[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 70 (Friday, May 23, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5109-S5138]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
By Mr. THOMAS (for himself and Mr. Enzi):
S. 799. A bill to direct the Secretary of the Interior to transfer to
the personal representative of the estate of Fred Steffens of Big Horn
County, Wyoming, certain land comprising the Steffens family property;
to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
transfer legislation
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I introduce legislation which would
return a family farm in Big Horn County, WY, to its rightful owners.
The family of Fred Steffens lost ownership of the property where they
lived and prospered for almost 70 years, as a result of a
misrepresentation by the original property owners. Mr. Steffens'
relatives have explored every avenue to regain the title to their
property, and are left with no other option than to seek congressional
assistance. I stand before you today, on behalf of my constituents, to
request help in providing a timely solution to this problem. It is my
hope that in doing so, this wrong can be righted.
Upon the death of Fred Steffens on January 20, 1995, his sister,
Marie Wambeke, was appointed personal representative of the 80-acre
Steffens Estate. In February 1996, Ms. Wambeke learned from the Bureau
of Land Management [BLM] that she did not have a clear title to her
brother's property, and she submitted a color-of-title application.
Shortly thereafter, Ms. Wambeke was informed that her brother's
property was never patented, so her application was rejected.
The injustice of this situation is that when Mr. Steffens purchased
this property in 1928, he did receive a Warranty Deed with Release of
Homestead from the former owners. Unfortunately, these individuals did
not have a reclamation entry to assign to Mr. Steffens. In fact, 2
years before selling the property, the original owners had been
informed that the land they occupied was withdrawn by the Bureau of
Reclamation for the Shoshone Reclamation Project. At the same time,
they were notified that they had never truly owned the property.
Unethically, this did not stop them from selling the land to Mr.
Steffens in 1928. In good faith Mr. Steffens purchased the property,
paid taxes on the property from the time of purchase, and is on record
at the Big Horn County Assessor's office as owner of this property. Due
to the dishonesty of others, his family now faces the sobering reality
of losing this land unless a title transfer can be effected
legislatively.
Mr. President, the legislation I am introducing today would transfer
the land from Fred Steffens' estate to his sister, Marie. This property
has been in their family since 1928. Through no fault of their own,
these folks are being forced to relinquish rights not only to their
land, but to a part of their heritage and a legacy to their future
generations. I hope we can expedite this matter by turning this land
over to Marie Wambeke's ownership.
[[Page S5110]]
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. 799
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. TRANSFER OF STEFFENS FAMILY PROPERTY.
Notwithstanding any other law, the Secretary of the
Interior, acting through the Director of the Bureau of Land
Management, shall, without consideration of other
reimbursement, transfer to Marie Wambeke of Big Horn County,
Wyoming, personal representative of the estate of Fred
Steffens, the land that was acquired by Fred Steffens under a
Warranty Deed and Release of Homestead from Frank G. McKinney
and Margaret W. McKinney on September 28, 1928, and
thereafter occupied by Fred Steffens, known as ``Farm C'' in
the E\1/2\NW\1/4\ of Section 27 in Township 57 North, Range
97 West, 6th Principal Meridian, Wyoming.
______
By Mr. ENZI (for himself and Mr. Thomas):
S. 802. A bill to provide for the retention of the name of the
mountain at the Devils Tower National Monument in Wyoming known as
``Devils Tower'', and for other purposes; to the Committee on Energy
and Natural Resources.
THE DEVILS' TOWER NATIONAL MONUMENT DESIGNATION ACT OF 1997
Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I rise to introduce a bill which will enable
Devil's Tower National Monument to retain its historic and traditional
name.
This, our first national monument, has been known as ``Devil's
Tower'' for over 120 years. It is an unmistakable symbol of Wyoming and
the West and is known internationally as one of the premiere crack
climbing locations in the world. Consequently, Devil's Tower, and it's
worldwide recognition by that name, is very important to my State,
which depends so heavily on its tourism industry. And yet, there are
those who would attempt to fix that which is not broken.
I am fully sensitive to the feelings of those Native Americans who
would prefer to see the name of this natural wonder changed to
something more acceptable to their cultural traditions. Many tribal
members think of the monument as sacred. However, I believe that little
would be gained from a name change, and much would be lost.
It is important to remember that there is no consensus as to which
Indian name would be most appropriate. In fact, there seem to be as
many proposals for new names as there are special interest groups
proposing them. Among the candidates are Bear's Lodge, Grizzly Bear's
Lodge, Bear's Tipi, Bear's Lair, Bear Lodge Butte, Tree Rock and
several others. The only thing they seem agreed upon is what the
monument should not be called: Devil's Tower.
The initiative to change the name of Devil's Tower would accomplish
little more than to dredge up age-old conflicts and divisions between
descendants of European settlers and the descendants of Native
Americans. This would be most unfortunate and would result only in
economic hardship for all the area's citizens. My legislation will
prevent such hardship and will embrace the least offensive option
offered so far--the preservation the traditional name of Devil's Tower.
I urge my colleagues to support this measure. I ask unanimous consent
that the full text of the bill be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 802
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. DESIGNATION OF DEVILS TOWER.
(a) In General.--The mountain at the Devils Tower National
Monument in Wyoming, located at 44 degrees, 42 minutes, 58
seconds north latitude, 104 degrees, 35 minutes, 32 seconds
west longitude, shall be known and designated as ``Devils
Tower.''
(b) Legal References.--Any reference in any law, map,
regulation, document, paper, or other record of the United
States to the mountain referred to in subsection (a) is
deemed to be a reference to ``Devils Tower.''
______
By Mr. THURMOND (for himself and Mr. Murkowski):
S. 803. A bill to permit the transportation of passengers between
United States ports by certain foreign-flag vessels and to encourage
U.S.-flag vessels to participate in such transportation; to the
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
THE U.S. CRUISE TOURISM ACT
Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to
greatly increase the economic benefits to our Nation from cruise ship
tourism. This measure, called the United States Cruise Tourism Act,
will implement one of the recommendations of the White House Conference
on Travel and Tourism. I am pleased to be joined by Senator Murkowski
in introducing this bill.
Pleasure cruises aboard ocean-going vessels represent one of the
fastest growing segments of our tourism industry. Over the past 5
years, cruise ship tourism has grown by 50 percent and is expected to
grow at a rate of 5\1/2\ percent annually over the next few years. When
a cruise ship is in port, as much as $250,000 is spent on maintenance
and supplies, and cruise passengers spend an average of $205 a day.
Although 85 percent of these cruise passengers are Americans, most of
the revenues now go to foreign destinations.
This export of American tourist dollars is the unintended consequence
of the outdated Passenger Vessel Services Act [PSA] of 1886. This act
prohibits non-U.S.-flag vessels from carrying passengers between U.S.
ports. Unfortunately, since the U.S.-flag fleet is now down to one
cruise ship, this restriction makes passenger cruise travel between U.S
ports virtually impossible. Today, the passenger cruise industry in the
United States consists primarily of foreign flag vessels which, under
current law, must sail to and from foreign ports. This prevents many of
our mid-coast ports such as Charleston, San Francisco, Baltimore and
others from participating in the cruise industry because of their
distance from foreign ports. As a result, potential cruise itineraries
on the east and west coast, the gulf coast, the Great Lakes and the
coast of Alaska have yet to be developed.
Mr. President, our legislation would allow our port cities and shore-
based tourism businesses to take advantage of this booming area of
tourism while providing incentives for the rehabilitation of the U.S.-
flag cruise industry. This bill would enact a narrow waiver to the PSA
to permit large, ocean-going, foreign-flag cruise ships to carry
passengers between U.S. ports. Subsequently, as U.S. companies become
attracted to the business, U.S.-flag ships will enter the market. When
this happens, foreign vessels would be required to reduce their
capacity to make room for more U.S. competitors. This provision also
addresses the concern expressed by many of our shipyards. They have
complained that the uncertainty over the continuation of the PSA was
chilling their efforts to obtain investment in a U.S.-built cruise
ship. If enacted, our bill would assure a market for the ships they
build.
Finally, Mr. President, this legislation in no way affects the Jones
Act. The Jones Act is an entirely separate statute enacted in 1920 to
protect our cargo fleet and assure that we have a qualified merchant
marine in times of war. Also, this measure does not waive the PSA for
any trade where there currently exists an American competitor. U.S.
ferries, river boat cruises, and cruises on the Atlantic intra-coastal
waterway would not be affected.
Mr. President, our country has a beautiful coastline and Americans
should not have to join the armed services or buy a yacht to see it.
Moreover, our tourist industry is one of the most successful
contributors to the economic growth of our Nation. We should not permit
artificial barriers to inhibit the good work of the people in this
industry. This legislation will remove that barrier. I urge my
colleagues to support it.
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. 803
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 ``United States Cruise Tourism
Act of 1997''.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
Congress makes the following findings:
(1) It is in the interest of the United States to maximize
economic return from the growing industry of pleasure
cruises--
[[Page S5111]]
(A) by encouraging the growth of new cruise itineraries
between coastal cities in the United States, and
(B) by encouraging the use of United States goods, labor,
and support services.
(2) In maximizing the economic benefits to the United
States from increased cruise vessel tourism, there is a need
to ensure that existing employment and economic activity
associated with United States-flag vessels (including tour
boats, river boats, intracoastal waterway cruise vessels, and
ferries) are protected and to provide for the reemergence of
a United States-flag cruise vessel industry.
(3) The pleasure cruise industry is one of the fastest
growing segments of the tourism industry and is expected to
grow at a rate of 5 percent a year over the next few years.
(4) The United States-flag ocean cruise vessel fleet
consists of only a single vessel that tours the Hawaiian
Islands. As a result, all the cruise vessels carrying
passengers to and from United States ports are foreign-flag
vessels and the United States ports served are mostly ports
that are close enough to foreign ports to allow intermediate
calls.
(5) Prohibiting cruises between United States ports by
foreign-flag vessels results in the loss of tourist dollars
and revenue for United States ports and greatly disadvantages
United States ports and coastal communities.
SEC. 3. FOREIGN-FLAG CRUISE VESSELS.
(a) Definitions.--In this Act:
(1) Coastwise trade.--The term ``coastwise trade'' means
the coastwise trade provided for in section 12106 of title
46, United States Code and includes trade in the Great Lakes.
(2) Cruise vessel.--The term ``cruise vessel'' means a
vessel of greater than 4,000 gross registered tons which
provides a full range of luxury accommodations,
entertainment, dining, and other services for its passengers.
(3) Foreign-flag cruise vessel.--The term ``foreign-flag
cruise vessel'' does not apply to a vessel which--
(A) provides ferry services or intracoastal waterway
cruises;
(B) regularly carries for hire both passengers and vehicles
or other cargo; or
(C) serves residents of the vessel's ports of call in the
United States as a common or frequently used means of
transportation between United States ports.
(4) Repair and maintenance service.--The term ``repair and
maintenance service'' includes alterations and upgrades.
(b) Waiver.--Notwithstanding the provisions of section 8 of
the Act of June 19, 1886 (24 Stat. 81, Chapter 421; 46 U.S.C.
App. 289), or any other provision of law, and except as
otherwise provided by this section, the Secretary of
Transportation (in this Act referred to as the ``Secretary'')
may approve the transportation of passengers on foreign-flag
cruise vessels not otherwise qualified to engage in the
coastwise trade between ports in the United States, directly
or by way of a foreign port.
(c) Exceptions.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary may not approve the
transportation of passengers on a foreign-flag cruise vessel
pursuant to this section with respect to any coastwise trade
that is being served by a United States-flag cruise vessel.
(2) United states-flag service initiated after approval of
foreign-flag vessel.--Upon a showing to the Secretary, by a
United States-flag cruise vessel owner or charterer, that
service aboard a cruise vessel qualified to engage in the
coastwise trade is being offered or advertised pursuant to a
Certificate of Financial Responsibility for Indemnification
of Passengers for Nonperformance of Transportation from the
Federal Maritime Commission (issued pursuant to section 3 of
Public Law 89-777; 46 U.S.C. App. 817e) for service in the
coastwise trade on an itinerary substantially similar to that
of a foreign-flag cruise vessel transporting passengers under
authority of this section, the Secretary shall, in accordance
with subsection (d)(2), notify the owner or charterer of the
foreign-flag cruise vessel that the Secretary will, within 3
years after the date of notification, terminate such service.
(d) Termination.--
(1) In general.--Coastwise trade privileges granted to such
owner or charterer of a foreign-flag cruise vessel under this
section shall expire on the date that is 3 years after the
date of the Secretary's notification described in subsection
(c)(2).
(2) Order of termination.--Any notification issued by the
Secretary under this subsection shall be issued to the owner
or charterer of a foreign-flag cruise vessel--
(A) in the reverse order in which the foreign-flag cruise
vessel entered service in the coastwise trade under this
section, determined by the date of the vessel's first
coastwise sailing; and
(B) in the minimum number necessary to ensure that the
passenger-carrying capacity thereby removed from the
coastwise trade service exceeds the passenger-carrying
capacity of the United States-flag cruise vessel entering the
service.
(3) Exception.--If, at the expiration of the 3-year period
specified in paragraph (1), the United States-flag cruise
vessel that has been offering or advertising service pursuant
to a certificate described in subsection (c)(2) has not
entered the coastwise trade described in subsection (c)(2),
then the termination of service required by paragraph (1)
shall not take effect until 180 days after the date of the
entry into that coastwise trade service by the United States-
flag cruise vessel.
(e) Requirement For Repairs In United States Shipyards.--
(1) In general.--The owner or charterer of a foreign-flag
cruise vessel that is qualified to provide coastwise trade
service under this section is required to have repair and
maintenance service for the vessel performed in the United
States during the period that such vessel is qualified for
such coastwise trade service, except in a case in which the
vessel requires repair and maintenance service while at a
distant foreign port (as defined in section 4.80a(a) of title
19, Code of Federal Regulations (or any corresponding similar
regulation or ruling)).
(2) Action if requirement not met.--
(A) General rule.--If the Secretary determines that the
owner or charterer has not met the repair and maintenance
service requirement described in paragraph (1), the Secretary
shall terminate the coastwise trade privileges granted to the
owner or charterer under this section.
(B) Waiver.--The Secretary may waive the repair and
maintenance service requirement if the Secretary finds that--
(i) the repair and maintenance service is not available in
the United States, or
(ii) an emergency prevented the owner or charterer from
obtaining the service in the United States.
(f) Alien Crewmen.--Section 252 of the Immigration and
Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1282) is amended--
(1) in subsection (a), by redesignating paragraphs (1) and
(2) as subparagraphs (A) and (B);
(2) by inserting ``(1)'' immediately after ``(a)'';
(3) in subsection (a)(1) (as redesignated), in the second
sentence, by inserting ``, except as provided in paragraph
(2), and'' after ``subsection (b),'';
(4) by adding at the end of subsection (a)(1) (as
redesignated), the following:
``(2) An immigration officer may extend for a period or
periods of up to 6 months each a conditional permit to land
that is granted under paragraph (1) to an alien crewman
employed on a vessel if the owner or charterer of the vessel
requests the extension and the immigration officer determines
that the extension is necessary to maintain the vessel in the
coastwise trade between ports in the United States, directly
or by way of a foreign port.''; and
(5) in subsection (b), by striking ``subsection (a)(1)''
and inserting ``subsection (a)(1)(A)''.
(g) Disclaimer.--
(1) In general.--Nothing in this Act shall be construed as
affecting or otherwise modifying the authority contained in--
(A) Public Law 87-77 (46 U.S.C. App. 289b) authorizing the
transportation of passengers and merchandise in Canadian
vessels between ports in Alaska and the United States; or
(B) Public Law 98-563 (46 U.S.C. App. 289c) permitting the
transportation of passengers between Puerto Rico and other
United States ports.
(2) Jones act.--Except as otherwise expressly provided in
this Act, nothing in this Act shall be construed as affecting
or modifying the provisions of the Merchant Marine Act, 1920.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. Today, Mr. President, I am very pleased to join the
senior Senator from South Carolina [Mr. Thurmond] in introducing this
important bill. It is intended to break down a barrier that Congress
created 111 years ago, and which has long since ceased to make sense.
Opening that door will create a path to thousands of new jobs, to
hundreds of millions of dollars in new economic activity and to
millions in new Federal, State, and local government revenues.
Furthermore, Mr. President, that door can be opened with no adverse
impact on any existing U.S. industry, labor interest, or on the
environment, and it will cost the government virtually nothing.
There's no magic to this; in fact, it's a very simple matter. This
bill merely allows U.S. ports to compete in the business of offering
homeport services to the cruise ship trade.
The bill amends the Passenger Service Act to allow foreign cruise
ships to operate between U.S. ports. However, it also very carefully
protects all existing U.S. passenger vessels by using a definition of
cruise ship designed to exclude any foreign-flag vessels that could
conceivably compete in the same market as U.S.-flag tour boats,
ferries, or riverboats. Finally, it provides a mechanism to guarantee
that if a U.S. vessel ever enters this trade in the future, steps will
be taken to ensure an ample pool of potential passengers.
Mr. President, this is a straightforward approach to a vexing
problem, and it deserves the support of this body.
As my colleagues know, this bill is very similar to S. 668, a bill I
introduced just a few weeks ago. The major difference is that that bill
applies only
[[Page S5112]]
to cruise ships operating in Alaska, and this one applies nationwide.
