct the completion of the transfer of Meridian's mineral 
     rights in approximately 9,582 acres to the USFS for federal 
     oil and gas rights in 8,796 acres, all in Billings County, 
     North Dakota, within 45 days of enactment.
       Authorize the exchange of any other private mineral rights 
     in the same area for federal mineral rights within 6 months 
     of enactment.
       Deem the mineral rights to be transferred in the USFS/
     Meridian exchange to be of equal value (since the two parties 
     have already negotiated the exchange and are of the informed 
     opinion that the values are equivalent) and require that the 
     other mineral rights to be transferred be of approximately 
     equal value.
       Require Meridian, as a condition for the exchange, to 
     secure release of any leasehold or other contractual rights 
     that may have been established on the Meridian oil and gas 
     interests that will be exchanged.
       Assure Meridian that it will have access across federal 
     lands to be able, subject to applicable federal and State 
     laws, to explore for and develop oil and gas on the interests 
     it will receive in the exchange and that it will have the 
     same surface occupancy and use rights on the interests it 
     will receive that it now holds on the interests to be 
     surrendered.
       Find that the USFS/Meridian exchange meets the requirements 
     of other federal exchange, environmental, and cultural laws 
     that would apply if the exchange were to be processed without 
     Congressional approval and direction.
       Assure that no provision of the legislation can be 
     interpreted to limit, restrict, or otherwise affect the 
     application of the principle of multiple use (including such 
     uses as hunting, fishing, grazing and recreation) in the 
     Grasslands.
       In addition to facilitating the exchange, the legislation 
     would memorialize a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) also 
     negotiated and executed by the USFS and Meridian concerning 
     management of certain Meridian oil and gas properties that 
     will remain in Grasslands' areas with high surface resource 
     values. In particular the MOU, adopted by reference in the 
     legislation, obligates Meridian to make its best efforts to 
     locate any oil and gas facilities and installations outside 
     of the 1/4 mile view corridor on either side of the stretch 
     of the Little Missouri River being considered for designation 
     as a Wild and Scenic River and to access certain other 
     property adjacent to an important bighorn sheep lambing area 
     only by directional drilling.
       Equally important is what the legislation does not do. It 
     does:
       Not increase the amount of surface which the USFS controls. 
     The USFS currently controls the surface on essentially all 
     the land involved in the exchange, and this will not change 
     since only mineral interests will be transferred.
       Not decrease the federal land available for oil and gas 
     development. To the contrary, in the exchange the federal 
     government will receive a net gain of almost 800 acres in 
     mineral rights that may be leased for exploration and 
     development by other parties. And, by consolidating federal 
     mineral rights which now are scattered in a checkerboard 
     pattern, access to them should be improved. The extent to 
     which existing and new federal mineral rights are leased to 
     private parties will be decided by the USFS in the ongoing 
     planning and Environmental Impact Statement for the Southern 
     Little Missouri Grasslands. The ``multiple use'' provision of 
     the legislation makes certain the legislation will not affect 
     that decisionmaking process.
       Not decrease revenue to the county, state, and federal 
     governments. For the same reason that the exchange would not 
     decrease land available for oil and gas development, the 
     economic interests of taxing entities and the oil and gas 
     industry should not be affected significantly by the 
     exchange. In fact, with Meridian consolidating its mineral 
     holdings in a more manageable and less sensitive unit, area 
     oil and gas activity should increase and produce a net 
     positive economic effect.
       Not provide either Meridian or USFS with mineral rights of 
     greater value than those they now hold. The USFS with the 
     assistance of the Bureau of Land Management, has

[[Page S4599]]

     reached the conclusion that the mineral rights to be 
     exchanged between the USFS and Meridian are of equal value. 
     Some additional value will accrue to both sets of mineral 
     rights transferred by the exchange because of the greater 
     ease of access and management that will result from 
     consolidation. The legislation requires that any other 
     mineral rights exchanged by other parties under the 
     legislation be of approximately equal value.
       Not resolve the issue of wilderness designation. Some 
     parties desire wilderness protection for the area. Other 
     parties, including Meridian, oppose wilderness designation, 
     and the USFS has not indicated any intent to establish a 
     wilderness. The legislation would not increase, or decrease, 
     the prospect for wilderness designation since wilderness may 
     be designated whether the mineral rights are privately or 
     publicly owned, the designation can only be accomplished by a 
     separate Act of Congress, and the legislation's ``multiple 
     use'' language makes clear the intent of Congress that the 
     exchange is not intended to affect the wilderness issue.
                                  ____

                                                  Dakotas Resource


                                             Advisory Council,

                                Dickinson, ND, September 13, 1996.
     Hon. Ed Schafer,
     Governor of North Dakota, State Capitol, Bismarck, ND
       Dear Governor Schafer: The Dakota Resource Advisory Council 
     (RAC), a 12-member body appointed by the Secretary of the 
     Interior, represents users of public lands in North and South 
     Dakota. The RAC provides opportunities for meaningful public 
     participation in land management decisions at the district 
     level and encourages conflict resolution among various 
     interest groups.
       At our meeting in Dickinson, North Dakota on September 9, 
     1996, the RAC reviewed and discussed the Meridian Mineral 
     Exchange that you have been considering. After careful review 
     by our RAC, a resolution was passed indicating our support 
     for legislation to allow the Meridian Mineral Exchange to be 
     completed by the Bureau of Land Management.
       Since there is considerable activity in this area, there is 
     a definite urgency to move this legislation in the remaining 
     days of this Congress. The Dakota RAC respectfully requests 
     the introduction and passage of legislation on the Meridian 
     Mineral Exchange.
       If we can be of further assistance to your efforts in this 
     regard, we are most willing to help. District Manager, Doug 
     Burger, has more details with respect to the exchange and we 
     have asked him to assist you.
       Thank you for considering the recommendations of the Dakota 
     RAC.
           Sincerely,
                                              Marc Trimmer, Chair,
     Dakota RAC.
                                  ____

                                                Dacotah Chapter of


                                              the Sierra Club,

                                   Mandan, ND, September 14, 1995.
     Re meridian mineral exchange.

     Hon. Byron Dorgan,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Dorgan: I am writing to convey the Sierra 
     Club's support for the ``agreement in principle'' for a 
     mineral exchange between Meridian Oil Inc. (MOI) and the 
     Bureau of Land management (BLM) / United States Forest 
     Service (USFS). This agreement follows extensive negotiations 
     between MOI, USFS, BLM, the North Dakota Game and Fish 
     Department (NDGF) and local conservation organizations.
       It is my understanding that there are two components to the 
     agreement. Part One involves the actual exchange of the 
     mineral estate. Part Two outlines a Memorandum of 
     Understanding (MOU) between the USFS and MOI to protect the 
     viewshed of the Little Missouri State Scenic River while 
     still allowing MOI to access their minerals. The MOU also 
     addresses a plan to directionally drill an oil well to 
     protect a bighorn sheep lambing area.
       I have also contacted the enclosed list of conservation 
     organizations and they have also stated their support for 
     Parts One and Two of the agreement as proposed. I join them 
     in urging you to introduce enabling legislation at the 
     earliest opportunity. Your efforts throughout this process 
     have been very much appreciated. Please contact me if there 
     is anything conservationists can do to facilitate this 
     mineral exchange.


     conservation organizations in support of the mineral exchange

       Dacotah Chapter of the Sierra Club.
       National Wildlife Federation.
       National Audubon Society.
       Clean Water Action.
       North Dakota Chapter of the Wildlife Society.
       Bismarck Mandan Bird Club.
       Lewis and Clark Wildlife Club.
                                  ____


Memorandum of Understanding Concerning Certain Severed Mineral Estates, 
                     Billings County, North Dakota

       The Memorandum of Understand (MOU) is between Meridian Oil 
     Inc. (Meridian) with offices in Englewood, Colorado and the 
     U.S. Forest Service, Custer National Forest (Forest Service).
       The intent of the MOU is to set forth agreement regarding 
     development of certain oil and gas interests beneath Federal 
     surface. This MOU is in addition to, and does not abrogate, 
     any rights the United States otherwise has to regulate 
     activities on the Federal surface estate or any rights 
     Meridian otherwise has to develop the oil and gas interest 
     conveyed.
       The provisions of this MOU shall apply to the successors 
     and assigns of Meridian.
       The MOU may be amended by written agreement of the parties.
       Section A. View Corridor--Little Missouri River
       Includes the following land (Subject Lands) in Township 
     137N., Range 102W.:
       Section 3: Lots 6, 7, 9-12, 14-17 (+) River Bottom 54.7 
     acres
       Section 10: Kits 1-4, N\1/2\, N\1/2\SE\1/4\, SE\1/4\SE\1/4\ 
     (+) River Bottom 7.3 acres
       Section 14: Lots 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, NW\1/4\NE\1/4\., NW\1/
     4\SW\1/4\, S\1/2\S\1/2\ (+) River Bottom 41.4 acres
       Section 24: Lots 1-9, NE\1/4\, S\1/2\NW\1/4\, NE\1/4\NW\1/
     4\ (+) River Bottom 75.84 acres
       1. The purpose of this Section is to set forth the 
     agreements that Meridian and the Forest Service have made 
     concerning reasonable protection of the view from the Little 
     Missouri River which has been identified as potentially 
     suitable for classification as a Wild and Scenic River under 
     the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. This section of the MOU shall 
     remain in effect as long as the Forest Service maintains a 
     corridor for this purpose.
       2. The Forest Service has designated a \1/4\ mile corridor 
     on either side of the River for protection of the view from 
     the River, and this Section applies to the location of 
     permanent improvements within said corridor and not to 
     temporary activities such as seismic operations within said 
     corridor.
       3. Meridian agrees to use its best efforts to locate 
     permanent production facilities, well sites, roads and other 
     installations outside the \1/4\ mile corridor on the Subject 
     Lands. However, such facilities may be located within the \1/
     4\ mile corridor if mutually agreed to by the parties in 
     writing.
       4. The Forest Service agrees that Meridian may access its 
     minerals within or without the \1/4\ mile corridor of the 
     subject lands from a well or wells whose surface location is 
     on adjoining lands in which Meridian owns the severed mineral 
     estate.
       Section B. Development of T.138N., R102W., Section 12: S\1/
     2\
       1. The purpose of this section is to set forth the 
     agreement that Meridian and the Forest Service have made 
     concerning the option to develop the mineral resources in the 
     S\1/2\ Section 12 from specified locations in 'Section 13, 
     T.138N., R.102W.
       2. If, at any time, Meridian, at its sole discretion, 
     decides that the development potential of the S\1/2\ Section 
     12 justifies additional directional drilling the following 
     options are hereby made available to them by the Forest 
     Service:
       A. Directional drilling from an expanded pad on the Duncan 
     MP#1 location in Section 13, T.138N., R.102W. or
       B. Directional drilling from a location in Section 13 
     adjacent to the county road and screened from the bighorn 
     sheep lambing area located in Section 12.
       If Meridian elects to develop the S\1/2\ Section 12 from 
     one of the specified locations in Section 13, surface 
     disturbing activities related to development and production 
     will only be allowed from June 16 through October 14, 
     annually.
       3. This section of the MOU shall remain in effect as long 
     as the S\1/2\ of Section 12 is subject to the present, or a 
     future, oil and gas lease.

                                            Steven L. Reinert,

                                                 Attroney-in-Fact,
                                                Meridian Oil, Inc.

                                               Nancy Curriden,

                                                Forest Supervisor,
                                           Custer National Forest.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. SHELBY (for himself, Mr. Murkowski, Mr. Craig, and Mr. 
        Burns):
  S. 751. A bill to protect and enhance sportsmen's opportunities and 
conservation of wildlife, and for other purposes; to the Committee on 
Environment and Public Works.


                 Sportsmen's Bill of Rights Act of 1997

  Mr. SHELBY. Mr President, today, I am pleased to join my colleagues 
and fellow Congressional Sportsmen's Caucus cochairs Senators Burns, 
Craig and Murkowski in introducing the Sportsmen' Bill of Rights Act of 
1997.
  Hunting and fishing are traditions that have been an integral part of 
our history since the inception of our Nation and are among the most 
basic of our heritage. Through the ages, sportsmen have shown a deep 
respect and appreciation for the land and have made a concerted effort 
to wisely use our Nation's renewable natural resources. All across this 
country, very successful alliances have been formed between hunting and 
fishing enthusiasts and conservationists. Both are very concerned about 
protecting natural habitats, and when working together their force 
includes some 70 percent of the U.S. population.
  Today, millions of Americans participate in these venerable pastimes. 
Over 60 million Americans enthusiastically participate in fishing 
activities and 14 million citizens are licensed hunters. These 
recreational activities are a significant boost to many local and State 
economies, as well as the Nation. Sportsmen spent more than $67.9 
billion last year on goods and services

[[Page S4600]]

supporting an industry that employs more than a million people across 
the country. When discussing the contributions sportsmen have made to 
our Nation, often overlooked is the fact that sportsmen have carried 
the burden of financing fish and wildlife management and preservation 
through the years.
  America owes our sportsmen a debt of gratitude for their pioneering 
achievements on behalf of wildlife and habitat conservation. The 
Sportsmen's Bill of Rights recognizes the important role fishing and 
hunting play in our society by providing anglers and hunters with 
explicit access to public lands; opening the process of wildlife 
management and protecting the integrity of the sportsmen's trust funds. 
This bill ensures that hunting and fishing opportunities are considered 
in Federal land management decisions, and provides a clear procedure 
for Federal agencies to follow in their management of our Federal 
public lands.
  For too long, sportsmen have been unduly penalized from equitably 
sharing public land. This bill mandates that Federal agencies analyze 
the effects of potential hunting and fishing limitations prior to 
enacting new land use policies. Hunters and anglers should be granted 
the right to intervene in any civil action where law would limit the 
use of land for hunting and fishing. The provisions in the sportsmen's 
bill of rights assure that Federal agencies support, encourage and 
enhance the opportunities for fishing and hunting.
  While this bill promotes access to public lands, it recognizes the 
need for exceptions and exclusions due to national security concerns, 
public safety matters, emergency situations and policy reasons that are 
incompatible with hunting or fishing. This act cannot be used to force 
the opening of National Parks or monuments administered by the National 
Park Service to fishing or hunting and this legislation is not intended 
to place fishing and hunting above other land management priorities. 
The sportsmen's bill of rights is aimed at setting forth tangible 
management guidelines.
  Additionally, this year marks the 60th anniversary of one of our 
Nation's most successful Federal restoration programs, the Pittman 
Robertson Act. P-R, as it is often referred to, is a partnership 
created by the State fish and wildlife agencies and the funds provided 
by the anglers and hunters. Sportsman across the land have sponsored, 
supported and maintained the integrity of P-R throughout the last 60 
years. The funds are raised through an excise tax on sportsman's goods 
and subsequently, placed in a fund to be allocated to the States yearly 
in accordance with statutory formulas. Today $357 million is raised for 
wildlife restoration through P-R funds in conjunction with the Dingell-
Johnson Act and the Wallop-Breaux Act.