Other differences include the fact that my original bill sets a 5,000
gross deadweight ton cut-off for vessels seeking to enter the coastwise
trade, and this one uses a 4,000 ton limit. This bill also requires
foreign vessels operating in the U.S. trade to effect repairs in U.S.
shipyards. Both of these differences are positive, in my view.
The change in tonnage will encourage U.S. ports to compete for
business from some of the smaller vessels in the luxury cruise ship
fleet, which continuing to protect existing U.S. tour vessels in the
100-ton class. While there are a few riverboats in the area of 3,000
tons, none of these operate in the open ocean cruise ship trade, and
the bill contains other protections specifically for these U.S.
vessels.
The requirement for U.S. repair will assist in creating and
maintaining even more U.S. jobs. From the standpoint of the cruise
ships, it simply calls for the continuation of what is already a common
practice among vessels that need work while visiting a U.S. port
Mr. President, it isn't 1886 anymore, and it is time to change the
current law. These days, no one is building any U.S. passenger ships of
this type, and no one has built one in over 40 years. Instead of
protecting U.S. jobs, the current law is a job losing proposition, as
it prohibits U.S. cities from competing. That is absurd.
The cash flow generated by the cruise ship trade is enormous. Most
passengers bound for my State of Alaska fly in or out of Seattle-Tacoma
International Airport, but because of the law, they spend little time
there. Instead, they spend their pre- and post-sailing time in a
Vancouver hotel, at Vancouver restaurants, and in Vancouver gift shops.
And when their vessel sails, it sails with food, fuel, general
supplies, repair and maintenance needs taken care of by Vancouver
vendors.
According to some estimates, the city of Vancouver receives benefits
of well over $200 million per year from the cruise ship trade. Others
provide more modest estimates, such as a comprehensive study by the
International Council of Cruise Lines, which indicated that in 1992
alone, the Alaska cruise trade generated over 2,400 jobs for the city
of Vancouver, plus payments to Canadian vendors and employees of over
$119 million.
This is a market almost entirely focused on U.S. citizens going to
see one of the United State's most spectacular places, and yet we force
them to go to another country to do it. We are throwing away both money
and jobs--and getting nothing whatsoever in return.
Why is this allowed to happen? The answer is simple--but it is not
rational. Although the current law is actually a job loser, there are
those who argue that any change would weaken U.S. maritime interests.
They seem to feel that amending the Passenger Service Act so that it
makes sense for the United States would create a threat to Jones Act
vessels hauling freight between U.S. ports. Mr. President, there simply
is no connection whatsoever between the two.
Then there is the suggestion that this bill might harm smaller U.S.
tour or excursion boats. Mr. President, that is also untrue. The
industry featuring these smaller vessels is thriving, but it simply
doesn't cater to the same client base as large cruise ships. The fact
of the matter is that there is no significant competition between the
two types of vessel, because the services they offer are in no way
comparable. The larger vessels offer unmatched luxury and personal
service, on-board shopping, entertainment, and so forth. The smaller
vessels offer more flexible routes, timing, shore excursions, and other
opportunities.
There is one operating U.S. vessel that doesn't fit the mold: the
Constitution, an aging 30,000-ton vessel operating only in Hawai. This
is the only ocean-capable U.S. ship that might fit the definition of
cruise vessel. I have searched for other U.S. vessels that meet or
exceed the tonnage limit in the bill, and the only ones I have found
that even approach it are the Delta Queen and the Mississippi Queen,
both of which are approximately 3,360 tons, and both of which are 19th
century-style riverboats that are entirely unsuitable for any open-
ocean itinerary such as the Alaska trade. Further, the bill
specifically prohibits any foreign vessel from participating in the
intra-coastal trade served by these riverboats.
Mr. President, I will not claim that this legislation would
immediately lead to increased earnings for U.S. ports. I can only say
that it would allow them to compete fairly, instead of being anchored
by a rule that is actively harmful to U.S. interests. That alone makes
it good public policy, and I look forward to my colleagues' agreement
and support.
______
By Mr. LAUTENBERG (for himself, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Lugar, Mrs.
Feinstein, Ms. Mikulski, Mrs. Murray, Mr. Lieberman, Mr.
D'Amato and Mr. Moynihan):
S. 804. A bill to restrict foreign assistance for countries providing
sanctuary to indicted war criminals who are sought for prosecution
before the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia;
to the Committee on Foreign Relations.
The War Crimes Prosecution Facilitation Act of 1997
Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to
create stronger incentives for the parties to the Dayton Peace
Agreement to arrest indicted war criminals and transfer them to the
International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia [ICTY]. I am
pleased that Senators Leahy, Lugar, Feinstein, Mikulski, Murray,
Lieberman, D'Amato, and Moynihan are original cosponsors of this bill,
which we believe will foster reconciliation in Bosnia and Herzegovina
in the long run.
As a result of the horrifying extent of war crimes committed before
and during the war in Bosnia, the U.N. Security Council, in May 1993,
created the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia
[ICTY]. One of only four international war crimes tribunals ever
established, its mandate is to prosecute ``genocide, crimes against
humanity, grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions, and violations of
the laws and customs of war'' committed in the territory of the former
Yugoslavia from January 1, 1991, until ``a date to be determined after
restoration of peace.''
When the parties to the conflict in the former Yugoslavia signed the
Dayton Peace Agreement, they recognized that reconciliation could not
occur unless war criminals were brought to justice. As such, they
agreed to cooperate fully with ``the investigation and prosecution of
war crimes and other violations of international humanitarian law.''
All members of the international community are required by the tribunal
statute to cooperate in ``the identification and location of persons,''
``the arrest or detention of persons,'' and ``the surrender or the
transfer of the accused'' to the tribunal.
With the exception of the Bosnian Muslims, however, the parties to
the Dayton Peace Agreement have failed to arrest and transfer to the
tribunal the vast majority of indicted war criminals in territory
within their control. Though 74 persons have been indicted by the 4-
year-old tribunal, 66 of them remain at large. Let me repeat that. Of
the 74 persons indicted for the most heinous crimes against humanity on
European soil since World War II, 66 remain at large. Among these are
the notorious Bosnian Serb leader Radovan Karadzic and Bosnian Serb
Army commander Ratko Mladic, both accused of genocide and crimes
against humanity.
Where are these and other war criminals finding sanctuary?
Many of the indicted war criminals have been sighted living openly
and freely in Croatia, the Croat-controlled areas of the Federation of
Bosnia and Herzegovina, the Republika Srpska, and the Federal Republic
of Yugoslavia (Serbia-Montenegro).
Last fall, one nongovernmental organization, the Coalition for
International Justice, compiled a list of all public sightings of war
criminals. For example, according to the coalition's research, Dario
Kordic, one of the most widely recognized war criminals in the
former Yugoslavia for his role in killings in Lasva Valley, was seen
visiting his parents' apartment in Zagreb, Croatia. About the same
time, Ivica Rajic, another highly sought after war criminal, was
reportedly seen in a hotel in Split, Croatia.
The list of public sightings of indicted war criminals goes on and
on.
[[Page S5113]]
Associated Press correspondent Liam McDowall reportedly located six
Bosnian Croats indicted for war crimes living and working in the
Bosnian Croat town of Vitez. And in perhaps the most egregious case to
date, Boston Globe reporter Elizabeth Neuffer reportedly found Zeljko
Mejakic--indicted for crimes committed as commander of Omarska camp
where some 4,000 people were tortured to death and women were brutally
raped--working as the deputy commander of the Prijedor police station
in Republika Srpska.
This list may not be entirely up to date now, but it illustrates
graphically that many of the indicted war criminals could have been
arrested easily if the authorities in control of the territory where
they were located had chosen to do so. I believe that is still the case
today. I ask unanimous consent that a list of sightings of indicted war
criminals who remain at large be included in the Record at the end of
my remarks.
I know, Mr. President, that the act of apprehending and transferring
indicted war criminals to the Hague presents a thorny problem for the
United States. While some argue that American and NATO military
personnel should do the job, the prevailing wisdom is that using our
troops to arrest these indicted war criminals would be fraught with
difficulties that could put our troops in danger. Others have raised
the possibility that some type of international strike force could get
the job done. Discussions about these options have been underway since
NATO troops landed in the region 1\1/2\ years ago, but no action has
been taken. Meanwhile war criminals continue to roam the region with
impunity, and the clock ticks ever closer to the June 1998 withdrawal
date for SFOR.
If the international community concludes that it cannot use force to
apprehend indicted war criminals, it must try another approach. Make no
mistake about it: if indicted war criminals remain at large when the
SFOR's mission ends, our prestige and credibility will be severely
undermined. America may be able to protect NATO troops by not involving
them in a mission to arrest indicted war criminals, but we cannot
protect our reputation and that of NATO as a defender of democracy and
human rights if indicted war criminals roam the region with impunity
when our troops withdraw.
Mr. President, since NATO is unwilling to arrest the indicted, my
colleagues and I are recommending an approach which reinforces the
obligation of the parties to the Dayton Agreement to arrest and
transfer those indicted for genocide, rape, and other crimes against
humanity to the Hague. To secure their cooperation, it imposes
conditions on America's portion of the $5.1 billion in economic
reconstruction funding to Bosnia and Herzegovina. Because parties to
the Dayton Agreement sorely want Western assistance and the
international acceptance it implies, this assistance provides us with a
powerful lever. We ought to use it.
Under our legislation, until the President certifies that a majority
of war criminals have been arrested and transferred to the tribunal, no
assistance--with the exception of assistance for humanitarian programs,
democracy programs, and certain physical infrastructure projects that
cross borders--could be provided to a sanctioned country or constituent
entity. Similarly, U.S. executive directors of international financial
institutions could not vote for assistance until the President makes
the required certification.
The President would have up to 6 months to make this certification.
Once the certification is made, assistance could be provided for up to
6 months. At the end of the 6-month waiver period, no assistance could
be provided unless all indicted war criminals have been arrested and
turned over to the ICTY. If a country or entity arrests and transfers
to the Hague a majority of the indicted war criminals in territory
under its effective control immediately, and the rest of them within 6
months, assistance to that country or entity will not be affected.
In other words, this legislation recognizes that even the parties to
the Dayton Agreement may find it difficult to apprehend all indicted
war criminals immediately, and therefore does not require them to
complete the process all at once. Once a majority of the war criminals
have been arrested and turned over, they are given up to 6 months to
finish the job.
Because our goal is to promote greater cooperation, democratic and
humanitarian assistance will still be provided even in sanctioned
countries or entities. Humanitarian assistance is defined to include
food and disaster assistance and assistance for demining, refugees,
education, health care, social services, and housing. Democratization
assistance includes electoral assistance and assistance used in
establishing the institutions of a democratic and civil society,
including police training.
However, assistance for projects in communities in which local
authorities are harboring criminals or preventing refugees from
returning home will be strictly limited to emergency food and medical
assistance and demining assistance. And absolutely no assistance--
humanitarian or otherwise--can be provided to projects or organizations
in which an indicted war criminal is affiliated or has a financial
interest. These provisions are important to ensure that our assistance
is not being used to prop up war criminals and that only communities
that allow refugees to return are rewarded with assistance.
This legislation recognizes that the realities of government control
in the former Yugoslavia do not always conform to the arrangements in
the Dayton Agreement. Recognizing that a constituent entity of Bosnia
and Herzegovina may not control all areas within its border, and that
Croatia or Serbia may have effective control of territory that reaches
beyond their borders, the legislation holds a government or constituent
entity responsible for indicted war criminals ``in territory that is
under their effective control.'' As such, the legislation is not meant
to impose sanctions on the Muslim-Croat Federation as a whole if an
indicted war criminal remains in a Croat-controlled area of the
Federation. Likewise, it would allow sanctions to be imposed against a
country, such as Croatia, for failing to secure the apprehension of war
criminals in areas of the Federation which it effectively controls.
Mr. President, these measures are not intended to be punitive. I have
made every effort to ensure that humanitarian assistance to the people
in all parts of the former Yugoslavia will not be affected. I do not
oppose reconstruction funding, and recognize that it is in our national
interest to help rebuild this war-torn region. But I believe there is
value in using bilateral and multilateral assistance as a carrot, to
provide an incentive to the parties to arrest and turn war criminals
over to the tribunal.
Unless war criminals are brought to justice, reconciliation in Bosnia
and Herzegovnia will remain an elusive goal and refugees and displaced
persons will be unable to return to their homes. Though reconstruction
assistance will help to rebuild ravaged economies, reconstruction
without reconciliation will not be effective in ensuring long-term
stability. Until the perpetrators of genocide are held accountable,
victimized communities will continue to assign collective guilt and the
cycle of hatred will be perpetuated.
No infusion of money can wipe away the crimes of the past 6 years.
Money alone is not enough. What is required is a genuine process of
reconciliation, which can never occur unless war criminals are brought
to justice.
The Washington Post, in a February 1997 editorial, said it well:
U.S. forces [cannot] fulfill their mission--bringing peace
to Bosnia--as long as war criminals remain at large. Lately,
it has become popular to focus on economic reconstruction as
the answer to Bosnia's troubles. But war didn't break out for
economic reasons, and economic aid alone can't secure the
peace. As long as alleged war criminal Radovan Karadzic and
his henchmen run things from behind the scenes, economic aid
actually will flow to the criminals. . . .
Mr. President, we know that the threat of sanctions can work to
effect cooperation with the War Crimes Tribunal. In the last year and a
half, the administration has successfully leveraged assistance to
Croatia to secure the transfer of two indicted war criminals to The
Hague. But the process has been too long and drawn out. One of the war
criminals voluntarily agreed to be sent to The Hague, and the other was
in custody for more than 10 months before the Croatian Government
transferred him to the tribunal.
[[Page S5114]]
At this rate, it would take us some 66 years to bring all the indicted
war criminals to The Hague. That's just too long. Stronger action must
be taken.
The World Bank is pumping hundreds of millions of dollars into
Croatia and sending assessment teams to Republika Srpska. In fiscal
year 1997, the Agency for International Development has set aside
roughly $70 million for Republika Srpska, and it intends to do the same
in fiscal year 1998. This bill requires the Administration to use these
assistance programs to secure the speedy apprehension of war criminals,
which is just as essential for reconciliation and long-term stability
as reconstruction efforts--if not more so.
No one has articulated the need for this legislation as well as
Justice Goldstone, Former Chief Prosecutor of the International
Criminal Tribunals for the Former Yugoslavia and Rwanda when he spoke
at the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum in January of 1997:
Where there have been egregious human rights violations
that have been unaccounted for, where there has been no
justice, where the victims have not received any
acknowledgment, where they have been forgotten, where there's
been a national amnesia, the effect is a cancer in the
society. It's the reason that explains . . . spirals of
violence that the world has seen in the former Yugoslavia for
centuries . . .
Justice Goldstone was right. What is required is a genuine process of
reconciliation, which can never occur unless war criminals are brought
to justice. Without reconciliation, the spiral of violence will only
continue, and the military mission on which the American taxpayers have
literally spent billions will be for naught.
Secretary of State Albright will be traveling to Bosnia next week.
She has assured me that the issue of war criminals will be raised at
every opportunity, and I am confident that she will take a very tough
stand, urging the parties to the Dayton Agreement to meet their
commitments. But the U.S. Government has been urging compliance for
over a year now with little success, and it's clear that we need to put
more teeth into our position. Our bill does just that. It clearly
states that the apprehension of war criminals is critical for
reconciliation. It links U.S. assistance to progress on this issue, and
it provides clear deadlines for progress in arresting and transferring
indicted war criminals to The Hague.
Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to cosponsor this legislation,
which has been endorsed by the Coalition for International Justice,
Human Rights Watch, Physicians for Human Rights, Action Council for
Peace in the Balkans, and the International Human Rights Law Group. I
ask unanimous consent that a copy of the legislation and a letter of
endorsement from those organizations appear in the Record.
America stands for justice and reconciliation throughout the world.
We must stand up for those principles by ensuring that the war
criminals of Bosnia are apprehended and the victims are heard.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
S. 804
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 ``War Crimes Prosecution
Facilitation Act of 1997''.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
The Congress finds the following:
(1) In May 1993, the United Nations established the
International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia
(ICTY).
(2) The mandate of the Tribunal is to prosecute ``genocide,
crimes against humanity, grave breaches of the Geneva
Conventions, and violations of the laws and customs of war''
committed in the territory of the former Yugoslavia from
January 1, 1991, until ``a date to be determined after
restoration of peace''.
(3) Parties to the Dayton Agreement, as well as subsequent
agreements, agreed to cooperate fully with the
``investigation and prosecution of war crimes and other
violations of international humanitarian law''. All members
of the international community are required by the Tribunal
Statute to cooperate in ``the identification and location of
persons'', ``the arrest or detention of persons'', and ``the
surrender or the transfer of the accused'' to the Tribunal.
(4) Although 74 persons are under indictment by the
Tribunal, 66 remain at large, including 53 Bosnian and
Yugoslav Serbs, and 13 Bosnian and Croatian Croats.
(5) Credible reports indicate that some of the indicted war
criminals are living in areas of Bosnia and Herzegovina that
are under the effective control of Croatia or Serbia-
Montenegro. Many of the indicted war criminals have been
sighted living openly and freely in Croatia, the Croat-
controlled areas of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina,
Republika Srpska, and Serbia-Montenegro.
(6) An estimated 2,000,000 persons have been forced from
their homes by the war, many of whom remain displaced and
unable to return to their homes, in violation of the Dayton
Accords, because their homes are in a jurisdiction controlled
by a different ethnic group.