  Due to the congenial partnership of our Nation's hunters and anglers 
with Federal-State agencies, America's wildlife is thriving. For every 
taxpayer dollar invested in wildlife conservation, sportsmen and women 
contribute $9 dollars. At the turn of the century, only 41,000 elk were 
counted across our Nation. While the Nation's population soared and 
massive development occurred, sportsmen's conservation initiatives have 
enable the elk population in just 10 western States to increase to 
approximately 810,000. Similar stories can be applied to numerous 
species including the white-tailed deer, the Canada goose, and the wild 
turkey. Hunters and anglers have been and will continue to be the 
champions of wildlife and habitat conservation. These examples just 
begin to demonstrate the value of anglers and hunters to our society.
  The sportsmen's bill of rights will protect and enhance sportsmen's 
opportunities and enhance the conservation of wildlife. I urge my 
colleagues to join me by cosponsoring this important legislation.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. THURMOND (for himself, Mr. Coats, Mr. Hollings, Mr. Helms, 
        Mr. Faircloth, and Mr. Hutchinson):
  S. 752. A bill to amend title 23, United States Code, to modify the 
minimum allocation formula under the Federal-aid highway program, and 
for other purposes; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.


                     highway trust fund legislation

  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to 
revise the formula by which the highway trust fund is apportioned and 
distributed to the States under the Federal Aid to Highways Program. 
This measure is cosponsored by Senators Coats, Hollings, Helms, 
Faircloth, and Hutchinson from Arkansas.
  The current formula was established in 1956 to support the building 
of a nationwide, interstate highway system. At that time, it was 
necessary to redistribute the tax revenues from some States to those 
with large land areas and low population. As it exists now, the present 
formula is inefficient and unfair. It is inefficient because it is 
based upon population statistics that were current in 1980. There is no 
allowance for population shifts in the future and, as a result, high 
growth areas of the country are left on their own to provide the 
infrastructure to support growing populations. It is unfair because the 
disparity in the rates of return creates a policy that, in effect, 
values a mile of road in one State three times as much as a similar 
mile of road in another State.
  Mr. President, the interstate highway program has been an enormous 
success and is now virtually complete. However, the circumstances which 
gave rise to the present formula have changed and it is now time for a 
new one. Our legislation corrects both the inefficiency and unfairness 
of the current formula. It amends the law to provide that the minimum 
annual allocation to each State from the highway trust fund be equal to 
that State's share of contributions to the fund. This formula will 
allocate funds where they are most needed. The General Accounting 
Office, in a November 1995 study, noted that highway trust fund 
contributions bear a high correlation to the need for highway funding 
in a given area. Moreover, under this new formula, as population grows 
and economic activity increases, additional infrustructure funding will 
be available.
  Mr. President, this bill presents a fair and workable formula for 
distributing funds under the next highway bill. I urge my colleagues to 
join us in support of this legislation.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the legislation 
be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 752

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

     SECTION 1. MINIMUM ALLOCATION.

       (a) Fiscal Year 1998 and Thereafter.--Section 157(a) of 
     title 23, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end 
     the following:
       ``(5) Fiscal year 1998 and thereafter.--In fiscal year 1998 
     and each fiscal year thereafter, on October 1, or as soon as 
     possible thereafter, the Secretary shall allocate among the 
     States amounts sufficient to ensure that a State's percentage 
     of the total apportionments in each fiscal year and 
     allocations for the prior fiscal year from funds made 
     available out of the Highway Trust Fund is not less than 100 
     percent of the percentage of estimated tax payments 
     attributable to highway users in the State paid into the 
     Highway Trust Fund in the latest fiscal year for which data 
     are available.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 157(a)(4) of title 23, 
     United States Code, is amended by striking the paragraph 
     designation and all that follows before ``on October 1'' and 
     inserting the following:
       ``(4) Fiscal years 1992-1997.--In each of fiscal years 1992 
     through 1997,''.

  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, today I am proud to join Senator 
Thurmond in introducing legislation to bring fairness to Federal 
transportation funding. This legislation would guarantee that the 
Federal Government would return to each State the same share of gas tax 
funds that it had paid into the transportation trust fund.
  In 1991, I voted against the current transportation law, known as 
``ISTEA.'' Supporters advocated the legislation as a forward-looking 
consolidation of Federal highway programs, but the heart of the bill--
the way it distributed money--looked backward in every sense. It 
tightly tied each State's future funding to past funding levels. It 
used old census data. It used old formula factors which do not even 
pass the ``straight face'' test. As the GAO reported, ``the Congress 
elected not to change the basic formula structure'' and thus the key 
factors in

[[Page S4601]]

the formula are ``irrelevant'' and ``divorced from current 
conditions.'' In other words, we are currently targeting more than $20 
billion of taxpayer funds to the wrong places for the wrong reasons.
  South Carolina bears the brunt of this inequity. In 1995, South 
Carolina received only 52 cents back for each dollar it paid to the 
highway trust fund. Over the period of ISTEA, South Carolina received 
only 70 cents back on the dollar. Let me add that I am not unaware of 
the overall Federal funding situation in South Carolina. South Carolina 
gets back more Federal tax money than its citizens contribute. Mr. 
President, that is as it should be. We are one Nation, and some parts 
of the Nation have lower average incomes. That is no excuse for 
targeting highway funds in a way that an objective study found to be 
``irrelevant'' and ``divorced from current conditions.''
  It is rare that a $20 billion problem has a simple solution. I refer 
again to the independent assessment of the GAO, which said that basing 
Federal payments to States on the amounts States paid in would, would 
meet two major, commonsense objectives of any highway program:
  First, it would be a ``relatively simple and direct method of fund 
distribution.''
  Second, it would ``tend to correlate highly with highway needs, 
particularly for major highways.''
  Furthermore, the GAO found that basing funding on gas tax paid in 
would effectively kill two birds with one stone by accounting for 
highway needs and for equity between States with one formula factor.
  Mr. President, a program that does not target funds to today's needs, 
and which mires States and the Congress in arcane complexity, cries out 
for revision. The legislation we introduce here today is a good 
starting point to better address our Nation's highway needs. I urge my 
colleagues to join us in supporting this bill.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. MACK (for himself, Mr. Lieberman, and Mr. Brownback):
  S. 753. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide 
for individuals who are residents of the District of Columbia a maximum 
rate of tax of 15 percent on income from sources within the District of 
Columbia, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.


             the district of columbia economic recovery act

  Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce along with my 
colleague Senator Lieberman the District of Columbia Economic Recovery 
Act. The social, administrative, and fiscal problems of our Nation's 
capital are well documented. The District of Columbia is facing its 
greatest economic crisis since its establishment in 1790. Congress has 
taken major steps, including the creation of a financial control board, 
to assist the city during this current financial crisis. Despite 
efforts by the District's Government and Congress to manage these 
problems, the city has a long way to go to achieve economic self-
sufficiency.
  Mr. President, at the root of the District's problems is an 
evereroding middle class. Since 1950, Washington's population has 
declined by nearly 250,000 residents; 68,000 left between 1988 and 1993 
alone. The vast majority of these people were middle-class families 
whose taxes funded the city's operations. Historically, the District of 
Columbia has tried to offset this decline by raising taxes, leading to 
even more residents leaving the city in search of lower tax rates, 
better schools and safer streets.
  We believe that the best way to help the District is to promote 
economic growth, and the best way to promote economic growth is to 
significantly reduce the tax burden on its residents. Economic growth 
will mean more jobs, more opportunity, greater private sector 
investment and ultimately a better quality of life in the Nation's 
capital.
  The DCERA is an important step in luring taxpayers back to the 
District of Columbia. It provides tax incentives, including a 15-
percent flat income tax rate for all District resident and deductions 
of: $15,000 for individual filers; $25,000 for head of household 
filers; and $30,000 for married filers.
  Many critics of the flat rate argue that it is a bonanza for the rich 
and the poor, but does little to address the needs of the middle class. 
We have added several incentives designed specifically to assist the 
middle class. First, the bill includes a $5,000 first time home buyers' 
provision designed to assist middle-class families in purchasing homes 
within the District of Columbia. Second, the bill maintains the current 
home mortgage and charitable deductions. Finally, we have included a 
zero capital gains tax rate to help spur investment by District and 
non-District residents. Middle class residents should benefit 
significantly from this provision because it encourages them to invest 
their earnings and it offers a generous reward if and when a middle-
class resident sells their homes. Besides these incentives we have 
included a brownfields provision that encourages companies to clean up 
environmentally damaged land that is sure to improve the quality of 
life for District residents and their families.
  This bill also provides an opportunity for all Americans to 
participate in the economic stability of the District of Columbia by 
allowing them to have a zero capital gains rate for investments made 
within the District. We believe that Americans everywhere have great 
pride in this city and truly want it to represent all the best aspects 
of this Nation, including a vibrant economy. For too long the city's 
economy has been linked with the growth and declines of the Federal 
Government. I believe that the capital gains provisions will encourage 
nongovernmental economic investment in the District of Columbia.
  Washington, DC is not only home to the people who live here, it is 
truly the Nation's city.
  We believe that these incentives, along with responsible and sensible 
financial management, are just what this great city needs to regain its 
past glory.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I am delighted to join with Senators 
Mack, Lott, and Brownback as an original cosponsor of this important 
legislation, the District of Columbia Economic Recovery Act of 1997 
(DCERA).
  The District of Columbia belongs to each and every one of us. As 
citizens of the United States, we have a stake in the successes, and a 
stake in the failures, of Washington, DC. It is America's city. But, 
for a variety of reasons, not all of them easily explained, Washington 
is in desperate financial straits. The here and now financial prospects 
are grim for the city, and the future gets grimmer. This is largely 
because middle-class families, the backbone of any successful 
community, are fleeing the District in alarming numbers.
  The legislation we are introducing today would instantly transform 
our Nation's capital, making it a more appealing place to live, to 
invest, to build, to buy, and to work. This bill is designed to reverse 
the flow of businesses and the middle-class residents who currently are 
fleeing the city for the suburbs. Those still in the District would 
have new incentives to stay. And many others now living elsewhere would 
have a very strong incentive to move into the District with their 
families and with their businesses.
  We cannot make the schools better in the District overnight. We 
cannot promise crime-free streets overnight. We cannot promise a 
revitalized economy overnight. What we can do is provide middle-class 
tax relief in the District, and as a way to lure these middle-class 
taxpayers to the District as a way to reestablish a tax base in the 
District. And once we bring these people back, safer streets and better 
schools can follow.
  This legislation is modeled on legislation that has been introduced 
in the House with broad, bipartisan support, by Representative Eleanor 
Holmes Norton. Both the House and the Senate version of the DCERA 
establish a maximum Federal tax rate of 15 percent. Both bills double 
the personal exemption, which would eliminate Federal income taxes for 
single residents who make up to $15,000 a year and married couples 
filing jointly who make up to $30,000 a year. At the same time, the 
bill retains the mortgage and charitable deductions and would allow a 
taxpayer to file under the old system, if that is what they prefer to 
do. In contrast to Representative Norton's bill, which provides capital 
gains tax relief only to D.C. residents, our legislation

[[Page S4602]]

establishes a zero capital gains rate for D.C. investments held by D.C. 
or non-D.C. residents for 3 years. We believe that the broader 
exemption is necessary to spur as much investment in the District as 
possible. Also in contrast to the House DCERA, our bill includes a 
$5,000 credit for first time District home purchases and includes a 
provision to clean up abandoned brownfields within the District. 
Members of Congress not representing the District could not take 
advantage of the tax incentives in the bill, and the District already 
has enacted legislation ensuring that it would not take advantage of 
the Federal tax incentives in this bill by raising local taxes.

  I very much see this bill as a first step. Some of the urban problems 
Washington faces are unique to Washington because Washington has no 
State, no broader tax base, to draw on. At the same time, many of 
Washington's problems are problems that are faced by cities all across 
this country. If this approach works in Washington, I hope we can try 
it in Bridgeport, New Haven, and Hartford as well.
  I should note that, unlike some proponents of this legislation, I am 
at best an agnostic on a flat tax. I believe progressivity in our tax 
rates is inherently fair and am pleased that the legislation we are 
introducing today has elements of that progressivity by providing such 
a generous personal exemption. At the same time, a good number of our 
cities are facing the loss of their middle-class population and the 
only way to rebuild that base may be through bold measures like a flat 
tax which has clear and compelling benefits for the middle class. The 
people we are really anxious to bring back to our cities are the 28 
percenters. Under the current Tax Code a typical family in the 28-
percent bracket would be a couple with two children who make roughly 
between $39,000 and $95,000 after deductions. Our bill would create a 
very favorable tax incentive for these people to stay in, or move to, 
the District.
  Mr. President, the most important thing there is to say about urban 
policy in this country is that we really do not have an urban policy. 
We know what has not worked; today we are introducing legislation that 
we believe will work and there is no better place to start than in 
Washington, DC, a city that belongs to all Americans. I urge my 
colleagues to join us in cosponsoring this important legislation.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with my 
distinguished colleagues today to introduce the District of Columbia 
Economic Recovery Act, a bill which would jumpstart the District's 
economy and set in motion a commercial, social, and cultural 
renaissance that will once again make all Americans proud of their 
Capital.
  I am delighted to find that the District's City Council shares my 
belief that the enactment of this legislation will be very good for the 
city. On May 9, 1997, in a resolution to accompany its qualified 
endorsement of the administration's bailout plan, the Council stated 
that ``. . . the District of Columbia Economic Recovery Act . . . would 
provide the jolt that is desperately needed to expand the District's 
revenue base by reversing the hemorrhaging of residents and jobs from 
the District.''
  Although this legislation represents a good start toward the 
resolution of the city's problems, much more needs to be done. As 
chairman of the Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management, 
Restructuring and the District of Columbia, I have just concluded 2 
months of oversight hearings on the District's many problems, including 
the poor performance of the schools, the high crime rate, and the 
city's reputation for low quality services. While each of these 
problems are being addressed in some fashion by the Control Board, they 
are far from being solved, and the city remains desperately in need of 
a renewal of its spirit.
  In the coming weeks I will be exploring with my colleagues, with city 
officials, and with the administration a series of additional reform 
options that will help lead to this renewal, and to the recreation of a 
Capital City worthy of a great Nation.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. CAMPBELL (for himself, Mr. Inouye, and Mr. Domenici):

  S. 754. A bill to amend the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency 
Prevention Act of 1974 to provide for direct assistance to Indian 
tribes for juvenile justice and delinquency prevention programs, and 
for other purposes; to the Committee on Indian Affairs.