(7) The fighting in Bosnia has ceased for more than a year,
and international efforts are now focused on the economic
reconstruction and implementation of the civilian aspects of
the Dayton Accords.
(8) The International Bank for Reconstruction and
Development, the European Bank for Reconstruction and
Development, the International Monetary Fund, and individual
donor countries, including the United States, have begun
disbursing funds toward meeting an identified goal of
$5,100,000,000 for reconstruction of Bosnia.
SEC. 3. SENSE OF THE SENATE.
(a) It is the sense of the Senate that--
(1) reconciliation in Bosnia and Herzegovina cannot be
achieved if indicted war criminals remain at large and
refugees and displaced persons are unable to return to their
homes;
(2) reconstruction without reconciliation will not be
effective in ensuring stability in the long run because
absent individual accountability, victimized communities will
assign collective responsibility, thus perpetuating the cycle
of hatred; and
(3) the Government of the United States should ensure that
multilateral and bilateral assistance is provided to parties
to the Dayton Agreement only if doing so would promote
reconciliation as well as reconstruction, including the
transfer of war criminals to the Tribunal, the return of
refugees and displaced persons, and freedom of movement.
(b) It is further the sense of the Senate that the
Tribunal, consistent with its mandate, should continue to
investigate and bring indictments against persons who have
violated international humanitarian law.
SEC. 4. RESTRICTIONS ON FUNDING.
(a) Bilateral Assistance.--
(1) In general.--No assistance may be provided under the
Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 or the Arms Export Control Act
for any country described in subsection (d).
(2) Application to prior appropriations.--The prohibition
on assistance contained in paragraph (1) includes the
provision of assistance from funds appropriated prior to the
date of enactment of this Act.
(b) Multilateral Assistance.--The Secretary of the Treasury
shall instruct the United States executive directors of the
international financial institutions to work in opposition
to, and vote against, any extension by such institutions of
any financial or technical assistance or grants of any kind
to any country described in subsection (d).
(c) Exceptions.--
(1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), subsections (a)
and (b) shall not apply to the provision of--
(A) humanitarian assistance;
(B) democratization assistance; or
(C) assistance for physical infrastructure projects
involving activities in both a sanctioned country and
nonsanctioned contiguous countries, if the nonsanctioned
countries are the primary beneficiaries.
(2) Further limitations.--Notwithstanding paragraph (1)--
(A) no assistance may be made available under the Foreign
Assistance Act of 1961 or the Arms Export Control Act for a
program, project, or activity in any country described in
subsection (d) in which an indicted war criminal has any
financial or material interest or through any organization in
which the indicted individual is affiliated; and
(B) no assistance (other than emergency food or medical
assistance or demining assistance) may be made available
under the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 or the Arms Export
Control Act to any program, project, or activity in any area
in any country described in subsection (d) in which local
authorities are not complying with the provisions of Article
IX and Annex 4, Article II of the Dayton Agreement relating
to war crimes and the Tribunal, or with the provisions of
Annex 7 of the Dayton Agreement relating to the rights of
refugees and displaced persons to return to their homes of
origin.
(d) Sanctioned Countries.--A country described in this
section is a country the authorities of which fail to
apprehend and transfer to the Tribunal all persons in
territory that is under their effective control who have been
indicted by the Tribunal.
(e) Waiver.--
(1) Authority.--The President may waive the application of
subsection (a) or subsection (b) with respect to a country if
the President determines and certifies to the appropriate
committees of Congress within six months after the date of
enactment of this Act that a majority of the indicted persons
who are within territory that is under the effective control
of the country have been arrested and transferred to the
Tribunal.
(2) Period of effectiveness.--Any waiver made pursuant to
this subsection shall be effective for a period of six
months.
(f) Termination of Sanctions.--The sanctions imposed
pursuant to subsection (a) or subsection (b) with respect to
a country shall
[[Page S5115]]
cease to apply only if the President determines and certifies
to Congress that the authorities of that country have
apprehended and transferred to the Tribunal all persons in
territory that is under their effective control who have been
indicted by the Tribunal.
SEC. 5. DEFINITIONS.
As used in this Act:
(1) Country.--The term ``country'' shall not include the
state of Bosnia and Herzegovina, and the provisions of this
Act shall be applied separately to its constituent entities
of Republika Srpska and the Federation of Bosnia and
Herzegovina.
(2) Dayton agreement.--The term ``Dayton Agreement'' means
the General Framework Agreement for Peace in Bosnia and
Herzegovina, together with annexes relating thereto, done at
Dayton, November 10 through 16, 1995.
(3) Democratization assistance.--The term ``democratization
assistance'' includes electoral assistance and assistance
used in establishing the institutions of a democratic and
civil society.
(4) Humanitarian assistance.--The term ``humanitarian
assistance'' includes disaster and food assistance and
assistance for demining, refugees, housing, education, health
care, and other social services.
(5) Tribunal.--The term ``Tribunal'' means the
International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia.
Indicted by the International Criminal Tribunal for the
Former Yugoslavia
(List Compiled by the Coalition for International Justice)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Name Title/Indicted for/Date Charged with/Status
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Zlatko Aleksovski..................... Croat--indicted on 11/10/95 g.v.--transferred to The Hague 4/28/97
for killing Muslims in by Croatian Government.
Lasva Valley.
2. Stripo Alilovic....................... Croat--indicted 11/10/95 g.v.--At Large.
for killings in Lasva
Valley.
3. Mirko Babic........................... Serb--indicted 2/13/95 for g.v.c.--At Large.
crimes committed at
Omarska.
4. Nenad Banovic......................... Serb--indicted 7/21/95 for g.v.c.--At Large.
atrocities committed at
Keraterm.
5. Pedrag Banovic........................ Serb--same as N. Banovic... g.v.c.--At Large.
6. Tihomir Blaskic....................... Croat--Indicted 11/10/95 In custody in the Netherlands--plead not
for killings in Lasva guilty--trial postponed 7--g.v.c.
Valley.
7. Goran Borovinica...................... Serb--indicted 2/13/96 for g.v.c.--At Large.
expelling Muslims to
various camps as well as
killings and rapes in
Omarska.
8. Mario Cerkez.......................... Croat--indicted 11/10/95 g.v.c.--At Large.
for killings in Lasva
Valley.
9. Ranko Cesic........................... Serb--indicted 7/21/95 for g.v.c.--At Large.
atrocities committed in
Brcko.
10. Zejnil Delalic....................... Muslim--indicted 3/21/96 in custody at The Hague--joint trial
for atrocities committed with Delic, Mucic, and Landzo began in
in Celebici. March of 1997--g.v.
11. Hazim Delic.......................... Muslim--same as Delalic.... same as Delalic--joint trial.
12. Djordje Djukic....................... Serb--General--indicted /29/ was held at The Hague but released--
96 for shelling Bosnian Deceased.
civilians.
13. Damir Dosen.......................... Serb--indicted 7/21/95 for g.v.c.--At Large.
atrocities committed at
Keraterm.
14. Drazen Erdemovic..................... Croat--indicted 5/29/96.... *Sentenced to 10 years*--v.c.
15. Dragan Fustar........................ Serb--Keraterm............. g.v.c.--At Large.
16. Dragan Gagovic....................... Serb--indicted 6/26/96 for g.v.c.--At Large.
crimes committed at Foca.
17. Zdarvko Govedarica................... Serb--indicted 2/13/95 for g.v.c.--Deceased.
crimes committed at
Omarska.
18. Momcilo Gruban....................... Serb--indicted 2/13/95 for g.v.c.--At Large.
crimes committed at
Omarska.
19. Gruban............................... Unknown--indicted for g.v.c.--At Large.
crimes at Omarska--2/13/95.
20. Janko Janjic......................... Serb--indicted 6/26/96 for g.v.c.--At Large.
crimes at Foca.
21. Nikica Janjic........................ Serb--indicted 7/21/95 at g.v.c.--Deceased.
Keraterm & 2/13/96 at
Omarska.
22. Gojko Jankovic....................... Serb--indicted 6/26/96 for g.v.c.--At Large.
crimes in Foca.
23. Goran Jelisic........................ Serb--Commander of Luka g.v. Gen. c.--At large.
camp at Brcko--indicted 7/
21/95 for Genocide.
24. Drago Josipovic...................... Croat--indicted 11/10/95 g.v.c.--At Large.
for killings in Lasva
Valley.
25. Marinko Katava....................... Serb--same as Josipovic.... g.v.c.--At Large.
26. Radovan Karadzic..................... Serb--Party Leader-- g.v. Gen. c.--At Large..
Indicted 7/25/95 and 11/16/
95 for genocide in
Srebrenica, and Sarajevo.
Also charged with
violations of laws of war
and crimes against
humanity.
27. Dusan Knezevic....................... Serb--indicted 2/13/95 for g.v.c. for both indictments--At Large.
atrocities committed at
Omarska 7/21/95 for crimes
committed at Keraterm.
28. Dragan Kondic........................ Serb--indicted 7/21/95 for g.v.c.--At Large.
crimes committed at
Keraterm.
29. Dario Kordic......................... Croat--indicted 11/10/95 g.v.c.--At Large.
for killings in Lasva
Valley.
30. Milojica Kos......................... Serb--indicted 2/13/95 for g.v.c.--At Large.
atrocities committed at
Omarska.
31. Predrag Kostic....................... Serb--same as Kos.......... g.v.c.--At Large.
32. Radomir Kovac........................ Serb--indicted 6/26/96 for g.v.c.--At Large.
crimes committed at Foca.
33. Dragan Kulundzija.................... Serb--indicted 7/21/95 for g.v.c.--At Large.
crimes committed at
Keraterm.
34. Dragoljub Kunarac.................... Serb--indicted 6/26/96 for g.v.c.--At Large.
crimes committed at Foca.
35. Mirjan Kupreskic..................... Croat--indicted 11/10/95 g.v.--At Large.
for killings in Lasva
Valley.
36. Vlatko Kupreskic..................... Croat--Same as above....... g.v.--At Large.
37. Zoran Kupreskic...................... Croat--Same as above....... g.v.--At Large.
38. Miroslav Kvocka...................... Serb--indicted for Omarska. g.v.c.--At Large.
39. Goran Lajic.......................... Serb--indicted for Keraterm At Large: wrong person siezed in
7/21/95. Germany--g.v.c.
40. Esad Landzo.......................... Muslim--indicted 3/21/96 In custody at the Hague--joint trial
for crimes committed at (see Delalic) began 3/10/97.
Celebici.
41. Zoran Marinic........................ Croat--indicted 11/10/95 g.v.--At Large.
for killings in Lasva
Valley.
42. Milan Martic......................... Serb--rebel Krajina leader Rule 61 hearings have been held for
indicted 7/25/95 for Martic--v.--At Large.
ordering cluster bomb
attacks on Zajreb.
43. Zeljko Meakic........................ Serb--Commander of Omarska At Large: wrong person seized in
indicted 2/13/95. Germany--g.v.c.
44. Slobodan Milijkovic.................. Serb--indicted 7/21/95 for g.v.c.--At Large.
crimes committed at
Bosanski Samac.
45. Ratko Mladic......................... Serb--Army Commander g.v. Gen. c.--At Large.
indicted 7/25/95 and 11/16/
95 for genocide in
Srebrenica and Sarajevo,
charged with Crimes
against humanity and
violations of laws of war.
46. Mile Mrksic.......................... Serb--Yugoslavian Army-- Rule 61 hearings have been held for
indicted 11/7/95 for Mrksic--g.v.c.--At Large.
killing 261 non-Serbs at
Vukovar Hospital.
47. Zdravko Mucic........................ Croat--indicted 3/21/96 for Joint trial (see Delalic) began in March
crimes committed at of 1997--g.v.
Celebici.
48. Dragan Nikolic....................... Serb--Commander of Susica Rule 61 hearings have been held for
camp in Bosnia--indicted Nikolic--g.v.c.--At Large.
11/4/94 for genocide.
49. Dragan Papic......................... Croat--indicted 11/10/95 g.v.c.--At Large.
for killings in Lasva
Valley.
50. Nedjeljko Paspalj.................... Serb--indicted 2/13/96 for g.v.c.--At Large.
atrocities committed at
Omarska.
51. Milan Pavlic......................... Serb--same as above........ g.v.c.--At Large.
52. Milutin Popovic...................... Serb--same as above........ g.v.c.--At Large.
53. Dragoljub Prcac...................... Serb--same as above........ g.v.c.--At Large.
54. Drazenko Predojevic.................. Serb--same as above........ g.v.c.--At Large.
55. Mladen Radic......................... Serb--same as above........ g.v.c.--At Large.
56. Miroslav Radic....................... Serb--Yugoslavian Army-- g.v.c.--At Large.
Indicted 11/7/95 for
killing 261 non-Serbs.
57. Ivica Rajic.......................... Croat--indicted 8/29/95 for g.v.--At Large.
killings at Stupni Do.
58. Ivan Santic.......................... Croat--indicted for Lasva g.v. indicted on 11/10/95--At Large.
Valley.
59. Vladimir Santic...................... Croat--indicted for Lasva g.v. indicted on 11/10/95--At Large.
Valley.
60. Dragomir Saponja..................... Serb--indicted 2/13/95 for g.v.c. for both indictments--At Large.
atrocities committed at
Omarska also charged with
Keraterm 7/21/95.
61. Zeljko Savic......................... Serb--indicted for Omarska. g.v.c. indicted on 2/13/95--At Large.
62. Dusko Sikirica....................... Serb--indicted 7/21/95 for g.v. Gen. c.--Camp Commander--At Large.
crimes committed at
Keraterm.
63. Blagoje Simic........................ Serb--indicted 7/21/95 for g.v.c.--At Large.
incidents of war crimes at
Bosanski Samac.
64. Milan Simic.......................... Serb--same as above........ g.v.c.--At Large.
65. Pero Skopljak........................ Croat--indicted for Lasva g.v.--At Large.
Valley.
66. Vesselin Sljivancanin................ Yugoslavian Army--indicted Rule 61 hearings have been held for
11/7/95 for killings at Sljivancanin--g.v.c.--At Large.
Vukovar hospital.
67. Radovan Stankovic.................... Serb--indicted 6/26/96 for g.v.c.--At Large.
crimes committed at Foca.
68. Dusko Tadic.......................... Serb--indicted 2/13/95 for Case in deliberation at The Hague--has
murder, rape and torture plead not guilty to charges--verdict
at Omarska. will be given 5/7/97 g.v.c.
69. Miroslav Tadic....................... Serb--indicted 7/21/95 for g.c.--At Large.
crimes committed at
Bosanski Samac.
70. Nedjeljko Timarac.................... Serb--indicted 7/21/95 for g.v.c.--At Large.
crimes committed at
Keraterm.
71. Stevan Todorovic..................... Serb--indicted for killings g.v.c.--At Large.
at Bosanski Samac.
72. Zoran Vukovic........................ Serb--indicted 6/26/96 for g.v.c.--At Large.
crimes committed at Foca.
73. Simo Zaric........................... Serb--indicted 7/21/95 for g.c.--At Large.
crimes committed at
Bosanski Samac.
74. Dragan Zelenovic..................... Serb--indicted 6/26/96 for g.v.c.--At Large.
crimes committed at Foca.
75. Zoran Zigic.......................... Serb--indicted 7/21/95 for g.v.c. for both indictments--At Large.
Keraterm and 2/13/95 for
Omarska.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes--1. g.: Grave Breaches of the 1949 Geneva Convention. 2. v.: Violations of the Laws or Customs of War. 3.
GEN.: Genocide. 4. c.: Crimes Against Humanity.
[[Page S5116]]
war criminal watch
Information on the whereabouts of 37 of the 67 people
publicly indicted by the International Criminal Tribunal for
the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) who are still at large:
1. Nenad Banovic--Keraterm (Bosnian Serb)--Prijedor
(Bosnian Serb territory)--Frequents ``Express'' restaurant in
Prijedor. Lives at home in Prijedor. Twin brother to Predrag
Banovic (q.v.). One of the Banovic brothers was seen driving
a motor scooter in Prijedor in late November 1996 (Christian
Science Monitor, Nov. 28, 1996).
2. Predrag Banovic--Keraterm (Bosnian Serb)--Prijedor
(Bosnian Serb territory)--Frequents ``Express'' restaurant in
Prijedor. Lives in Prijedor. Twin brother to Nenad Banovic
(q.v.). One of the Banovic brothers was seen driving a motor
scooter in Prijedor in late November 1996 (Christian Science
Monitor, Nov. 28, 1996).
3. Mario Cerkez--Lasva Valley (Bosnian Croat)--Vitez
(Muslim-Croat Federation)--Commanded a Bosnian Croat brigade
in Vitez in 1993 and is still there (Tanjug, Nov. 13, 1995).
4. Dragan Fustar--Keraterm (Bosnian Serb)--Prijedor
(Bosnian Serb territory)--Residence address listed on the
IFOR wanted poster was 41 First of May Street in Prijedor. A
journalist found Fustar's mother and wife both living there
in late November 1996. The number sign has been pulled from
the house. His mother and wife say that they live at 37 First
of May Street, even though the building is located between 39
and 43 First of May Street. He is now unemployed (Christian
Science Monitor, Nov. 28, 1996).
5. Dragan Gagovic--Foca (Bosnian Serb)--Foca (Bosnian Serb
territory)--Chief of police in Foca (Sunday Times of London,
July 28, 1996).