       THE INDIAN JUVENILE JUSTICE AND DELINQUENCY PREVENTION ACT

  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, today I, along with Senators Inouye and 
Domenici, introduce legislation which will reform the existing Native 
American Pass-Through Program administered by the Office of Juvenile 
Justice and Delinquency Prevention [OJJDP], within the Department of 
Justice, and will create a grant program that will provide direct 
funding to eligible tribes for the purpose of addressing juvenile 
justice needs in Indian country.
  Juvenile delinquency is an enormous problem faced by both State and 
tribal governments. A February 1997 report, issued by OJJDP, indicated 
that law enforcement agencies around the country made an estimated 2.7 
million arrests in 1995 of persons under age 18. This accounted for 18 
percent of all arrests made during that year. OJJDP also reported that 
while the total number of juvenile arrests for violent crimes decreased 
in 1995, the total number of arrests is considerably higher than they 
were in 1992 and 67 percent higher than the 1986 level.
  Unfortunately, there are no complete and accurate sets of statistics 
available on the rate of juvenile delinquency among the American Indian 
and Alaskan Native population as a whole. In spite of this, I think it 
is fair and accurate to say that the threat of an increased rate of 
juvenile delinquency is great in Indian country due to the large and 
growing population of Indian youth under the age of 18.
  In fact, in a hearing conducted by the Senate Committee on Indian 
Affairs on April 8, a representative of the Department of Justice 
stated that ``while violent crime is falling in American cities, it is 
rising on American Indian reservations.'' Despite this, there are still 
about half as many police officers in Indian country on a per capita 
basis.
  Currently, tribal governments which perform law enforcement functions 
are eligible to receive grants through the Native American Pass-Through 
Program, established through the 1988 amendments to the Juvenile 
Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974. Under this program, 
States must make available to tribes a minimum amount of funding based, 
in part, upon the ratio of the number of Indian juveniles within a 
State's boundaries compared to the total number of juveniles within 
that State. This funding may go toward a variety of juvenile 
delinquency prevention, control, or reduction efforts.
  Based upon the comments of representatives of tribal governments, 
State advisory groups, the National Coalition for Juvenile Justice, and 
State governments, it has become clear to me that the Pass-Through 
Program is simply not meeting the needs of tribes. First, the minimum 
amount of funding each State must make available to tribes is, on 
average, so minimal that it fails to appropriately address the needs of 
the tribes. While many States do award grants in excess of the 
requirement, the amounts tribes receive are often too small to initiate 
a program of any magnitude. In addition, many tribes do not even apply 
for these grants, because the cost of preparing a grant application 
would exceed the amount of funds awarded. More importantly, the Pass-
Through Program exists in conflict with the Federal-tribal government-
to-government relationship, by requiring tribal governments to depend 
upon the States. If a State chooses not to participate in the program 
or does not meet certain requirements, tribes located within that 
State's boundaries will not receive funds under the act. Because of 
these and other concerns raised by tribes and juvenile justice 
officials, I am introducing the Indian Juvenile Justice and Delinquency 
Prevention Improvement Act. This proposal seeks to eliminate the Native 
American Pass-Through Program and replace it with a discretionary grant 
program that will provide direct Federal grants to Indian tribes. 
Consistent with the Pass-Through Program, these funds will be used to 
plan and develop programs to prevent and reduce juvenile crime as well 
as to improve the tribal government's juvenile justice system.

[[Page S4603]]

  More specifically, this legislation will require tribes to submit 
program plans as part of their grant application to the Administrator 
of OJJDP. Tribes must comply with certain core requirements in order to 
demonstrate an ability to administer and account for the quality of the 
juvenile justice programs. Finally, this legislation includes a 
reporting requirement similar to the one mandated in the Indian Self-
Determination Act.
  On the administrative side, the legislation directs OJJDP to take 
into account certain important factors when awarding grants such as a 
tribe's available resources and the population of Indian youth who 
reside within the tribe's jurisdiction. It is also important to note 
that this legislation in no way prevents tribes from entering into 
cooperative agreements with States or units of local government. Tribes 
are still able to enter into these agreements and apply for State 
funding should they desire to do so.
  The prevention, control, and reduction of juvenile delinquency should 
be one of the top priorities of this Nation. With this legislation, we 
have the opportunity to provide a better mechanism to deliver funds to 
tribes for the purpose of addressing juvenile justice needs, a much 
better mechanism than we currently have.
  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. 754

       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 ``Indian Juvenile Justice and 
     Delinquency Prevention Improvement Act''.

     SEC. 2. AMENDMENTS TO THE JUVENILE JUSTICE AND DELINQUENCY 
                   PREVENTION ACT OF 1974.

       (a) Definitions.--Section 103 of the Juvenile Justice and 
     Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 5603) is 
     amended--
       (1) in paragraph (8), by striking ``an Indian tribe which 
     performs law enforcement functions as determined by the 
     Secretary of the Interior,'';
       (2) in paragraph (9)--
       (A) by striking ``States or units of general local 
     government'' and inserting ``States, units of general local 
     government, or Indian tribes''; and
       (B) by striking ``States or units'' and inserting ``States, 
     units, or Indian tribes'';
       (3) in paragraph (11), by striking ``any State, unit of 
     local government, combination of such States or units'' and 
     inserting ``any State, unit of general local government, 
     Indian tribe, combination of 1 or more States, units of 
     general local government, or Indian tribes'';
       (4) by striking paragraph (18) and inserting the following:
       ``(18) the term `Indian tribe' means any Indian tribe, 
     band, nation, or other organized group or community, 
     including any Alaska Native village or regional or village 
     corporation as defined in or established pursuant to the 
     Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (43 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.), 
     that is recognized as eligible for the special programs and 
     services provided by the United States to Indians because of 
     their status as Indians;''; and
       (5) in paragraph (22), by inserting ``Indian tribe,'' after 
     ``unit of local government,''.
       (b) Technical Amendment.--Part B of title II of the 
     Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974 (42 
     U.S.C. 5611 et seq.) is amended by striking the heading and 
     inserting the following:

``Part B--Federal Assistance for State and Local Programs and Programs 
                           for Indian Tribes

    ``Subpart I--Federal Assistance for State and Local Programs''.

       (c) Elimination of Pass-Through for Indian Tribes.--Section 
     223(a) of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act 
     of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 5633(a)) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (4), by inserting ``and Indian tribes'' 
     after ``units of general local government'';
       (2) in paragraph (5)--
       (A) in subparagraph (A), by striking the semicolon at the 
     end and inserting ``, except that with respect to any 
     cooperative program conducted with an Indian tribe, the 
     participation of the Indian tribe shall be funded from the 
     amounts made available under subpart II of this part; and'';
       (B) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``and'' at the end; 
     and
       (C) by striking subparagraph (C);
       (3) in paragraph (6)--
       (A) by inserting ``(A)'' before ``provide that'';
       (B) by striking ``programs funded under this part'' and 
     inserting ``programs funded under this subpart'';
       (C) by striking the semicolon at the end and inserting ``; 
     and''; and
       (D) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(B) with respect to any case in which an Indian tribe 
     participates in a cooperative program under paragraph (5)(A), 
     provide that the appropriate official of the governing body 
     of an Indian tribe assign responsibility for the preparation 
     and administration of the Indian tribe's part of the 
     applicable State plan, or for the supervision of the 
     preparation and administration of the Indian tribe's part of 
     the State plan;'';
       (4) in paragraph (24), by striking ``and'' at the end;
       (5) in paragraph (25), by striking the period at the end 
     and inserting a semicolon; and
       (6) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(26) provide assurance that, in carrying out the plan 
     under this section, the State will take appropriate action to 
     improve--
       ``(A) communication between the State and units of general 
     local government and Indian tribes;
       ``(B) cooperation between the State and units of general 
     local government and Indian tribes; and
       ``(C) intergovernmental relationships between the State and 
     units of general local government and Indian tribes; and
       ``(27) provide, as appropriate, a description and analysis 
     of any disproportionate representation in the juvenile 
     justice system of Native Americans (as that term is defined 
     in section 16(10) of the National Museum of the American 
     Indian Act (20 U.S.C. 80q-14(10))) including, if appropriate, 
     any disproportionate representation of Alaska Natives (within 
     the meaning of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (43 
     U.S.C. 1601 et seq.) from--
       ``(A) urban populations; and
       ``(B) populations that are not, as of the date of 
     development of the plan, recognized as eligible for the 
     special programs and services provided by the United States 
     to Indians because of their status as Indians.''.
       (d) Federal Assistance for Programs for Indian Tribes.--
     Part B of title II of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency 
     Prevention Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 5611 et seq.) is amended by 
     adding at the end the following:

    ``Subpart II--Federal Assistance for Programs for Indian Tribes

     ``SEC. 221. ESTABLISHMENT OF PROGRAM.