6. Gojko Jankovic--Foca (Bosnian Serb)--Foca (Bosnian Serb
territory)--Seen by a journalist at a Foca cafe while
``French soldiers from IFOR * * * leant against a nearby wall
smoking cigarettes and paying no attention as Jankovic,
accompanied by bodyguards, casually ordered a drink.''
(Sunday Times of London, July 28, 1996). Tried to get on the
ballot for municipal elections. OSCE spotted it and stopped
him.
7. Goran Jelisic--Brcko (Bosnian Serb) indicted for
Genocide--Bijeljina (Bosnian Serb territory)--Interviewed in
his apartment in Bijeljina (DeVolkskrant [Amsterdam], Feb.
29, 1996). Knows the telephone number of Ratko Cesic, also
indicted for Brcko (De Volkskrant [Amsterdam], Feb. 29,
1996).
8. Drago Josipovic--Lasva Valley (Bosnian Croat)--Vitez
(Muslim-Croat Federation)--A chemical engineer at the local
Vitezit explosives factory, he lives in his family home in
the village of Santici, just east of Vitez (Associated Press,
Nov. 9, 1996). Works as a chemical engineer in the Princip
munitions factory. May also be found at the local Croatian
Democratic Party headquarters, where his wife is president
(Washington Post, Nov. 27, page A21).
9. Radovan Karadzic--Sarajevo and Srebrenica (Bosnian Serb)
indicted for Genocide--Pale (Bosnian Serb territory) Banja
Luka (Bosnian Serb territory)--Pale house--large house on a
mountainside--pointed out to Prof. Charles Ingrao on trip to
Pale (New York Times, Oct. 28, 1996). Has friend, Slavko
Rogulic, who runs gas station and hotel for him in Banja
Luka. Building a house in Koljani village near Banja Luka.
``[M]akes little effort to conceal his daily movements''
(Associated Press, Nov. 9, 1996).
10. Marinko Katava--Lasva Valley (Bosnian Croat)--Vitez
(Muslim-Croat Federal)--Works as a labor inspector for the
Federation government at a desk in the town hall in Vitez,
and lives in a pleasant downtown apartment (Associated Press,
Nov. 9, 1996). Works in the town hall in Vitez as an
employment inspector. He may be at the pharmacy run by his
wife. The family telephone is printed on a sign in the
pharmacy window, and the Katavas live upstairs (Washington
Post, Nov. 27, 1996, page A21).
11. Dragan Kondic--Keraterm (Bosnian Serb)--Prijedor
(Bosnian Serb territory)--Said to have connections with
special police in Ljubia. Hangs out almost every night at
``The Pink'' bar in Prejedor.
12. Dario Kordic--Lasva Valley (Bosnian Croat)--Zagreb,
Croatia--Numerous reports have him living in Zagreb. On or
about July 8, 1996, was photographed in front of an apartment
in Zagreb's Tresnjevka district on the 4th floor with no name
on the door; block is owned by the defense ministry (Globus
[Zagreb], as quoted in Reuters, July 10, 1996). Croatian
ambassador to the United States says the apartment belongs to
Kordic's parents, which means the Croatian government knows
where Kordic has been living (Washington Post, Nov. 11, 1996,
A28).
13. Milojica Kos--Omarska (Bosnian Serb)--Omarska (Bosnian
Serb territory)--His brother Zheljko Kos owns the ``Europa''
restaurant in Omarska, across the street from the Omarska
camp buildings; Milojica Kos frequently at the restaurant.
Otherwise, he is keeping a low profile in Omarska (Christian
Science Monitor, Nov. 28, 1996).
14. Radomir Kovac--Foca (Bos Serb)--Foca Bosnian Serb
territory)--A journalist said at the IFOR press briefing on
Nov. 19, 1996, that Kovac was still working for the Foca
police. IPTF spokesman Aleksandar Ivanko replied, ``I heard
these reports. We can't confirm them. We have to take
[Bosnian Serb Interior] Minister Kijac at his word, and he
says nobody who as been indicted is working as a policeman in
his letter to Peter Fitzgerald, so for the time being we'll
take him at his word.''
15. Mirjan Kupreskic--Lasva Valley (Bosnian Croat)--Vitez
(Muslim--Croat Federation)--Can be found at the grocery store
he and his cousin Vlatko Kupreskic (q.v.) run; he lives in
Pirici, just east of Vietz (Associated Press, Nov. 9, 1996).
Runs a grocery shop in Vitez not far from Marinko Katava's
(q.v.) wife's pharmacy (Washington Post, Nov. 27, page A21).
16. Vlatko Kupreskic--Lasva Valley (Bosnian Croat)--Vitez
(Muslim-Croat Federation)--Can be found at the grocery store
he and his cousin Mirjan KUPRESKIC (q.v.) run; he lives in
Pirici, just east of Vitez (Associated Press, Nov. 9, 1996).
17. Zoran Kupreskic--Lasva Valley (Bosnian Croat)--Vitez
(Muslim-Croat Federation)--Can be found at the grocery store
run by him, his brother Mirjan Kupreskic (q.v.) and their
cousin Vlatko Kupreskic (Q.v.) (Associated Press, Nov. 9,
1996). Runs a business in Vitez, not his brother Mirjan
Kupreskic's (q.v.) grocery shop. ``I have been advised not to
talk to the press by the guy in charge,'' he said. ``But call
my brother Mirjan. Maybe he will want to talk to you,''
giving the telephone number and location of his brother's
shop (Washington Post, Nov. 27, page A21).
18. Miroslav Kvocka--Omarska (Bosnian Serb)--Prijedor
(Bosnian Serb territory)--Works at Prijedor police station
(Reuters, Oct. 29, 1996). Put on leave (ABC World News
Tonight, Nov. 26, 1996). Put on one month's leave. Was the
Prijedor police duty officer as recently as Oct. 23, 1996,
but is on temporary leave (Christian Science Monitor, Nov.
28, 1996).
19. Milan Martic--Zagreb rocket attack (CroSerb)--Banja
Luka (Bosnian Serb territory)--``[H]is place of residence has
been precisely located. . . .'' (Telegraf [Belgrade], Feb.
28, 1996). Believed living in Banja Luka (London Press
Association, Mar. 8, 1996). Said to have regular meetings
with Plavsic, et al. Attended a public event near Banja Luka
in July also attended by IFOR personnel (Human Rights Watch
press release, Nov. 8, 1996). Seen in Banja Luka on Nov. 5,
1996. Lives less than 100 meters from IFOR civilian affairs
center in Banja Luka (Human Rights Watch press release, Nov.
8, 1996). Gave a videotape interview from his office in Banja
Luka (ABC World News Tonight, Nov. 26, 1996).
20. Zeljko Meakic [also spelled ``Mejakic'']--Omarska
(Bosnian Serb) indicted for Genocide--Omarska (Bosnian Serb
territory)--Deputy commander of Omarska police station
(Boston Globe, Oct. 31, 1996, page a6). Put on leave (ABC
World News Tonight, Nov. 26, 1996). Put on one month's leave.
On duty as recently as Oct. 20 (Christian Science Monitor,
Nov. 28, 1996).
21. Slobodan Milijkovic--Bosanski Samac (Bosnian Serb)--
Kragujevac, Serbia--Kragujevac is 60 miles southeast of
Belgrade (Time magazine, May 13, 1996).
22. Ratko Mladic--Sarajevo and Srebrenica (Bosnian Serb)
indicted for Genocide--Han Pijesak (Bosnian Serb territory)--
Belgrade, Serbia--Lives inside his headquarters (numerous
sources). Maintains an apartment in Belgrade.
23. Milan Mrksic--Vukovar (Serb)--Banja Luka (Bosnian Serb
territory)--General in the JNA at the time of Vukovar; then
went to work for the Krajina Serbs. Reported to have been in
Banja Luka (New York Times, Jan. 5, 1996). Later, reported to
have retired and now living a solitary life in Belgrade
(Vreme, Apr. 6, 1996).
24. Dragan Nikolic--Susica (Bosnian Serb)--Vlasenica
(Bosnian Serb territory)--Either in the Bosnian Serb Army or
the Bosnian Serb civilian government (Reuter, Feb. 16, 1996).
25. Miroslav Radic--Vukovar (Serb)--In the Serbian
``provinces''--Operates a private company ``in the
provinces'' of Serbia (Vreme, Apr. 6, 1996).
26. Mladen Radic--Omarska (Bosnian Serb)--Prijedor (Bosnian
Serb territory)--Works at Prijedor police station (Reuters,
Oct. 29, 1996). Put on leave (ABC World News Tonight, Nov.
26, 1996). Put on one month's leave.
27. Ivica Rajic--Stupni Do (Bosnian Croat)--Split,
Croatia--Lived in a Croatian-government owned hotel, believed
to be the Zagreb Hotel, but has since reportedly left Split
(Globus [Zagreb]; reported by Reuter, Oct. 23 and 24, 1996).
28. Ivan Santic--Lasva Valley (Bosnian Croat)--territory
unknown--Santic was described as an engineer, the director of
the Sintevit plant in Vitez, and, at the time the crimes
occurred, the mayor of Vitez (Tanjug, Nov. 13, 1995).
Interviewed by Inter Press Service (Inter Press Service, Dec.
14, 1995). In 1994-95 (at least), Santic was Deputy Minister
of Industry and Energy in the Federation (Vjesnik [Zagreb],
June 20, 1994, and Vecernji List [Zagreb], Nov. 20, 1995).
Federation officials should know his address.
29. Dusko Sikirica--Keraterm (Bosnian Serb) indicted for
Genodice--territory unknown--Tried to get on the ballot for
municipal elections. OSCE spotted it and stopped him. OSCE
should know his address.
[[Page S5117]]
30. Blagoje Simic--Bosanski Samac (Bosnian Serb)--Bosanski
Samac (Bosnian Serb territory)--Highest-ranking public
official in Bosanski Samac, with an office in the town hall
(Boston Globe, Nov. 1, 1996, page a1).
31. Pero Skopljak--Lasva Valley (Bosnian Croat)--Vitez
(Muslim-Croat Federation)--An official in the Bosnian Croat
Presidency (Tanjug, Nov. 13, 1995). ``Still lives in Vitez,
where he runs a print shop'' (Inter Press Service, Dec. 14,
1995). Now runs a local printing company from the ground
floor of his spacious home in Vitez (Associated Press, Nov.
9, 1996). Still runs the printing shop, though his wife says
he's rarely there (Washington Post, Nov. 27, page A21).
32. Veselin Sljivancanin--Vukovar (Serb)--Belgrade,
Serbia--Reportedly had falling out with his superior, Gen.
Milan MRKSIC (q.v.), also indicted for Vukovar (New York
Times, Jan. 5, 1996). Promoted to full colonel and
transferred to Belgrade (Agence France-Presse, Feb. 16,
1996). Now head of the Center of Advanced Military Schools in
Belgrade (Svijet [Sarajevo], Apr. 25, 1996). Also referred to
as an instructor at the Center of Advanced Military Schools
in Belgrade (Vreme, Apr. 6, 1996).
33. Radovan Stankovic--Foca (Bosnian Serb)-- Foca (Bosnian
Serb territory)--Working in the Bosnian Serb police in Foca
as of August, according to IPTF spokesman Aleksandar Ivanko.
In August, Stankovic walked into IPTF police station near
Sarajevo, but IPTF did not recognize his name. Local police
stopped him, asked to see his driver's license, recognized
his name, ordered him to come to a police station, whereupon
he fled--later to file a complaint with the IPTF alleging
that the Bosnian police fired shots at his car (Reuter, Nov.
8, 1996). In August, Stankovic filed a complaint against the
Bosnian police at an IPTF office. ``After being embarrassed
by the fact that journalists discovered five others indicted
on war-crime charges in the Serbian police force, U.N.
officials reacted by forbidding their monitors to discuss the
Stankovic case with reporters'' (New York Times, Nov. 9,
1996).
34. Nedjeljko Timarac--Keraterm (Bosnian Serb)--Prijedor
(Bosnian Serb territory)--Works at Prijedor police station
(Reuters, Oct. 29, 1996). Put on leave (ABC World News
Tonight, Nov. 26, 1996). Put on one month's leave.
35. Stevan Todorovic--Bosanski Samac (Bosnian Serb)--
Bosanski Samac (Bosnian Serb territory)--Deputy of the local
office of Republika Srpska state security in Bosanski Samac;
works the night shift (7 p.m.-7 a.m.) (Boston Globe, Nov. 1,
1996, page a1). Lives in the village of Donja Slatina, a 3
minute, 30 second drive from American-staffed NATO base of
Camp Colt, with 1,000 soldiers. His commuter route is
routinely traveled by NATO patrols (Boston Globe, Nov. 1,
1996, page a1).
36. Dragan Zelenovic--Foca (BosSerb)--Foca (Bosnian Serb
territory)--A journalist said at the IFOR press briefing on
Nov. 19, 1996, that Zelenovic was still working for the Foca
police. IPTF spokesman Aleksandar Ivanko replied, ``I heard
these reports. We can't confirm them. We have to take
[Bosnian Serb Interior] Minister Kijac at his word, and he
says nobody who has been indicted is working as a policeman
in his letter to Peter Fitzgerald, so for the time being
we'll take him at his word.''
37. Zoran Zigic--Omarska and Keraterm (Bosnian Serb)--Banja
Luka (Bosnian Serb territory)--Believed to be in jail in
Banja Luka. Reported to be in a Bosnian Serb prison for an
unrelated murder (Christan Science Monitor, Nov. 28, 1996).
Other information:
1. Nikica Janjic--Omarska and Keraterm (Bosnian Serb)--
Banja Luka (Bosnian Serb territory)--According to friends and
his father, he killed himself in September 1995 (Christian
Science Monitor, Nov. 28, 1996).
Statistical summary:
37 out of 67: 55.2% of the 67 indicted war criminals who
are still at large. 5 out of 5: 100% of war criminals who
have been indicted for Genocide.--John W. Hefferman,
Coalition for International Justice.
____
Bosnia Tolerates War Criminals
(By Liam McDowall)
Vitez, Bosnia-Herzegovina (AP).--Locating war crimes
suspects in this Bosnian Croat town is easy. Finding someone
prepared to arrest them is tough.
On a typical afternoon, Marinko Katava, who's wanted for
murder, can be found behind his desk in the town hall. Pero
Skopljak, the town's former chief of police, runs a local
printing store.
The Kupreskic family--three of whose members are wanted for
their role in the murderous wartime campaign against their
Muslim neighbors--are usually at the grocery store they run.
All have been indicted by the U.N. war crimes tribunal in
The Hague, Netherlands and listed on a widely-distributed
``Wanted'' poster.
The suspects aren't easy to see. A reporter who spoke by
telephone with the Kupeskics was met at the grocery by a
group of men who asked the reporter to leave. Skopljak's wife
made the same request at the printing shop, and fellow town
hall workers said Katava did not want to meet the visitor.
But none of them take any precautions to guard against
arrest.
Why should they?
Nobody is looking for them. The unarmed U.N. police force
has no powers of arrest and the NATO-led peace force has no
mandate to hunt those indicted for their alleged roles in
Bosnia's war.
Of the 74 men indicted by the tribunal--four Muslims, 16
Croats and 54 Serbs--only eight are in detention. Four
Muslims, two Serbs and one Croat are in The Hague, and one
Croat is being held in Croatia, pending extradition.
Just the most famous war crimes suspects follow elaborate
security measures to make sure they won't be nabbed and
carried off to trial. They include Radovan Karadzic, who led
the Bosnian Serbs during the war, and his former military
commander Gen. Ratko Mladic, who was fired Saturday by
Karadzic's replacement, President Biljana Plavsic.
``Somehow the issue of detaining war criminals has fallen
into an institutional black hole,'' said Michael Steiner, a
top international peace administrator in Bosnia.
The impotence of the international community was starkly
illustrated in August when an indicted Serb walked into a
U.N. police station near Sarajevo to file a complaint against
Bosnian police who had attempted to arrest him.
The U.N. police did not recognize him and later said they
would have made no effort to detain him anyway, since it
wasn't their job.
Stung by criticism, international peace administrators are
now compiling a list of war crimes suspects and their
whereabouts.
They're hoping that with the U.S. elections over--along
with the chance that U.S. casualties could mar President
Clinton's reelection--Washington may be prepared to support a
new mission to go after some of the wanted men.
But up to now, officials have displayed little zeal to
embroil any of the 43,000 soldiers of the NATO-led peace
force in the war crimes issue, wary of possible retaliation
by Bosnia's former warring parties.
The peace force claims that during the past 11 months, not
one of its men has spotted a war crimes suspect. Spokesmen
now even deny their troops' sightings of Karadzic, which they
once confirmed.
That leaves nabbing suspects up to Bosnian Muslim, Croat
and Serb authorities--and ``they will not do it,'' Steiner
said. It would be political suicide for any leader to hand
over suspects to The Hague.
While the Muslim-led government in Sarajevo has in the main
cooperated in arresting and extraditing suspects, Bosnia's
Serbs and Croats have not.
The two Serbs in custody were arrested abroad, and the
Croat in The Hague handed himself in after special conditions
were agreed upon in advance. The Croat being held in Croatia
was arrested by Croatian officials, not Bosnian Croats.
Karadzic, accused of genocide and crimes against humanity
for the siege of Sarajevo and the presumed massacre of
thousands of Muslims after the fall of Srebrenica in July
1995, still controls the Serb-controlled half of Bosnia from
behind the scenes.