       ``(a) In General.--The Administrator shall, by regulation, 
     establish a program to provide direct grants to Indian tribes 
     in accordance with this section. Each grant made under this 
     section to an Indian tribe shall be used by the governing 
     body of the Indian tribe--
       ``(1) for planning, establishing, operating, coordinating, 
     and evaluating projects for achieving compliance with the 
     requirements specified in paragraphs (12)(A), (13), and (14) 
     of section 223, and otherwise meeting any applicable 
     requirements of this Act; and
       ``(2) for otherwise conducting activities to promote the 
     improvement of the juvenile justice system of that Indian 
     tribe.
       ``(b) Plans.--As part of an application for a grant under 
     this section, an Indian tribe shall submit a plan for 
     conducting activities described in subsection (a). The plan 
     shall--
       ``(1) provide evidence that the Indian tribe performs law 
     enforcement functions (as determined by the Secretary of the 
     Interior);
       ``(2) identify the juvenile justice and delinquency 
     problems and juvenile delinquency prevention needs to be 
     addressed by activities conducted by the Indian tribe in the 
     area under the jurisdiction of the Indian tribe with 
     assistance provided by the grant;
       ``(3) provide for fiscal control and accounting procedures 
     that--
       ``(A) are necessary to ensure the prudent use, proper 
     disbursement, and accounting of funds received under this 
     subchapter; and
       ``(B) are consistent with the requirements of section 232; 
     and
       ``(4) contain such other information, and be subject to 
     such additional requirements, as the Administrator may 
     reasonably prescribe to ensure the effectiveness of the grant 
     program under this subpart.
       ``(c) Factors for Consideration.--In awarding grants under 
     this section, the Administrator shall consider--
       ``(1) the resources that are available to each applicant 
     that will assist, and be coordinated with, the overall 
     juvenile justice system of the Indian tribe; and
       ``(2) for each Indian tribe that receives assistance under 
     such a grant--
       ``(A) the relative population of individuals under the age 
     of 18; and
       ``(B) who will be served by the assistance provided by the 
     grant.
       ``(d) Grant Awards.--
       ``(1) In general.--
       ``(A) Competitive awards.--Except as provided in paragraph 
     (2), the Administrator shall annually award grants under this 
     section on a competitive basis. The Administrator shall enter 
     into a grant agreement with each grant recipient under this 
     section that specifies the terms and conditions of the grant.
       ``(B) Period of grant.--The period of a grant awarded under 
     this section shall be 1 year.
       ``(2) Exception.--In any case in which the Administrator 
     determines that a grant recipient under this section has 
     performed satisfactorily during the preceding year in 
     accordance with an applicable grant agreement, the 
     Administrator may--
       ``(A) waive the requirement that the recipient be subject 
     to the competitive award process described in paragraph (1); 
     and
       ``(B) renew the grant for an additional grant period (as 
     specified in paragraph (1)(B)).
       ``(3) Modifications of processes.--The Administrator may 
     prescribe requirements to

[[Page S4604]]

     provide for appropriate modifications to the plan preparation 
     and application process specified in this section for an 
     application for a renewal grant under this subsection.

     ``SEC. 232. REPORTING REQUIREMENT.

       ``Each Indian tribe that receives a grant under section 231 
     is subject to the fiscal accountability provisions of section 
     5(f)(1) of the Indian Self-Determination and Education 
     Assistance Act (25 U.S.C. 450c(f)(1)), relating to the 
     submission of a single-agency audit report required by 
     chapter 75 of title 31, United States Code.

     ``SEC. 233. TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE.

       ``The Administrator shall establish a program to provide 
     technical assistance to assist Indian tribes in carrying out 
     the activities described in section 231(a).

     ``SEC. 234. COORDINATION WITH STATE ADVISORY GROUPS.

       ``In carrying out the programs under this subpart, the 
     Administrator shall, not later than 180 days after the end of 
     the fiscal year during which the Indian Juvenile Justice and 
     Delinquency Prevention Improvement Act is enacted, and 
     annually thereafter, issue a report to each advisory group 
     established under a State plan under section 223(a)(3) that 
     includes information relating to each grant awarded under 
     section 231, including the amount of the grant.

     ``SEC. 235. RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.

       ``Nothing in this subpart may be construed to affect in any 
     manner the jurisdiction of an Indian tribe with respect to 
     land or persons in Alaska.

     ``SEC. 236. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       ``There are authorized to be appropriated to the Department 
     of Justice to carry out this subpart, $10,000,000 for each of 
     fiscal years 1998 through 2001.''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. CAMPBELL (for himself and Mr. Ford):
  S. 755. A bill to amend title 10, United States Code, to restore the 
provisions of chapter 76 of that title (relating to missing persons) as 
in effect before the amendments made by the National Defense 
Authorization Act for fiscal year 1997 and to make other improvements 
to that chapter; to the Committee on Armed Services.


            THE MISSING PERSONS AUTHORITIES IMPROVEMENT ACT

  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, with the approach of Memorial Day, we 
are reminded of the millions of American men and women who have 
dedicated and sacrificed their lives in service to the U.S. Armed 
Forces. And for far too many, it is a day to remember those service 
members who have yet to return home from the wars they valiantly fought 
many years ago.
  During the last Congress, we passed the Missing Service Personnel 
Act. Specifically, this bill created a framework of accountability 
within the Department of Defense to establish the status and location 
of our missing Armed Forces personnel. Until this legislation was 
introduced in 1995, the procedures for handling missing service 
personnel had remained unchanged for more than 50 years. This 
legislation improved procedures for reviewing POW/MIA cases and 
protected the missing service member from being declared dead solely 
based on the passage of time. Gathering 47 cosponsors in the Senate and 
achieving unanimous passage in the House, the bill became law in 
February 1996. However, an amendment to the 1997 Defense Authorization 
Conference Report repealed its strongest provisions.
  Today, I am introducing The Missing Persons Authorities Improvement 
Act of 1997 in an effort to restore not only those lost provisions but 
to also offer a sense of accountability for our missing service 
personnel and their loved ones. A companion bill has already been 
introduced in the House of Representatives by Congressman Ben Gilman of 
New York.
  One major provision to be restored requires that military unit 
commanders report and initiate a search within 48 hours from the time a 
person has been deemed missing. Right now, a soldier can be missing for 
up to ten days before a report and search must be made.
  Another restored provision protects civilian defense employees and 
contractors who become missing as a result of hostile action. These 
civilians who serve with, or accompany the Armed Forces in the field 
under orders and place their lives in danger, should be entitled to the 
same protection that is given to uniformed soldiers.
  This bill also includes a provision which requires that if remains 
are recovered and are not identifiable through visual means, 
certification must be made by a forensic scientist that the remains 
recovered are, in fact, the missing person. In the past, hasty and 
speculative conclusions have often lead to misidentification and 
ultimately, undue emotional hardship for MIA families. It is our 
obligation to take full advantage of our current technological 
capabilities and provide the families of missing service personnel with 
certain, respectful closure in every case possible.
  As a veteran who served in Korea, I am especially proud to also 
include an additional provision that calls for the establishment of 
personnel files for Korean conflict cases. Under this provision, if any 
new information is discovered that indicates that the soldier may not 
have been killed during the Korean War, a new case must be opened or an 
existing one must be reviewed. There are currently some 8,000 of my 
Korean war colleagues who have never been accounted for. The recent 
efforts by the many families of Korean War MIA's to learn the fate of 
their loved ones only reinforce the necessity for this provision. These 
families deserve our respect and attention.
  This legislation is supported by numerous veterans' service 
organizations such as the American Legion, the Disabled American 
Veterans, the Korean and Cold War Families Association, and the 
National League of POW/MIA Families.
  This bill asks the Department of Defense only to make the best 
possible effort to recover and return our missing personnel. It is the 
least we owe our soldiers, past and present, who endanger their lives 
in defense of our country. It is the very least we owe the families who 
have and will endure the pain and uncertainty of a loved one left 
unaccounted for at a time of war.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in 
the Record. I also ask unanimous consent that Senator Ford be included 
as an original cosponsor to this legislation.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 755

       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 ``Missing Persons Authorities 
     Improvement Act of 1997''.