Ostensibly forced out of office in July under the terms of
a U.S.-brokered deal, he makes little effort to conceal his
daily movements in his mountain stronghold of Pale, southeast
of Sarajevo. Confident of his security system and aware that
nobody is going to try and grab him, he drives past the
U.N. police station in Pale each day.
Mladic lives just 8 miles from a big American base in
eastern Bosnia, keeping bees and goat in a heavily-guarded
compound in Han Pijesak. There was no unusual movement
reported around his compound on Saturday.
U.N. officials told The AP that six indicted Serbs still
hold their police jobs: four in the northwestern town of
Prijedor and two in the southeastern town of Foca.
Bosnian Croats are no more compliant. In Vitez, 50 miles
northwest of Sarajevo, at least six of the 14 Croats indicted
for their role in the expulsion and murder of Muslims from
the region remain at liberty.
The Associated Press discovered that at least one of the
war crimes suspects wanted for murder, Marinko Katava,
continues to work as a labor inspector in the local
government.
Katava--whose whereabouts, according to the tribunal and
the multinational peace force, is unknown--can be found
during working hours at town hall and at other times in his
pleasant downtown apartment.
Mirjan Kupreskic and his cousin Vlatko Kupreskic, wanted
for their alleged role in a murderous campaign against Muslim
civilians, live in Pirici on Vitez's eastern flank and run a
small grocery in the center of town.
Together with Zoran Kupreskic, Mirjan's brother, the three
are charged on several counts of war crimes. Their victims,
Muslim neighbors, included a four-month-old infant and a 75-
year-old pensioner.
Pero Skopljak, whom tribunal prosecutors accuse of
overseeing ``the inhumane treatment'' of Muslim civilians,
runs a printing company from the ground floor of his spacious
house in Vitez.
Drago Josipovic, indicted for his role in the execution of
Muslim civilians, is a chemical engineer at the local Vitezit
explosives factory. He lives in his family house in the
village of Santici, just east of Vitez.
The town's deputy policy chief, Marko Dundzer, told The AP
that he knew ``a few'' suspects remained in Vitez but didn't
know any of them personally.
In spite of Bosnian Croat leaders' claims that they are
cooperating fully with the tribunal, Dundzer said he would
not attempt to arrest any suspect. ``I have received no
orders to do such a thing,'' he said.
[[Page S5118]]
____
[From the Boston Globe, Oct. 29, 1996]
Bosnia's War Criminals Enjoy Peacetime Power
(By Elizabeth Neuffer)
Prijedor, Bosnia-Herzegovina--It only takes a phone call to
nearby Omarska to discover the whereabouts of Zjelko Mejakic,
one of the West's most wanted indicted war criminals.
``Zejelko?'' says the operator at the town police station.
``He's not here at the moment, but he'll definitely be here
later.''
Mejakic, the Bosnian Serb former commander of the notorious
Omarska prison camp, is deputy police chief, despite his
indictment for genocide by the International War Crimes
Tribunal at the Hague. And he is not alone: Three indicated
war criminals work at the Prijedor police station, according
to United Nations and Bosnian Serb sources.
Nearly a year after the Dayton peace accord for Bosnia
called for war criminals to be brought to justice, alleged
war criminals remain at large and in positions of power, many
ruling their communities as firmly in peace as they did
during the war.
The net result, a Globe investigation has found, is that
some alleged war criminals are flourishing in peacetime. Some
are believed to have turned to organized crime, including
drug trafficking, counterfeiting and extortion.
Others have kept their hold on communities, allegedly
intimidating political opponents and running protection
rackets, keeping their war records buried under new abuses of
power. Their reach appears to stretch beyond Bosnia: Several
war crimes witnesses interviewed in Germany said they have
been threatened there.
``Unfortunately, Dayton is only a piece of paper,'' said
Rev. Karlo Visaticki, a Roman Catholic priest in Serb-held
Banja Luka who holds local warloads responsible for the 1995
disappearance of a local priest. ``All the war criminals are
still in power.''
The arrest and trial of alleged war criminals is seen as a
key element of peace here, allowing justice to break Balkan
cycles of revenge. Yet NATO peacekeepers, whose mandate bans
them from searching out war criminals, have yet to arrest any
of the more than 76 men indicted. Nor have former warring
parties turned over those charged.
Under the Dayton accord, indicted war criminals are banned
from holding public or elective office. But in reality, many
still do: most notably, Gen. Ratko Mladic heads the Bosnian
Serb Army despite his indictment for overseeing the massacre
of thousands of Muslims from the UN ``safe haven'' of
Srebrenica. In fact, UN sources say Mladic has extended his
power base to include police in northwest Bosnia.
Radovan Karadzic, the former Bosnian Serb leader widely
viewed as a prime architect of a conflict that killed scores
of thousands of people and created 2 million refugees, was
forced to step down, but still dictates Bosnian Serb policies
and lives in Bosnia with impunity despite his war crimes
indictment.
Other less renowned indicated war criminals threaten peace
by continuing to control their communities. Prijedor, in
Serb-held Bosnia, and Mostar, in the Muslim-Croat Federation,
are two such places.
prijedor
In 1993, Prijedor burst into the West's consciousness with
news of the Serb-run detention camps of Ornarska, Keraterm
and Trnopolje. Today, the camps are closed. But those who
operated them, beating, torturing, raping and killing Muslim
and Croat prisoners, still run Prijedor, according to Bosnian
Serbs and Western officials. To some, these men are war
heroes, who deserve to be in charge of the police station and
newspaper. But to opposition politicians, ethnic minorities
or dissidents of any kind, the presence of indicted and
alleged war criminals in power means peace brings no
guarantee of freedom.
``The only thing that has changed since Dayton is that
there is no shooting,'' said one of the few remaining Muslims
here, who asked not to be identified. Out of a prewar
population of about 45,000 Muslims, about 450 remain. ``We
continue to live in fear.''
Three indicted war criminals accused of genocide for
``ethnic cleansing'' at the Omarska camp are today Prijedor
policemen: shift commander Mladen ``Krkan'' Radic, former
camp commander Miroslav Kvocka and guard Nedjeljko Timarac.
``The worst shift in the camp was the one in which Mladen
Radic was in charge,'' recalled camp survivor Nusret Sivac in
a book about Ornarska and Trnopolje. ``One day * * * they
were beating and stomping over everyone, saying, `On St.
Peter's day, we'll light you as firewood, [rape] your Turkish
mothers!' and they kept their promise.''
With these men in power in Prijedor--and Mejakic in the
police station in Ornarska--there can be no freedom of
speech, local Bosnian Serbs say.
``It's a pity these killers are still free,'' said one
Bosnian Serb from near Ornarska, who asked not to be
identified. ``Because it is still dangerous. Overnight, one
can lose one's life.''
Learning of the presence of indicted war criminals on the
Prijedor force, Robert Wasserman, deputy commissioner of the
UN International Police Task Force, which monitors civilian
aspects of the Dayton accords, said the group would seek to
have the officers removed.
``We are outraged, and we will move immediately for the
removal of these people,'' he said. ``It seriously undermines
confidence in police in the country.''
One alleged criminal who is still free is former Prijedor
police chief Simo Drljaca, whom UN and NATO officials expect
to be indicted this month for war crimes. Drljaca, sources
say, determined who was sent to prison camps and how they
were treated, including signing all the execution orders.
Since the war, Drljaca has run Prijedor as if it were his
fiefdom. In addition to controlling officials from the mayor
on down. Drljaca is alleged by residents to have demanded
kickbacks for apartments and police protection of businesses.
Locally, his nickname is ``Mr. Ten Percent,'' for the rate he
demands from area bars and restaurants.
Bosnian Serbs who don't toe the party line allege they had
to pay the police to avoid being evicted from their
apartments. Western officials say that residents who talked
to them later were threatened by Drljaca, called to the
police station for ``informative talks.''
NATO officials attempted to reduce Drljaca's power a few
weeks ago, forcing Bosnian Serb authorities to remove him as
police chief after he threatened NATO peacekeepers with a
gun.
``He was God here,'' said one Western official in the
region. ``He controlled everything and everyone.''
But last week, despite a new job as logistics adviser to
the minister of interior of the Serb half of Bosnia, Drljaca
was working as the Prijedor police station, still reachable
via his secretary there. ``Unfortunately,'' said one military
source, ``he's still pulling the strings here.''
``Oh, from now on I am going to be a good boy,'' Drljaca
said in a recent interview with the Globe, denying all
allegations. ``These charges are unjustified . . . but it
won't affect my personal life. I have protection. Any time of
day or night, I am ready to resist.''
That alleged war criminals still run Prijedor is a powerful
disincentive for Muslim and Croat refugees who want to return
home.
``These criminals assaulted and killed and robbed us, and
now they are still in power?'' said Sefik Terzic, a 54-year-
old Omarska survivor now in Germany. ``And this is where I am
supposed to return to? I'd rather kill myself than let them
finish the job they began four years ago.''
MOSTAR
Since the signing of the Dayton agreement last December,
the city of Mostar has become Bosnia's hub for organized
crime. Explosions routinely destroy cafes of owners unwilling
to pay protection money. Opposition figures are openly
harassed. Car theft and counterfeit rings abound. Ethnic
minorities are chased from their homes. An illegal drug
trade, from marijuana to cocaine, is flourishing. And lurking
behind all these developments. Bosnian government and Western
sources say, are two men accused of being war criminals:
Mladen ``Tuta'' Naletilic and Vinko ``Stela'' Martinovic.
``It's got to be the leaders in Mostar and in Bosnia who
are determined to get rid of this problem and put the scum
where they belong, behind bars,'' Sir Martin Garrod, the
European Union envoy to Mostar, told reporters in August,
naming Naletilic and Martinovic.
Neither man has been indicted by the War Crimes Tribunal,
although files on their wartime activities have been sent to
the Hague. The Tribunal was alarmed after Nedzad Ugljen, a
Bosnian agent investigating the two men and cooperating with
the Tribunal, was assassinated in Sarajevo, according to
sources who read a letter sent by the Tribunal to Bosnian
officials.
A look at the two men's alleged wartime and peacetime
careers reveals how fine a line there appears to be between
war crimes and organized crime in today's Bosnia.
The old warlords have simply shifted their activities to
organized crimes.'' said Col. Pieter Lambrechste of the
European Union police in Mostar. ``And in this postwar
period, crime is flourishing.''
So much so that FBI and Drug Enforcement Administration
investigators, drawn by the boom in organized crime, recently
visited Bosnia.
According to Bosnian government and Western sources. Tuta
and Stela gained a stranglehold on Mostar in 1993, running
anti-terrorist units in the Bosnian Croatian Army that drove
minorities from the city and set up local detention camps.
Tuta, a Canadian Croat who is close to Croatian Defense
Minister Gojko Susak, is described as having been the brains
behind the operation; Stela, who had a lengthy criminal
record before the war, the front man. ``Tuta gave the orders,
and Stela obeyed,'' said one Western official here.
Officials allege that ``Stela'' Martinovic and his thugs--
the ``ATG Mrmak,'' identifiable by their sunglasses and
shaved heads--drove out Muslims and Serbs from West Mostar,
killing and raping as they went. ``Our whole neighborhood was
kicked out by Stela's team,'' said Azra Hasanbegovic, 49,
now in East Mostar. ``My 74-year-old mother was badly
beaten with rifle butts . . . there were a lot of rapes.''
Bosnian government sources allege that Tuta and Stela
established a prison camp at the local helicopter base.
Testimony from camp survivors, compiled by the Bosnian
government and delivered to the Hague, includes accounts of
people forced to eat feces,
[[Page S5119]]
denied water under beating sun and made to watch their
children raped or killed.
Even local Croats were not safe. Both Tuta and Stela
reportedly levied a ``war tax'' on those who refused to fight
the Muslims.
Today, the two men continue to exercise power with
impunity. Stela prowls Mostar in his green Jaguar, Mercedes
600 or Mercedes 124; Tuta lives next door to Susak in the
village of Siroki Brijeg. Bosnian government sources allege
the two men are now involved in counterfeiting money, running
drugs, prostitution, smuggling cigarettes and protection
rackets.
Western authorities say they are aware of the allegations,
but cannot prove them. But they do think the two hold sway
over Bosnian Croat police, who have done nothing about 50
cases so far this year involving the expulsion of Muslims
from their homes. Last week, a Muslim woman arrived home
after a two-hour absence to discover a Croatian family in her
apartment.
``No one Croat can survive in business or politics unless
he is in agreement with Tuta,'' said one Bosnian government
source.
In recent weeks, leading political opposition figures in
Mostar have been threatened, shot at and beaten. In April,
Tuta physically attacked a leading Croatian government
critic, Slobodan Budak, at Zagreb's InterContinental Hotel.
``There is a climate of intimidation and fear in Mostar,
and people are frightened to stand up and express their views
as a result,'' said Garrod, the European Union envoy.
``Unfortunately, people on all levels are not yet prepared to
demand that the guilty be brought to justice.''
Previous Globe coverage and links are available on Globe
Online at http://www.boston.com.
The keyword is Bosnia.
____
Among alleged war criminals in Prijedor and Omarska.
Momcilo ``Cigo'' Radanovic, Prijedor deputy mayor; Former
head of Bosnian Serb Army unit; allegedly extorted residents
by promising freedom for cash. ``The biggest crimes in
Kozarac were committed . . . under the command of Momcilo
(Cigo) Radanovic,'' charged a camp survivor, Nusret Sivac.
Ranko Mijic, new Prijedor chief of police: Omarska camp
survivors say he was their chief interrogation officer.
Simo Drljaca, previous Prejidor chief of police: Now
adviser to the ministry of interior. Allegedly determined who
went to camps; signed orders for executions. ``I became a
victim of his revenge,'' said D.E., a Croatian sent to
Keraterm. ``Shoving of police clubs into the anus and sitting
on broken beer bottles were only some of the maltreatments.''
Mladen Radic, Prijedor police officer: Indicted by War
Crimes Tribunal. ``The guards formed a lane, we had to walk
through it. It was later explained that if Mladen winked his
eye or said, `Not this one,' the man would walk the lane
without being battered,'' said D.I., a former prisoner.
Miroslav Kvocka, police officer: Indicted for war crimes.
Original commander of Omarska.
Nedeljko Timarac, chief of forensics, Prijedor police:
Indicted for war crimes. At Omarska camp, he was ``a member
of the gang of Zoran Zigic, a multiple criminal. They are
responsible for many murders and rapes,'' said Nusrat Sevic.
Zeljko Mejakic, Omarska deputy police commander: Indicted
for war crimes. Commander of Omarska camp. ``He interrogated
me four times,'' said Sefik Terzie, a survivor. ``He knocked
me with his fist. His mates knocked my teeth out.''
Slobodan Kuruzovic, Prijedor newspaper editor: Indicted in
Croatia for war crimes. Was commander at Trnopoije camp.
____
May 6, 1997.
Hon. Frank R. Lautenberg,
Hon. Patrick J. Leahy,
Committee on Appropriations,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Lautenberg and Senator Leahy: We are writing
to express our strong support and thanks for your
legislation, the ``War Crimes Prosecution Facilitation Act.''
We are outraged that 66 of the 75 persons who have been
indicted by the International Criminal Tribunal for the
Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) for some of the worst crimes in this
half-century--including genocide, systematic rape and other
crimes against humanity--remain at large. As you know, many
of the indicted are living openly and comfortably in the
region, continuing to wield political and economic power.
We are united in our concern that bilateral and
multilateral reconstruction assistance not strengthen and
enrich those indicted war criminals and the governments that
are failing to assist in their apprehension and transfer to
the Tribunal. It is essential to the peace process that we
carefully direct aid so as to encourage compliance with the
Dayton Agreement's core elements--apprehension of indicated
war criminals, freedom of movement, and return of refugees
and displaced persons--rather than strengthen those who are
flouting their sworn commitments to do so.
We are particularly pleased that your legislation
recognizes the undeniable political realities of the region
and holds each Dayton signatory country responsible for the
actual extent of its authority and ability to assist the
Tribunal. Specifically, Croatia and Serbia have an obligation
not only to arrest indicted persons who are within their
borders but also to exercise their decisive political and
economic influence in the sections of Bosnia-Herzegovina they
effectively control to ensure that the indicted who are there
are arrested and sent to the Tribunal for trial.
The continued presence of indicted war criminals in the
region and continued political and economic strength of their
protectors are the major obstacles to reform and
implementation of Dayton. Reconstruction will not be
successful--and U.S. tax dollars and those of other donors--
will be wasted unless such assistance is provided in a manner
that supports reconciliation and the rule of law, rather than
rewards the very people most responsible for genocide and
ethnic cleansing.
Thank you very much for your leadership and concern.
Sincerely,
Coalition for International Justice.
Human Rights Watch.
Physicians for Human Rights.
Action Council for Peace in the Balkans.
International Human Rights Law Group.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am very pleased to be an original
cosponsor of Senator Lautenberg's legislation, the War Crimes
Prosecution Facilitation Act of 1997.
Senator Lautenberg has consistently called for stronger action to
bring war crimes in the former Yugoslavia to justice, and I appreciate
his efforts and commend him for keeping the spotlight on this.
I am not going to repeat what Senator Lautenberg has already said
about why this legislation is needed. He has discussed it in detail. It
is simply outrageous that people who are believed to be responsible for
some of the most heinous crimes in this century have been living and
traveling freely within the former Yugoslavia, their whereabouts a
matter of public knowledge.
My own view is that NATO forces, or some special contingent
specifically constituted to capture war criminals, should go after
these people. The longer we wait, the more powerless NATO appears, and
the more convinced these people are that they have nothing to fear. But
until that happens, at the very least, we should not give aid to
governments that harbor war criminals, especially considering that they
pledged to cooperate fully with the War Crimes Tribunal.
That is the purpose of this legislation--to deny aid to governments
of the former Yugoslavia until they arrest and turn over indicted war
criminals who are within territory under that control, or to projects
in communities whose local authorities are protecting war criminals or
preventing refugees from returning home. Frankly, that should already
be U.S. Government policy. There should be no need for this
legislation. Since our goal is to promote reconciliation, the bill does
make appropriate exceptions for humanitarian and other limited
assistance.
Mr. President, I want to again thank Senator Lautenberg for his
leadership, I hope that the administration will respond by telling us
that they are in agreement with this legislation and will conform their
policy accordingly.
By Mr. LUGAR (for himself and Mr. Harkin): S. 805. A bill to reform
the information technology systems of the Department of Agriculture,
and for other purposes; to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and
Forestry.
THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE INFORMATION REFORM ACT
Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation that will
help Secretary of Agriculture Dan Glickman in his efforts to make USDA
a more efficient user of taxpayer money. The Department of Agriculture
has a long history of wasteful spending on information technology
[IT]--telecommunications and computers. Over the past 10 years, USDA
invested almost $8 billion on IT purchases that were often poorly
planned, incompatible, and redundant. Recently Secretary Glickman
lamented the stovepipe mentality that pervades USDA planning and
purchases of information technology. That is, each agency of the
Department protects its own turf and budget, and is reluctant to
coordinate its IT planning and purchases with other agencies.
The Secretary's observations are consistent with messages we have
sent to USDA in years past. Five years ago, Senator Leahy and I warned
that ``money invested by USDA in computer technology over the past
several years has been spent without a clear understanding of what was
being purchased
[[Page S5120]]
or what was operationally required to increase efficiency within the
Department.'' We asked then Secretary Madigan to curtail computer
purchases until a ``strategic plan or vision for Department
reorganization is completed.'' We still await a final version of the
current strategic plan.
For over a decade, audits of USDA's IT purchases have uncovered the
same root problems: inadequate control, planning, and direction of IT
investments. Historically, USDA's administration has failed to exercise
the authority to control the IT expenditures of its 30 agencies. These
agencies' independent IT purchases have led to systems that are unable
to communicate across the Department. This has impeded program delivery
and resulted in a labyrinth of duplicative and incompatible systems
that has wasted hundreds of millions of dollars.
The 104th Congress passed the Clinger-Cohen Act, which requires
performance and results-based management in IT planning and purchases
throughout Government. Clinger-Cohen created the position of the Chief
Information Officer [CIO], a high-level executive responsible for
achieving program delivery through prudent and coordinated IT
investments. The concept of CIO coordination of IT planning and
purchases is already widespread in the private sector.
To be successful, the CIO must have significant legal and budgetary
authorities. The CIO at USDA has neither. Individual agencies, which
control their own budgets, can ignore the CIO. Currently, USDA's CIO
has the responsibility to coordinate IT investments across agencies,
but lacks the planning and budgeting authority to meet this
responsibility. Without such authority, the problems of the past are
sure to continue.
The legislation I introduce today builds on Clinger-Cohen by giving
the CIO at USDA the legal and budgetary authorities necessary to manage
IT across USDA's 30 agencies. This bill accomplishes three things.
First, the CIO is given the legal and budget authorities necessary to
sucessfully manage IT to benefit the Department as a whole. Second, the
CIO is given subcabinet rank within USDA, and will report directly to
the Secretary. Third, the CIO is given the authority to approve or
disapprove all purchases for telecommunications and computers.
One important provision of this bill transfers to the CIO 10 percent
of all USDA agencies' appropriations for salaries and expenses, to be
used for IT planning and purchases. This amount can be adjusted by the
Secretary. When the CIO approves an expenditure, the funds are released
back to the agency. My purpose in including this provision is to
provide the CIO with sufficient authority to control IT throughout
USDA. I understand that Secretary Glickman may prefer alternative
methods of achieving this goal. I look forward to working with him to
craft the best means of accomplishing our common objective, because I
genuinely intend this legislation to be helpful to his efforts and want
to be supportive.
Secretary Glickman sincerely wants to change the stovepipe mentality
that pervades decisionmaking among USDA's 30 agencies. The Secretary
has expressed a desire to reform the planning and budgeting of IT
expenditures. He has stated a desire to halt the pattern of
uncoordinated planning and ill-advised purchases that has resulted in
the waste of taxpayer dollars. I believe the Secretary agrees that we
cannot afford the operating procedures which exist today.
However, the challenge of effecting change in the long-standing
pattern of stovepipe agencies operating on their own is formidable. By
introducing this bill today, I offer my assistance to the Secretary in
this difficult and heretofore elusive task.
The intent of this legislation is to help the Secretary realize his
vision of a common USDA spirit by allowing him to implement reforms
across the entire Department of Agriculture. I look forward to working
with him to increase the efficiency and effectiveness of IT purchases
and in so doing improve delivery of USDA programs.
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. 805
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.
(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Department
of Agriculture Information Technology Reform Act''.
(b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents of this Act
is as follows:
Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
Sec. 2. Findings.
Sec. 3. Definitions.
Sec. 4. Powers and duties of Chief Information Officer.
Sec. 5. Procurement of outside consultants.
Sec. 6. Transfer of agency information technology funds.
Sec. 7. Review by Office of Management and Budget.
Sec. 8. Technical amendment.
Sec. 9. Termination of authority.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
Congress finds that--
(1) the Office of Management and Budget estimates that the
Department of Agriculture will spend $1,100,000,000,
$1,200,000,000, and $1,250,000,000 for fiscal years 1996,
1997, and 1998, respectively, on information technology and
automated data processing equipment;
(2) according to the Department, as of October 1993, the
Department had 17 major information technology systems under
development with an estimated life-cycle cost of
$6,300,000,000;
(3) over the past decade, committees of Congress, the
General Accounting Office, the Office of Management and
Budget, and private consultants have repeatedly argued that
the Department's information technology decisions have been
made in piecemeal fashion, on an individual agency basis,
resulting in duplication, a lack of coordination, and wasted
financial and technological resources by the offices or
agencies of the Department and in hundreds of millions of
wasted dollars over the past decade;
(4) the Department's role in agriculture in the United
States was substantially altered by the FAIR Act, although
the Department has yet to adequately assess fully the impact
the FAIR Act will have on the services the Department
provides to its customers;
(5) decentralized, uncoordinated, and wasteful purchases
for information technology have continued at the Department
until recently when the Secretary imposed a moratorium on
purchases;
(6) strong central and independent leadership, control, and
accountability is essential to coordinating planning and
eliminating wasteful purchases;
(7) the Chief Information Officer should have a subcabinet
rank within the Department;
(8) a single authority for Department-wide planning is
needed to ensure that the information technology architecture
of the Department is based on the strategic business plans,
information resources, management goals, and core business
process methodology of the Department;
(9) information technology is a strategic resource for the
missions and program activities of the Department;
(10) consolidating the budgetary authority for information
technology purchases is key to eliminating purchases that are
conducted in piecemeal fashion, on an individual office or
agency of the Department basis, resulting in duplication, a
lack of coordination, and wasted financial and technological
resources at the Department;
(11) centralizing the authority and funding for planning
and investment for information technology in the Office of
the Chief Information Officer will--
(A) provide the Department with strong and coordinated
leadership and direction;
(B) ensure that the business architecture is based on
rigorous core business process methodology;
(C) ensure that the information technology architecture of
the Department is based on the strategic business plans of
the offices or agencies of the Department and the missions of
the Department;
(D) ensure that funds will be invested in information
technology only after the Chief Information Officer has
completed the planning and review of future business
requirements of the offices or agencies and developed an
information technology architecture that is based on the
business requirements; and
(E) force the Department to act as a single enterprise with
respect to information technology, thus eliminating the
duplication and inefficiency associated with a single office-
or agency-based approach;
(12) each office or agency of the Department should achieve
at least--
(A) a 5 percent per year decrease in costs incurred for
operation and maintenance of information technology; and
(B) a 5 percent per year increase in operational efficiency
through improvements in information resource management; and
(13) information resource management should be supported by
a senior official of the Department who is committed to using
information technology as a process to facilitate the most
efficient administration of the program functions of the
Department by marshalling the necessary resources and the
commitment of high-level managers toward that end.
SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.
In this Act:
[[Page S5121]]
(1) Agency information technology funds.--The term ``agency
information technology funds'' means 10 percent of the annual
fiscal year funds that are made available to each office or
agency of the Department for salaries and expenses.
(2) Chief information officer.--The term ``Chief
Information Officer'' means the individual appointed by the
Secretary to serve as Chief Information Officer (as
established by section 5125 of the Information Technology
Management Reform Act of 1996 (40 U.S.C. 1425)) for the
Department.
(3) Department.--The term ``Department'' means the
Department of Agriculture.
(4) FAIR act.--The term ``FAIR Act'' means the Federal
Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 (Public Law
104-127).
(5) Information resource management.--The term
``information resource management'' means the process of
managing information resources to accomplish agency missions
and to improve agency performance.
(6) Information resources.--The term ``information
resources'' means information and related resources such as
personnel, equipment, funds, and information technology
systems.
(7) Information technology architecture.--The term
``information technology architecture'' means an integrated
framework for evolving or maintaining existing information
technology and acquiring new information technology to
achieve the strategic business plans, information resources,
management goals, and core business process methodology of
the Department.
(8) Information technology system.--The term ``information
technology system'' means a system of automated data
processing or telecommunications equipment or software
(including support services), information resource
management, or business process reengineering of an office or
agency of the Department.
(9) Office or agency of the department.--The term ``office
or agency of the Department'' means, as applicable, each
current or future--
(A) national, regional, county, or local office or agency
of the Department;
(B) county committee established under section 8(b)(5) of
the Soil Conservation and Domestic Allotment Act (16 U.S.C.
590h(b)(5));
(C) State committee, State office, or field service center
of the Farm Service Agency; and
(D) a group of multiple offices and agencies of the
Department that are currently, or will be, connected through
common program activities and information technology systems.
(10) Performance goal.--The term ``performance goal'' means
a target level of performance expressed as a tangible,
measurable objective, against which actual achievement can be
compared, including a goal expressed as a quantitative
standard, value, or rate.
(11) Program activity.--The term ``program activity'' means
a specific activity or project of a program that is carried
out by 1 or more offices or agencies of the Department.
(12) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of Agriculture.
(13) Transfer or obligation of funds.--The term ``transfer
or obligation of funds'' means, as applicable--
(A) the transfer of funds (including appropriated funds,
mandatory funds, and funds of the Commodity Credit
Corporation) from 1 account to another account of an office
or agency of the Department for the purpose of investing in
an information technology system of an office or agency of
the Department that exceeds $250,000 for any 1 order, or
aggregation of orders, for the same or similar items and
involves planning, providing services, or leasing or
purchasing of personal property (including all hardware and
software) or services for an information technology system of
an office or agency of the Department;
(B) the obligation of funds (including appropriated funds,
mandatory funds, and funds of the Commodity Credit
Corporation) for the purpose of investing in an information
technology system of an office or agency of the Department
that exceeds $250,000 for any 1 order, or aggregation of
orders, for the same or similar items and involves planning,
providing services, or leasing or purchasing of personal
property (including all hardware and software) or services
for an information technology system of an office or agency
of the Department; or
(C) the obligation of funds (including appropriated funds,
mandatory funds, and funds of the Commodity Credit
Corporation) for the purpose of investing in an information
technology system of an office or agency of the Department
that exceeds $250,000 for any 1 order, or aggregation of
orders, for the same or similar items and involves planning,
providing services, or leasing or purchasing of personal
property (including all hardware and software) or services
for an information technology system of an office or agency
of the Department, to be obtained through a contract with an
office or agency of the Federal Government, a State, the
District of Columbia, or any person in the private sector.
SEC. 4. POWERS AND DUTIES OF CHIEF INFORMATION OFFICER.
Notwithstanding any other provision of law (except the
Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 (Public Law
103-62), amendments made by that Act, and the Information
Technology Management Reform Act of 1996 (40 U.S.C. 1401 et
seq.)), in addition to the general authorities provided to
the Chief Information Officer by section 5125 of the
Information Technology Management Reform Act of 1996 (40
U.S.C. 1425), the Chief Information Officer shall have the
following powers and duties within the Department:
(1) Leadership in reorganization and streamlining
efforts.--The Chief Information Officer, in cooperation with
other persons such as the Chief Financial Officer and the
Executive Information Technology Investment Review Board (or
its successor), shall provide the strong central leadership,
planning, and accountability that is needed in light of the
substantial changes created by the FAIR Act and
reorganization and downsizing initiatives already commenced
within the Department.
(2) Information technology systems and information resource
management.--The Chief Information Officer shall oversee the
development, implementation, and maintenance of all
information technology systems and information resource
management in the Department.
(3) Department-wide information technology systems.--The
Chief Information Officer shall ensure that information
technology systems of the Department are designed to
coordinate the functions of the offices or agencies of the
Department on a Department-wide basis.
(4) Information technology architecture.--The Chief
Information Officer shall establish, and exercise exclusive
authority over, an information technical architecture that
serves the entire Department based on the strategic business
plans, information resources, management goals, and core
business process methodology of the Department.
(5) Coordination of information technology architecture and
agency strategic plans.--
(A) In general.--The Chief Information Officer shall ensure
that the information technology architecture of the
Department clearly implements the strategic business plans,
and information resource management, of offices or agencies
of the Department regarding the needs and goals of program
activities of the Department.
(B) Goals of the information technology architecture.--The
Chief Information Officer shall design and implement an
information technology architecture in a manner that ensures
that--
(i) the information technology system of each office or
agency of the Department maximizes the effectiveness and
efficiency of mission delivery and information resource
management, and supports core business processes of the
Department;
(ii) the information technology system of each office or
agency of the Department maximizes quality per dollar
expended;
(iii) maximizes efficiency and coordination of information
technology systems between offices or agencies of the
Department;
(iv) planning for, leases, and purchases of the information
technology system of each office or agency of the Department
most efficiently satisfy the needs of the office or agency in
terms of the customers served, program characteristics, and
employees affected by the system; and
(v) information technology systems of the Department are
designed and managed to coordinate or consolidate similar
functions of the missions, and offices or agencies of the
Department, on a Department-wide basis.
(6) Coordination and evaluation of information technology
systems of offices and agencies.--The Chief Information
Officer shall--
(A) monitor the performance of the information technology
system of each office or agency of the Department;
(B) evaluate the performance of the system on the basis of
applicable performance measurements; and
(C) advise the head of the office or agency on whether to
continue, modify, or terminate the system.
(7) Electronic fund transfers.--The Chief Information
Officer shall ensure that the information technology
architecture of the Department complies with the requirement
of section 3332 of title 31, United States Code, that certain
current, and all future payments after January 1, 1999, be
tendered through electronic fund transfer.
(8) Field service centers.--The Chief Information Officer
shall ensure that the information technology architecture of
the Department provides for information technology systems
that are designed for field service centers--
(A) to best facilitate the exchange of information between
field service centers and other offices or agencies of the
Department;
(B) that integrate the operation of all existing
information technology systems of the Department to provide a
single point of service for program delivery;
(C) that integrate the changed missions of the Department
in light of the FAIR Act and reorganization and downsizing
initiatives of the Department; and
(D) that are cost effective.
(9) Information technology system investments.--
(A) In general.--The Chief Information Officer shall have
the exclusive authority to approve a transfer or obligation
of funds to be used for the purpose of investing in an
information technology system of the Department that exceeds
$250,000 and that applies to an office or agency of the
Department or has a Department-wide impact.
[[Page S5122]]
(B) Conditions on approval of funding.--The Chief
Information Officer shall not approve the transfer or
obligation of funds with respect to an office or agency of
the Department unless the Chief Information Officer
determines that--
(i) the information technology architecture of the
Department is complete;
(ii) the funds will be transferred or obligated for an
information technology system that is consistent with, and
maximizes the performance of, the strategic business plans of
the office or agency of the Department and of the Department;
(iii) ongoing projects and other acquisitions have been
reviewed to ensure that similar requirements, common
elements, and economies of scale are realized; and
(iv) in coordination with the Chief Financial Officer, the
strategic business plan of the office or agency is complete.
(C) Capital planning and investment control.--Before
approving a transfer or obligation of funds for an investment
under subparagraph (A), the Chief Information Officer shall
consult with the Executive Information Technology Investment
Review Board (or its successor) concerning whether the
investment--
(i) meets the objectives of capital planning processes for
selecting, managing, and evaluating the results of major
investments in information systems; and
(ii) links the affected strategic plan with the information
technology architecture of the Department.
(D) Evaluation of investments.--The Chief Information
Officer shall adopt, and have exclusive authority to use, a
standard set of criteria to evaluate proposals for
information technology system investments that are applicable
to individual offices or agencies of the Department or have a
Department-wide impact. The criteria adopted shall include
considerations of Department-wide or Federal Government-wide
impact, visibility, cost, risk, consistency with the
information technology architecture, and maximization of
performance goals for program activities.
(10) Use of budget process.--
(A) In general.--The Chief Information Officer shall
develop, as part of the budget process, a process for
analyzing, tracking, and evaluating the risks and results of
all major capital investments made by an office or agency of
the Department for information systems.