     SEC. 2. IMPROVEMENT OF MISSING PERSONS AUTHORITIES APPLICABLE 
                   TO DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE.

       (a) Applicability to Department of Defense Civilian 
     Employees and Contractor Employees.--(1) Section 1501 of 
     title 10, United States Code, is amended--
       (A) by striking out subsection (c) and inserting in lieu 
     thereof the following:
       ``(c) Covered Persons.--Section 1502 of this title applies 
     in the case of the following persons:
       ``(1) Any member of the armed forces on active duty who 
     becomes involuntarily absent as a result of a hostile action, 
     or under circumstances suggesting that the involuntary 
     absence is a result of a hostile action, and whose status is 
     undetermined or who is unaccounted for.
       ``(2)(A) Any other person who is a citizen of the United 
     States and is described in subparagraph (B) who serves with 
     or accompanies the armed forces in the field under orders and 
     becomes involuntarily absent as a result of a hostile action, 
     or under circumstances suggesting that the involuntary 
     absence is a result of a hostile action, and whose status is 
     undetermined or who is unaccounted for.
       ``(B) A person described in this subparagraph is any of the 
     following:
       ``(i) A civilian officer or employee of the Department of 
     Defense.
       ``(ii) An employee of a contractor of the Department of 
     Defense.
       ``(iii) An employee of a United States firm licensed by the 
     United States under section 38 of the Arms Export Control Act 
     (22 U.S.C. 2778) to perform duties under contract with a 
     foreign government involving military training of the 
     military forces of that government in accordance with 
     policies of the Department of Defense.''; and
       (B) by adding at the end the following new subsection:
       ``(f) Secretary Concerned.--In this chapter, the term 
     `Secretary concerned' includes--
       ``(1) in the case of a person covered by clause (i) of 
     subsection (c)(2)(B), the Secretary of the military 
     department or head of the element of the Department of 
     Defense employing the employee;
       ``(2) in the case of a person covered by clause (ii) of 
     subsection (c)(2)(B), the Secretary of the military 
     department or head of the element of the Department of 
     Defense contracting with the contractor; and
       ``(3) in the case of a person covered by clause (iii) of 
     subsection (c)(2)(B), the Secretary of Defense.''.
       (2) Section 1503(c) of such title is amended--
       (A) in paragraph (1), by striking out ``one military 
     officer'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``one individual 
     described in paragraph (2)'';

[[Page S4605]]

       (B) by redesignating paragraphs (2) and (3) as paragraphs 
     (3) and (4), respectively; and
       (C) by inserting after paragraph (1) the following new 
     paragraph (2):
       ``(2) An individual referred to in paragraph (1) is the 
     following:
       ``(A) A military officer, in the case of an inquiry with 
     respect to a member of the armed forces.
       ``(B) A civilian, in the case of an inquiry with respect to 
     a civilian employee of the Department of Defense or of a 
     contractor of the Department of Defense.''.
       (3) Section 1504(d) of such title is amended--
       (A) in paragraph (1), by striking out ``who are'' and all 
     that follows in that paragraph and inserting in lieu thereof 
     ``as follows:
       ``(A) In the case of a board that will inquire into the 
     whereabouts and status of one or more members of the armed 
     forces (and no civilians described in subparagraph (B)), the 
     board shall be composed of officers having the grade of major 
     or lieutenant commander or above.
       ``(B) In the case of a board that will inquire into the 
     whereabouts and status of one or more civilian employees of 
     the Department of Defense or contractors of the Department of 
     Defense (and no members of the armed forces), the board shall 
     be composed of--
       ``(i) not less than three employees of the Department of 
     Defense whose rate of annual pay is equal to or greater than 
     the rate of annual pay payable for grade GS-13 of the General 
     Schedule under section 5332 of title 5; and
       ``(ii) such members of the armed forces as the Secretary 
     considers advisable.
       ``(C) In the case of a board that will inquire into the 
     whereabouts and status of both one or more members of the 
     armed forces and one or more civilians described in 
     subparagraph (B)--
       ``(i) the board shall include at least one officer 
     described in subparagraph (A) and at least one employee of 
     the Department of Defense described in subparagraph (B)(i); 
     and
       ``(ii) the ratio of such officers to such employees on the 
     board shall be roughly proportional to the ratio of the 
     number of members of the armed forces who are subjects of the 
     board's inquiry to the number of civilians who are subjects 
     of the board's inquiry.''; and
       (B) in paragraph (4), by striking out ``section 
     1503(c)(3)'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``section 
     1503(c)(4)''.
       (4) Paragraph (1) of section 1513 of such title is amended 
     to read as follows:
       ``(1) The term `missing person' means--
       ``(A) a member of the armed forces on active duty who is in 
     a missing status; or
       ``(B) a civilian employee of the Department of Defense or 
     an employee of a contractor of the Department of Defense who 
     serves with or accompanies the armed forces in the field 
     under orders and who is in a missing status.

     Such term includes an unaccounted for person described in 
     section 1509(b) of this title, under the circumstances 
     specified in the last sentence of section 1509(a) of this 
     title.''.
       (b) Report on Preliminary Assessment of Status.--(1) 
     Section 1502 of such title is amended--
       (A) in subsection (a)(2)--
       (i) by striking out ``10 days'' and inserting in lieu 
     thereof ``48 hours''; and
       (ii) by striking out ``Secretary concerned'' and inserting 
     in lieu thereof ``theater component commander with 
     jurisdiction over the missing person'';
       (B) in subsection (a), as amended by subparagraph (A)--
       (i) by redesignating paragraphs (1) and (2) as 
     subparagraphs (A) and (B), respectively;
       (ii) by inserting ``(1)'' after ``Commander.--''; and
       (iii) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(2) However, if the commander determines that operational 
     conditions resulting from hostile action or combat constitute 
     an emergency that prevents timely reporting under paragraph 
     (1)(B), the initial report should be made as soon as 
     possible, but in no case later than ten days after the date 
     on which the commander receives such information under 
     paragraph (1).'';
       (C) by redesignating subsection (b) as subsection (c);
       (D) by inserting after subsection (a), as amended by 
     subparagraphs (A) and (B), the following new subsection (b):
       ``(b) Transmission Through Theater Component Commander.--
     Upon reviewing a report under subsection (a) recommending 
     that a person be placed in a missing status, the theater 
     component commander shall ensure that all necessary actions 
     are being taken, and all appropriate assets are being used, 
     to resolve the status of the missing person. Not later than 
     14 days after receiving the report, the theater component 
     commander shall forward the report to the Secretary of 
     Defense or the Secretary concerned in accordance with 
     procedures prescribed under section 1501(b) of this title. 
     The theater component commander shall include with such 
     report a certification that all necessary actions are being 
     taken, and all appropriate assets are being used, to resolve 
     the status of the missing person.''; and
       (E) in subsection (c), as redesignated by subparagraph (C), 
     by adding at the end the following new sentence: ``The 
     theater component commander through whom the report with 
     respect to the missing person is transmitted under subsection 
     (b) shall ensure that all pertinent information relating to 
     the whereabouts and status of the missing person that results 
     from the preliminary assessment or from actions taken to 
     locate the person is properly safeguarded to avoid loss, 
     damage, or modification.''.
       (2) Section 1503(a) of such title is amended by striking 
     out ``section 1502(a)'' and inserting in lieu thereof 
     ``section 1502(b)''.
       (3) Section 1504 of such title is amended by striking out 
     ``section 1502(a)(2)'' in subsections (a), (b), and (e)(1) 
     and inserting in lieu thereof ``section 1502(a)''.
       (4) Section 1513 of such title is amended by adding at the 
     end the following new paragraph:
       ``(8) The term `theater component commander' means, with 
     respect to any of the combatant commands, an officer of any 
     of the armed forces who (A) is commander of all forces of 
     that armed force assigned to that combatant command, and (B) 
     is directly subordinate to the commander of the combatant 
     command.''.
       (c) Frequency of Subsequent Reviews.--Subsection (b) of 
     section 1505 of such title is amended to read as follows:
       ``(b) Frequency of Subsequent Reviews.--(1) In the case of 
     a missing person who was last known to be alive or who was 
     last suspected of being alive, the Secretary shall appoint a 
     board to conduct an inquiry with respect to a person under 
     this subsection--
       ``(A) on or about three years after the date of the initial 
     report of the disappearance of the person under section 
     1502(a) of this title; and
       ``(B) not later than every three years thereafter.
       ``(2) In addition to appointment of boards under paragraph 
     (1), the Secretary shall appoint a board to conduct an 
     inquiry with respect to a missing person under this 
     subsection upon receipt of information that could result in a 
     change of status of the missing person. When the Secretary 
     appoints a board under this paragraph, the time for 
     subsequent appointments of a board under paragraph (1)(B) 
     shall be determined from the date of the receipt of such 
     information.
       ``(3) The Secretary is not required to appoint a board 
     under paragraph (1) with respect to the disappearance of any 
     person--
       ``(A) more than 30 years after the initial report of the 
     disappearance of the missing person required by section 
     1502(a) of this title; or
       ``(B) if, before the end of such 30-year period, the 
     missing person is accounted for.''.
       (d) Penalties for Wrongful Withholding of Information.--
     Section 1506 of such title is amended by adding at the end 
     the following new subsection:
       ``(f) Wrongful Withholding.--Any person who (except as 
     provided in subsections (a) through (d)) willfully withholds, 
     or directs the withholding of, any information relating to 
     the disappearance or whereabouts and status of a missing 
     person from the personnel file of that missing person, 
     knowing that such information is required to be placed in the 
     personnel file of the missing person, shall be fined as 
     provided in title 18 or imprisoned not more than one year, or 
     both.''.
       (e) Information To Accompany Recommendation of Status of 
     Death.--Section 1507(b) of such title is amended by adding at 
     the end the following new paragraphs:
       ``(3) A description of the location of the body, if 
     recovered.
       ``(4) If the body has been recovered and is not 
     identifiable through visual means, a certification by a 
     practitioner of an appropriate forensic science that the body 
     recovered is that of the missing person.''.
       (f) Missing Person's Counsel.--(1) Sections 1503(f)(1) and 
     1504(f)(1) of such title are amended by adding at the end the 
     following: ``The identity of counsel appointed under this 
     paragraph for a missing person shall be made known to the 
     missing person's primary next of kin and any other previously 
     designated person of the person.''.
       (2) Section 1503(f)(4) of such title is amended by adding 
     at the end the following: ``The primary next of kin of a 
     missing person and any other previously designated person of 
     the missing person shall have the right to submit information 
     to the missing person's counsel relative to the disappearance 
     or status of the missing person.''.
       (3) Section 1505(c)(1) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following: ``The Secretary concerned shall appoint counsel to 
     represent any such missing person to whom such information 
     may be related. The appointment shall be in the same manner, 
     and subject to the same provisions, as an appointment under 
     section 1504(f)(1) of this title.''.
       (g) Scope of Preenactment Review.--(1) Section 1509 of such 
     title is amended by striking out subsection (a) and inserting 
     in lieu thereof the following:
       ``(a) Review of Status.--(1) If new information is found or 
     received that may be related to one or more unaccounted for 
     persons described in subsection (b) (whether or not such 
     information specifically relates (or may specifically relate) 
     to any particular such unaccounted for person), that 
     information shall be provided to the Secretary of Defense. 
     Upon receipt of such information, the Secretary shall ensure 
     that the information is treated under paragraphs (2) and (3) 
     of section 1505(c) of this title and under section 1505(d) of 
     this title in the same manner as information received under 
     paragraph (1) of section 1505(c) of this title. For purposes 
     of the applicability of other provisions of this chapter in 
     such a case, each such unaccounted for person to whom the new 
     information may be related shall be considered to be a 
     missing person.
       ``(2) The Secretary concerned shall appoint counsel to 
     represent each such unaccounted

[[Page S4606]]

     for person to whom the new information may be related. The 
     appointment shall be in the same manner, and subject to the 
     same provisions, as an appointment under section 1504(f)(1) 
     of this title.
       ``(3) For purposes of this subsection, new information is 
     information that--
       ``(A) is found or received after the date of the enactment 
     of the Missing Persons Improvement Act of 1997 by a United 
     States intelligence agency, by a Department of Defense 
     agency, or by a person specified in section 1504(g) of this 
     title; or
       ``(B) is identified after the date of the enactment of the 
     Missing Persons Improvement Act of 1997 in records of the 
     United States as information that could be relevant to the 
     case of one or more unaccounted for persons described in 
     subsection (b).''.
       (2) Such section is further amended by adding at the end 
     the following new subsection:
       ``(d) Establishment of Personnel Files for Korean Conflict 
     Cases.--The Secretary of Defense shall ensure that a 
     personnel file is established for each unaccounted for person 
     who is described in subsection (b)(1). Each such file shall 
     be handled in accordance with, and subject to the provisions 
     of, section 1506 of this title in the same manner as applies 
     to the file of a missing person.''.
       (h) Withholding of Classified Information.--Section 1506(b) 
     of such title is amended--
       (1) by inserting ``(1)'' before ``The Secretary'';
       (2) by redesignating paragraphs (1) and (2) as 
     subparagraphs (A) and (B), respectively; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(2) If classified information withheld under this 
     subsection refers to one or more unnamed missing persons, the 
     Secretary shall ensure that notice of that withheld 
     information, and notice of the date of the most recent review 
     of the classification of that withheld information, is made 
     reasonably accessible to family members of missing 
     persons.''.
       (i) Withholding of Privileged Information.--Section 1506(d) 
     of such title is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (2)--
       (A) by striking out ``non-derogatory'' both places it 
     appears in the first sentence;
       (B) by inserting ``or about unnamed missing persons'' in 
     the first sentence after ``the debriefing report'';
       (C) by striking out ``the missing person'' in the second 
     sentence and inserting in lieu thereof ``each missing person 
     named in the debriefing report''; and
       (D) by adding at the end the following new sentence: ``Any 
     information contained in the extract of the debriefing report 
     that pertains to unnamed missing persons shall be made 
     reasonably accessible to family members of missing 
     persons.''; and
       (2) in paragraph (3)--
       (A) by inserting ``, or part of a debriefing report,'' 
     after ``a debriefing report''; and
       (B) by adding at the end the following new sentence: 
     ``Whenever the Secretary withholds a debriefing report, or 
     part of a debriefing report, containing information on 
     unnamed missing persons from accessibility to families of 
     missing persons under this section, the Secretary shall 
     ensure that notice that the withheld debriefing report exists 
     is made reasonably accessible to family members of missing 
     persons.''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. KERRY (for himself, Mr. Rockefeller, Mrs. Murray, Mr. 
        Kennedy, Mr. Hollings, Mr. Wellstone, Ms. Moseley-Braun, and 
        Mr. Harkin):
  S. 756. A bill to provide for the health, education, and welfare of 
children under 6 years of age; to the Committee on Labor and Human 
Resources.

                          ____________________