(B) Process.--The process shall cover the life of each
system and shall include explicit criteria for analyzing the
projected and actual costs, benefits, and risks associated
with the investments.
(C) Control and oversight of budget.--The Chief Information
Officer shall exercise exclusive control over the budget of
the Office of the Chief Information Officer, including funds
appropriated to the Office, and agency information technology
funds that are annually transferred to the account of the
Chief Information Officer under section 6(a).
(11) Compliance with omb criteria and oversight.--The Chief
Information Officer shall ensure compliance with all criteria
for an information technology architecture or information
technology investment that are established by the Office of
Management and Budget and under the Information Technology
Management Reform Act of 1996 (40 U.S.C. 1401 et seq.).
(12) Evaluation of programs and investments.--
(A) Requirement.--The Chief Information Officer, in
consultation with the Executive Information Technology
Investment Review Board (or its successor), shall evaluate
the information resources management practices of the offices
or agencies of the Department with respect to the performance
and results of the investments made by the offices or
agencies in information technology.
(B) Direction for action.--The Chief Information Officer
shall issue to the head of each office or agency of the
Department clear and concise direction that the head of the
office or agency shall--
(i) establish effective and efficient capital planning
processes for selecting, managing, and evaluating the results
of all of its major investments in information systems;
(ii) determine, before making an investment in a new
information system--
(I) whether the function to be supported by the system
should be performed by the private sector and, if so, whether
any component of the office or agency performing that
function should be converted from a governmental organization
to a private sector organization; or
(II) whether the function should be performed by the office
or agency and, if so, whether the function should be
performed by a private sector source under contract or by
personnel of the office or agency;
(iii) analyze the missions of the office or agency and,
based on the analysis, revise the office or agency's mission-
related processes and administrative processes, as
appropriate, before making significant investments in
information technology to be used in support of those
missions; and
(iv) ensure that the information security policies,
procedures, and practices are adequate.
(13) Reporting.--The Chief Information Officer shall report
only to the Secretary.
SEC. 5. PROCUREMENT OF OUTSIDE CONSULTANTS.
(a) In General.--Consistent with section 3109 of title 5,
United States Code, the Chief Information Officer may procure
a private consultant who is an expert in--
(1) planning and organizing information technologies in the
context of a business; and
(2) coordinating information technologies with core
business plans and processes.
(b) Report.--The Chief Information Officer shall submit the
evaluation by the consultant to the Committee on Agriculture
of the House of Representatives and the Committee on
Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry of the Senate.
SEC. 6. TRANSFER OF AGENCY INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY FUNDS.
(a) In General.--Subject to subsections (b) and (c) and
notwithstanding any other provision of law, each office or
agency of the Department shall annually transfer agency
information technology funds to the account of the Chief
Information Officer.
(b) Use and Availability of Funds.--Agency information
technology funds that are transferred to the account of the
Chief Information Officer--
(1) may be used only for an activity described in section
4, 5, or 6 or the Information Technology Management Reform
Act of 1996 (40 U.S.C. 1401 et seq.) that the Chief
Information Officer determines will best serve the needs of
the Department; and
(2) shall remain available until expended.
(c) Adjustment of Funds Transferred.--The Secretary may
adjust the amount of funds transferred by an office or agency
under subsection (a) to reflect the actual or estimated
expenditure of the office or agency for information
technology systems for a fiscal year.
(d) Multiple Offices and Agencies.--An office or agency of
the Department shall not be required to transfer more than 10
percent of the funds made available to the office or agency
for salaries and expenses in any fiscal year to the extent
that the office or agency participates in a program activity
that involves more than 1 office or agency of the Department.
SEC. 7. REVIEW BY OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET.
The Director of the Office of Management and Budget may
review any regulation or transfer or obligation of funds
involving an information technology system of the Department
based on criteria for a strategic business plan, information
technology architecture, or information technology
investment, established by the Office of Management and
Budget under the Government Performance and Results Act of
1993 (Public Law 103-62), amendments made by that Act, and
the Information Technology Management Reform Act of 1996 (40
U.S.C. 1401 et seq.).
SEC. 8. TECHNICAL AMENDMENT.
Section 13 of the Commodity Credit Corporation Charter Act
(15 U.S.C. 714k) is amended in the second sentence by
striking ``section 5 or 11'' and inserting ``section 4, 5, or
11''.
SEC. 9. TERMINATION OF AUTHORITY.
The authority under this Act (other than section 8)
terminates on March 31, 2002.
______
By Mr. McCAIN (for himself and Mr. Campbell): S. 806. A bill to
amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide tax credits
for Indian investment and employment, and for other purposes;
to the Committee on Finance.
S. 807. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to treat
for unemployment compensation purposes Indian tribal governments the
same as State or local units of government or as nonprofit
organizations; to the Committee on Finance.
S. 808. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide
for the issuance of tax-exempt bonds by Indian tribal governments, and
for other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.
S. 809. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to exempt
from income taxation income derived from natural resources activities
by a member of an Indian tribe directly or through a qualified Indian
entity; to the Committee on Finance.
NATIVE AMERICAN TAX RELIEF LEGISLATION
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleague, Senator
Ben Nighthorse Campbell, chairman of the Indian Affairs Committee, in
introducing a series of tax relief bills designed to encourage
investment, economic development, and growth on Indian reservations and
other native American communities throughout the United States. The
four bills that I am introducing today would amend the Tax Code to give
Indian tribes the tools with which to improve their economies.
In simple terms, native Americans as a group have experienced
grinding poverty of epidemic proportions since the days when they were
first uprooted from their homelands or overrun by settlers. At the end
of World War II, the United States assisted in rebuilding the economies
of Germany and Japan to the advancement of peace,
[[Page S5123]]
stability, and our own prosperity. Since the time native America lost
``the war,'' their economy has never been rebuilt. The treaties that
the United States made with tribes in exchange for their land and peace
have, for the most part, not been honored.
The economic conditions on Indian reservations have not improved even
during those periods of economic growth that have swept much of the
rest of our Nation. Instead, Indians have long suffered the indignity
of promises broken and treaties discarded, and a personal hopelessness
that reaches tragic dimensions. Many Indian reservations are,
relatively speaking, islands of poverty in the ocean of wealth that is
the rest of America.
In previous Congresses, I have offered these amendments to the
Federal Tax Code to create incentives for private sector investment on
Indian reservations and remove inequities in the Tax Code so that
tribal governments can enjoy the same tax benefits accorded other
nontaxable government entities. I have offered these provisions, not to
provide an advantage to Indians, but merely to give them the same kind
of tax incentives and benefits the Congress has given other
economically depressed areas and other units of government. Given the
extremely underdeveloped economies of native American communities, I
believe we must authorize these reasonable measures to stimulate
economic growth and productivity for Indians.
RESERVATION INVESTMENT TAX CREDIT
Mr. President, the first bill I am introducing today is the Indian
Reservations Jobs and Investment Act of 1997. This bill would provide
tax credits to otherwise taxable business enterprises if they locate
certain kinds of income-producing property on Indian reservations. The
bill does not provide any tax credit for reservation property used in
connection with gaming activities.
I am very concerned by how little private enterprise is present on
Indian reservations. Typically, the only economic activity is that
generated by the Federal or tribal governments. We must begin to see
private investment attracted to Indian reservations if we are to
realize any significant improvement in the economies of Indian tribes.
TRIBAL UNEMPLOYMENT TAX EQUITY AND RELIEF
Mr. President, the second measure is the Indian Tribal Government
Unemployment Compensation Act Tax Relief Amendments of 1997. This bill
would correct a serious oversight in the way the Internal Revenue Code
treats Indian tribal governments for unemployment tax purposes under
the unique, State-Federal unemployment program authorized by the
Federal Unemployment Tax Act [FUTA]. It would clarify existing tax
statutes so that tribal governments are treated as State and local
units of governments for unemployment tax purposes.
Unless this problem is resolved, many former tribal government
employees will continue to be denied benefits by State unemployment
funds. I believe that Indian and nonIndian workers who are separated
from tribal governmental employment should be included in our Nation's
comprehensive unemployment benefit system, and this bill will go a long
way toward ensuring mandatory participation by tribal governments on a
fair and equitable basis in the Federal-State unemployment fund system.
I can think of nothing more fair than the approach clarified in this
bill.
TRIBAL TAX-EXEMPT BOND AUTHORITY
Mr. President, a third measure I am introducing is the Tribal
Government Tax-Exempt Bond Authority Amendments Act of 1997. This bill
would bring new investment dollars to Indian reservations where capital
formation is so desperately needed. There are serious deficiencies in
the basic infrastructure on Indian reservations, primarily because
increasingly tight fiscal restraints have limited the ability of the
United States, through direct appropriations, to fund construction and
other activities. Reservations lag far behind the rest of the United
States in terms of sanitation, housing, roads, basic utilities, and
public service facilities necessary to support a society and a
competitive economy. I believe that providing additional tax-exempt
bond authority to tribal governments will go a long way toward
attracting new sources of capital to Indian reservations.
TRIBAL NATURAL RESOURCE TAX RELIEF
Mr. President, finally, I am introducing the Treatment of Indian
Tribal Natural Resource Income Act of 1997. This bill would extend an
exemption to income derived by individual Indians from the harvest of
natural resources from tribal trust land that is now extended to income
derived by individual Indians from treaty-protected Indian fishing
activity. In 1988 Congress amended the Internal Revenue Code to provide
the treaty fishing exemption under section 7873, which serves as a
model for this bill.
The bill would apply only to tribal members and only with regard to
natural resources, underlying title to which is owned by the United
States in trust for a tribe. It would remove the existing anomaly which
allows a tribe as a whole to harvest or process such resources free of
tax, but imposes an income tax on an individual tribal member of that
tribe carrying out activity permitted by the tribe.
Mr. President, native Americans need to have the appropriate tools to
overcome years of economic hardship and deprivation. They need to be
given a full and fair opportunity to improve their quality of life
today and to become more self-sufficient in the future. These bills
will help to achieve these goals by spurring economic development on
Indian reservations and tribal industries. I urge all of my colleagues
to join in supporting early passage of these measures.
Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, today I would like to co-sponsor the
Indian Tribal Government Unemployment Compensation Act Tax Relief
Amendments of 1997 introduced by Senator McCain. The Federal
Unemployment Tax Act of 1935 [FUTA] is a joint Federal-State tax system
which imposes on each employer a tax on wages paid to their employees.
These taxes are used to provide unemployment insurance to out-of-work
citizens. The Federal portion of the tax can range up to 6.2 percent on
wages paid, and the State portion ranges from near zero to 9 percent of
wages paid.
Indian tribes from around the country have contacted me expressing a
great deal of confusion with the FUTA tax system and the difficulties
they are having in planning as a result of the varying interpretations
given FUTA by the IRS and the Labor Department. This problem is
national in scope and experienced by tribes in the Great Lakes region
such as the Red Lake Band of Chippewa Indians and the Fond du Lac Band
of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians, and by tribes in my own State of
Colorado--the Ute Mountain Ute and the Souther Ute tribes.
The FUTA encourages States to undertake their own unemployment
insurance programs by permitting employers to take the State
unemployment insurance taxes they have paid and use them to offset
their Federal unemployment insurance tax bill.
This legislation is necessary to clarify the status of tribal
governments under the FUTA and the Internal Revenue Code. As
independent sovereign entities, Indian tribal governments should be
afforded the same tax treatment, in this instance with regard to FUTA,
as other governments--Federal, State, and local. Indian tribal
governments are legitimate governments and, in fact, are one in four
sovereign governments mentioned in the U.S. Constitution; the others
being foreign nations, the several states, and the Federal Government.
This is critical because FUTA treats private, commercial employers
differently than it does foreign, State and local government employers.
Private employers are subject to both State and Federal unemployment
insurance taxes.
In brief, the FUTA exempts foreign, Federal, State, and local
government employers from the 0.8 percent Federal unemployment tax; and
exempts foreign and Federal Government employers from the State
unemployment insurance tax. FUTA allows state and local government
employers to pay a favorable, lower State unemployment insurance taxes,
and for tax purposes treats tax-exempt charitable organizations the
same as State and local governments.
The problem is that the FUTA does not expressly include Indian tribal
government within the ``government employer'' category it has created
for State and local government employers. As a result tribal
governments across
[[Page S5124]]
the country have been subjected to widely differing interpretations of
the FUTA statute, with inconsistent results. Some tribes's good faith
interpretation of the statute led them to believe that they, as units
of government, were immune from the Federal tax. These tribes face
large tax liabilities as a direct result of the way the act is being
applied. Other tribes, again in good faith, did not participate in
State unemployment insurance programs. In these instances, employees of
tribal governments, both Indian and non-Indian, have been denied
unemployment insurance benefits, pointing to the lack of participation
by the tribes.
Not surprisingly, the agencies charged with administering the tax and
labor laws have not arrived at a consensus on the FUTA issue. For the
past several years, various Internal Revenue Service field offices have
interpreted the FUTA in different ways. The varying interpretations
have resulted in differences in benefits availability for tribal
employees, Indians as well as non-Indians, and differing degrees of tax
liability for tribal governments themselves. The bottom line is that
for Federal FUTA tax purposes, the treatment for tribes often depends
on where they are located. Absent explicit recognition from Congress
clarifying the status of tribal governments, this is a problem that
will go on.
Because State governments, the IRS, and the U.S. Labor Department
cannot seem to agree on the status of Indian tribal governments under
the FUTA, the time is right for the Congress to act and to clarify this
issue so that tribal members can secure benefits they are entitled to
and the tribes will have certainty and predictability in their
employment and hiring decisions.
Tribal government employers will benefit from this measure by the
uniform application of the FUTA statute. The increased certainty that
it will provide to tribal employers, their employees, and separated
employees will enhance the tribal work environment, reduce litigation,
and provide assurances to all parties involved. This bill would require
that Indian tribal government employers receive the same treatment as
Federal, State, and local governments and tax-exempt organizations
receive for FUTA purposes.
The Joint Tax Committee has been requested to estimate the revenue
impact of this measure. Similar estimates performed in 1995 indicated
the impacts to be minor. The development of tribal economies is a
critical element in encouraging tribal self-sufficiency and political
self-determination. Increasing the ability of tribal government
employers to attract and retain the best skilled employees is one of my
main objectives as chairman of the Indian Affairs Committee. If the
confusion and lack of certainty that has plagued tribal governments
continues, employment with an Indian tribe will be increasingly
unattractive, and tribes will suffer.
By providing equitable FUTA treatment to tribal government employers,
this legislation will assist in the long-term growth and stability of
tribal economies and tribal governments. I urge my colleagues to join
in supporting this crucial measure.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that additional material be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Fond du Lac Reservation,
Business Committee,
Cloquet, MN, March 27, 1997.
Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell,
Chairman, Senate Committee on Indian Affairs, Hart Senate
Office Building, Washington, DC.
RE: H.R. 294, to amend the Federal Unemployment Tax Act.
Dear Senator Campbell: As Chairman of the Reservation
Business Committee of the Fond du Lac Band of Lake Superior
Chippewa Indians, I write to request your support of H.R.
294, a bill to amend the Federal Unemployment Tax Act to
clarify that Indian tribes, like state and local governments,
are exempt from this tax.
State and local governments in recognition of their
sovereignty, are not required to pay federal unemployment
taxes. In 1987, the IRS took the same position with regard to
Indian tribes. At that time, the IRS specifically advised the
Fond du Lac Band that the Band was not subject to FUTA and
was therefore not required to pay the federal unemployment
tax. The IRS actually refunded federal taxes that the Band
had previously paid. A copy the IRS letter to us is enclosed.
The IRS has since changed its mind, and has initiated an
action against the Band which is now being litigated before
an Administrative Law Judge. In these proceedings, the IRS
seeks over $2 million in back taxes and penalties from the
Band. The government's change of position on the issue is not
only unfair to tribes, but has generated litigation that is
expensive and inefficient for both the tribes and the federal
government to pursue.
Moreover, the IRS is pursuing this matter even though the
Fond du Lac Band has voluntarily participated in the State's
unemployment compensation plan. The Band has done so, not
because the Band is required to, but because the welfare of
our employees and our former employees is of the utmost
importance to us.
The legal uncertainty about the applicability of FUTA to
tribes, and the IRS' inconsistent position on that question,
results in a situation that should be fixed. FUTA should be
amended to recognize the tribes' status as sovereigns. The
Fond du Lac Band--like the State of Minnesota and the local
communities within the state--is responsible for providing a
myriad of services to Band members and Reservation residents.
Established federal Indian policy has--for many years--been
directed to encouraging tribal self-determination, and
economic self-sufficiency. And numerous federal statutes--
enacted to further those ends--recognize and confirm tribal
status as separate sovereigns. It is inconsistent with tribal
sovereignty, and the federal policy of encouraging tribal
self-determination, to treat tribes differently from state
and local governments, and to subject tribes to the payment
of a federal tax from which state and local governments are
exempt.
H.R. 294, introduced by Congressman Shadegg, would resolve
this disputed question. The bill is identical to S. 1305
introduced by Senator McCain and yourself in the 104th
Congress. The measure was further supported by Senator Grams.
A copy of Senator Grams' letter to the Senate Finance
Committee on this matter is attached. The bill strikes an
appropriate balance between tribal sovereignty--in that it
clarifies that tribes, like every other government in this
country, are exempt from FUTA taxes--while also ensuring that
tribal employees are provided unemployment benefits, by
requiring tribes to either voluntarily participate in state
plans, as Fond du Lac is now doing, or to reimburse the state
plans for any payment made to Tribal employees.
We urge you to show your support of this measure by
introducing companion legislation in the Senate. We look
forward to working with you and your staff to see enactment
of this important legislation and we thank you for your
consideration of our request.
Very truly yours,
Robert B. Peacock,
Chairman.
____
Ute Mountain Ute Tribe,
Towaoc, CO, November 14, 1996.
Re Federal Unemployment Tax Act--applicability to Indian
tribes.
John Echohawk,
Executive Director, Native American Rights Fund, Boulder, CO.
Dear John: Please find enclosed several documents
pertaining to a serious problem we are having with the
federal Department of Labor and the State of Colorado
concerning our status under the Federal Unemployment Tax Act
(FUTA). Because the Department of Labor's enclosed
Unemployment Insurance Letter (UIPL) was forwarded to all
state employment security agencies, this problem will
eventually effect all tribes across the nation.
The documents I am providing include; 1. The UIPL issued by
Labor; 2. Letter received from the Colorado Department of
Labor; 3. The draft resolution presented to NCAI; 4. The
signed NCAI resolution passed at their recent Phoenix meeting
\1\; 5. Copies of relevant portions of FUTA, and; 6. Copies
of 26 USC Sec. 7871 concerning Indian tribe's tax status
under the Internal Revenue Code.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Footnotes at end of article.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In person, I will explain in more complete detail the
chronology of this issue. Both Colorado Ute tribes thought we
solved this problem several years ago. The crux of the issue
is that states and their political subdivisions are exempt
under FUTA. State agencies are thus charged with the
responsibility of insuring their political subdivisions.
Tribes were not included in the state law as political
subdivisions and therefore we received no unemployment
insurance benefits whatsoever.\2\ Finally, the Colorado State
Legislature amended state law to include the two Colorado Ute
tribes as political subdivisions. We were then able to
participate in the program and were given the favorable rate
afforded to such entities.
Because the Colorado Department of Labor is afraid its
program will be decertified per the UIPL, they are now
placing us at a new employer rate and demanding back payments
to January 1, 1996. See, enclosed letter. While they have
informed us we will be considered a ``continuing employer,''
the rate is a much higher rate than that afforded to
political subdivisions.
It is our attorney's initial position the matter can be
resolved by amending the federal law on Indian tribe's tax
status. Simply put, this and other tribes need an amendment
to 26 USC Sec. 7871 adding FUTA to the other excise taxes
which tribes are considered as states for purposes of.
[[Page S5125]]
We would like to request the assistance of the Native
American Rights Fund attorneys and policy staff on this
issue. Some coordination of effort would be greatly
appreciated. I firmly believe it is an issue which will
affect all tribes in the very near future. The impacts of
Labor's UIPL surely will negatively affect sovereignty and
degrade the government-to-government relationship which
President Clinton affirmed by Executive Order a few years
ago.
I thank you for your consideration of this matter.
Sincerely,
Judy Knight-Frank,
Chairman.
footnotes
\1\ At the time of writing, I am still awaiting a facsimile
copy of the NCAI Resolution and will forward it immediately
when it is received.
\2\ We did not pay our IRS FUTA tax bills since we received
no benefit therefrom. A large IRS claim was dropped via
federal legislation acknowledging the problem.
____
National Congress of
American Indians,
Washington, DC, May 22, 1997.
Hon. Ben Nighthorse Campbell,
Chairman, Committee on Indian Affairs, U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Campbell: On behalf of the National Congress
of American Indians, the oldest and largest national Indian
organization, I am writing to voice the support of more than
200 tribal governments for legislation to fix the inequitable
treatment of tribal governments under the Federal
Unemployment Tax Act (FUTA).
Since its enactment in the 1930's, FUTA has treated
foreign, federal, state and local governments employers
differently from commercial business employers. FUTA also
treats tax-exempt charitable organizations the same as state
and local governments. It is well-settled that tribal
governments are not taxable entities under the federal tax
code because of their governmental status. However, because
FUTA does not expressly include tribal governments within the
definition of governmental employers, the Internal Revenue
Service (IRS) is forcing tribal governments to pay the high
tax rates that apply to commercial business employers.
To correct this situation, Representative Shadegg has
introduced H.R. 294, the Indian Tribal Government
Unemployment Compensation Tax Act. H.R. 294 would give tribal
governments the same options that FUTA gives to all state and
local governments. I have attached a resolution passed by the
NCAI member tribes that supports such an amendment to FUTA.
Thank you very much for your efforts to take this issue
under consideration. If we can assist you in any way, please
contact me or NCAI Executive Director JoAnn K. Chase at (202)
466-7767.
Sincerely,
W. Ron Allen,
President.
____
Resolution PHX-96-107
title: futa
Whereas, we, the members of the National Congress of
American Indians of the United States, invoking the divine
blessing of the Creator upon our efforts and purposes, in
order to preserve for ourselves and our descendants rights
secured under Indian treaties and agreements with the United
States, and all other rights and benefits to which we are
entitled under the laws and Constitution of the United States
to enlighten the public toward a better understanding of the
Indian people, to preserve Indian cultural values, and
otherwise promote the welfare of the Indian people, do hereby
establish and submit the following resolution; and
Whereas, the National Congress of American Indians (NCAI)
is the oldest and largest national organization established
in 1944 and comprised of representatives of and advocates for
national, regional, and local Tribal concerns; and
Whereas, the health, safety, welfare, education, economic
and employment opportunity, and preservation of cultural and
natural resources are primary goals and objectives of NCAI;
and
Whereas, this exemption is based on the fact that states
and their political subdivisions are immune from such
taxation under the Constitution of the United States, Id.,
and immunity which federally recognized Indian tribes share;
and
Whereas, prior to the UIPL, states could consider Tribes
and their various wholly owned entities as ``political
subdivisions'' of their state for purposes of exempting
Tribes from the FUTA tax, thereby making Tribes eligible for
favorable governmental unemployment tax rates as well as
reimbursement status (where a Tribe would only pay for those
unemployment benefits paid out) if desired; and
Whereas, if member Tribes allow the UIPL to stand and not
seek to change the law to rightfully exempt them from this
federal tax, they will not only be subject to a higher state
program tax rate (provided they can still even participate in
the program), Tribes will also be subject to an unacceptable
and possibly illegal federal tax, and
Whereas, the two Colorado Ute Tribes are already faced with
a seven-fold increase in their state unemployment insurance
tax rate due directly to Labor's UIPL (reference attached
letter from the Colorado Department of Labor); and
Whereas, it is settled law that the FUTA tax is an excise
tax and this is acknowledged in Labor's own UIPL; and
Whereas, Tribes should be exempt from the FUTA tax and be
allowed to participate in a state's unemployment insurance
program on the same level as any political subdivision
therein; and
Whereas, this exemption and fair treatment could be
guaranteed by amending 26 USC* 7871(a)(2) (which treats
Tribes as states for purposes of several federal taxes,
including many excise taxes) to add FUTA to that list of
excise taxes for which Tribes are considered as states and
therefore exempt: Now therefore be it
Resolved That the National Congress of American Indians
does hereby acknowledge this as a serious issue affecting
nearly all member Tribes and shall immediately begin a
member-wide survey to coordinate among its members the effort
to amend the above-mentioned law in as timely a fashion as
possible.
______
By Mr. ABRAHAM (for himself and Mr. DeWine):
S. 810. A bill to impose certain sanctions on the People's Republic
of China, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Foreign
Relations.
the china sanctions and human rights advancement act
Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today to address United States
policy toward China. When Ronald Reagan visited China in 1984, he
declared in a speech that:
Economic growth and human progress make their greatest
strides when people are secure and free to think, speak,
worship, choose their own way and reach for the stars.
While China has made great strides since Ronald Reagan spoke those
words, it is clear today that the people of China are not free to
think, speak, worship, or choose their own way.
The question is how the United States, a nation conceived in liberty,
should respond to continuing violations of basic human rights in China
and other actions of the Chinese leadership.
Religious persecution, abuses against minorities, coercive family
planning, military threats, and weapons proliferation and attempts to
improperly influence American elections. All of these policies have
been and continue to be undertaken by the Chinese Government. And all
of them must stop.
One thing is clear, Mr. President: As the world's leading democracy,
the United States cannot simply look the other way, ignoring the
Chinese Government's record on human rights.
And, despite the real and measurable expansion of freedom in some
spheres in China, problems remain. The organization Amnesty
International has stated that:
a fifth of the world's people are ruled by a government that
treats fundamental human rights with contempt. Human rights
violations continue on a massive scale.
In addition, there have been numerous reports of religious
persecution in China. These reports by Amnesty International and Human
Rights Watch/Asia do not state that China has recently been targeting
religious leaders for execution. But some religious leaders have been
executed along with others in remote provinces. And long and arduous
sentences have been handed out to certain Chinese religious leaders.
For example, Tibetan abbot, Shadrel Rimposh, was in charge of the
original search in that country to find the missing child whom the
Tibetans consider the reincarnation of the Pansen Lama.
The abbot was missing for more than a year, officially labeled ``a
criminal and a scum of Buddhism'' by the government. Recently the
government sentenced him to 6 years in prison. Other religious leaders
have been sent to labor camps.
The people of Tibet have been subject to particularly harsh abuse
from the Chinese Government because their form of the Buddhist religion
is so closely tied to their independence movements; movements that have
met with brutal suppression.
Allow me to quote at length from a 1997 Human Rights Watch/Asia
report:
In the Tibetan Autonomous Region and Tibetan areas of
Chinese provinces the effects of a July 1994 policy
conference on Tibet combined with the Strike Hard campaign
produced more arrests of suspected independence supporters, a
stepped-up campaign to discredit the Dalai Lama as a
religious leader, crackdowns in rural areas as well as towns,
a major push for ridding monasteries and nunneries of
nationalist sympathizers, and the closure of those that were
politically active.
Monks who refused to sign pledges denouncing the Dalai Lama
or to accept a five-point declaration of opposition to the
[[Page S5126]]
proindependence movement, faced expulsion from their
monasteries.
In May 1994, a ban on the possession and display of Dalai
Lama photographs led to a bloody confrontation at Goneden and
to searches of hotels, restaurants, shops, and some private
homes. Over 90 monks were arrested; 53 remained in detention
as of October despite Chinese official reports that none of
the 61 arrested were still being held. At least one person
and perhaps two others are known to have died in the melee.
Chinese authorities acknowledge that they are holding
Jendune Yee Kneema the child recognized by the Dalai Lama but
rejected by Chinese authorities as the reincarnation of the
Pansen Lama, under the protection of the government at the
request of his parents.
The whereabouts of this missing child should be a major source of
concern for every one who cares about religious liberty.
But Tibetan Buddhists are not the only people of faith who face
persecution at the hands of the Chinese Government. Under a 1996 state
security law, all religious institutions must register with the state.
Those who do not so register and choose instead to operate underground
face the government's wrath.
Human Rights Watch/Asia reported recently that:
Unofficial Christian and Catholic communities were targeted
by the government during 1996. A renewed campaign aimed at
forcing all churches to register or face dissolution,
resulted in beating and harassment of congregants, closure of
churches, and numerous arrests, fines, and sentences. In
Shanghai, for example, more than 300 house churches or
meeting points were closed down by the security authorities
in April alone.
From January through May, teams of officials fanned out
through northern Haybay, a Catholic stronghold, to register
churches and clergy and to prevent attendance at a major
Marian shrine. Public security officers arrested clergy and
lay Catholics alike, forced others to remain in their
villages, avoid foreigners, refrain from preaching, and
report to the police anywhere from one to eight times daily.
In some villages, officials confiscated all religious medals.
In others, churches and prayer houses were torn down or
converted to lay use.
In addition to religious belief and practice, there are other
troubling issues of moral conscience. I am referring in particular to
the Chinese Government's birth control policies.
Mr. President, the Chinese Government claims that family planning is
voluntary in that nation. Yet, according to Amnesty International,
birth control has been compulsory since 1979. As a result:
Pregnant women with too many children have been abducted and forced
to have abortions and/or undergo sterilization.
Pregnant women have been detained and threatened until they have
agreed to have abortions.
Above-quota new-born babies have reportedly been killed by doctors
under pressure from officials.
The homes of couples who refuse to obey the child quotas have been
demolished.
Relatives of those who cannot pay fines imposed for having had too
many children have been held hostage until the money was paid.
And those helping families to have above-quota children have been
severely punished.
Just one example, if I may, Mr. President, this one provided by
Amnesty International:
An unmarried woman in Haybay Province who had adopted one
of her brother's children was detained several times in an
attempt to force her brother to pay fines for having too many
children. In November 1994 she was held for 7 days with a
dozen other men and women. She was reportedly blindfolded,
stripped naked, tied, and beaten with an electric baton.
These stories bespeak an often brutal disregard for the rights of
conscience, for the sanctity of marriage and family, and for human life
itself. They are evil acts, Mr. President, nothing less than government
perpetrated evil.
Let me now shift to the military sphere.
Here, Mr. President, we see Chinese Government practices that include
military intimidation and the selling of advanced weaponry to rogue
states.
For example, on the eve of Taiwan's 1996 elections, China engaged in
threatening missile firings unnecessarily close to Taiwanese cities.
The Taiwanese were not cowed, they are a brave people. But these
provocations, so soon after China's 1995 military exercises and missile
launches in direct proximity to Taiwanese territory, have led the
Taiwanese people to consider whether they need nuclear weapons to
defend their homes.
In addition, the Chinese Government has threatened international
stability through its weapons sales to regimes, including Iran and
Iraq, that sponsor terrorism and pose a direct threat to American
military personnel and interests. Most dangerous has been the Chinese
willingness to supply the Iranians with the technology and basic
materials for their own chemical weapons program.
Mr. President, these weapons pose a direct threat to American troops
as well as stability and peace in the Middle East.
Moreover, the Chinese Government apparently does not limit itself to
military means as it tries to influence the policies of other nations.
Allegations of Chinese involvement in our political system are
disturbing, particularly considering the various implications that this
has for our relations with that country. These allegations may involve
both civil and criminal violations of our laws by individuals
associated with the Chinese Government.
The press has reported serious allegations that the Government of
China attempted to influence last year's Presidential election by
diverting illegal campaign contributions to the Democratic National
Committee.
FBI investigators have found significant evidence that the Chinese
Government targeted 30 legislators, and that it funneled money through
businesses it controlled in America to the DNC. If proven, these
allegations would signal violations of Federal Election Commission laws
regarding foreign campaign contributions by the Chinese Government.
Mr. President, this is a damning list, a list that cries out for
action. As the world's sole remaining superpower and, perhaps more
important, as the birth place of liberty and individual rights, we have
a duty to uphold the principles of liberty wherever possible.
Liberty continues to suffer abuse from the Chinese Government. And we
should do something about it.
In response to the serious problems I have raised some have called
for an end to China's most-favored-nation trading status with the
United States. In fact, the debate has focused almost exclusively on
MFN.
I believe that is the wrong approach. I support a 1-year extension of
MFN for China.
Why? First, because it is the best policy for American consumers.
Those consumers will have a wider choice of affordable goods with MFN
than without. To revoke MFN would be to increase tariffs on goods
purchased by the American people. It would amount to a tax hike, and I
am not in favor of tax hikes, particularly ones imposed on the basis of
another government's behavior.
Second, I am convinced that revoking MFN would target the wrong
parties for punishment. We should keep in mind, in my view, that it is
not the people of China with whom we have a quarrel; it is their
government.
Trade and United States investment in China have a positive effect in
providing more opportunities for average Chinese citizens.
Even in the short term, we should not underestimate trade and
investment's positive impact.
In China,
employees at United States firms earn higher wages and are
free to choose where to live, what to eat, and how to educate
and care for their children,
writes China policy expert Stephen J. Yates of the Heritage Foundation.
This real and measurable expansion of freedom does not
require waiting for middle-class civil society to emerge in
China; it is taking place now and should be encouraged.
Third, Mr. President, I am convinced that terminating MFN would be
damaging to the people of Hong Kong, currently involved in a transfer
of power from British to Chinese rule.
All of us in Congress are concerned that China may violate the 1994
Sino-British Joint Declaration and squash political and economic
freedom once Hong Kong again comes under Chinese rule.
With 35,000 United States citizens and 1,000 United States firms in
Hong Kong, America must be certain that China honors its agreement and
we must remain watchful over the coming months and years.
However, in formulating United States policy with regard to Hong
[[Page S5127]]
Kong we must remember that repealing MFN for China will hit Hong Kong
hard, particularly because so much trade goes through there. Goods from
Hong Kong would face the same steep tariff as those from other parts of
China.
Hong Kong Governor, Chris Patten, has said that rescinding MFN would
devastate Hong Kong's economy.
For the people of Hong Kong there is no comfort in the
proposition that if China reduces their freedoms the United
States will take away their jobs.
The letter from Governor Patten also said:
There is one particular contribution which the United
States of America, and Congress in particular, can make to
ensure that Hong Kong remains well-equipped to face the
future. That is to grant the unconditional renewal of China's
MFN trading status, on which the continued strength of Hong
Kong's economy depends. * * * This is one issue on which
there is complete unanimity in Hong Kong across the
community, and across the political spectrum.
It is not good policy to attempt to help Hong Kong by taking an
action that is opposed by the people we say we are trying to help.
Mr. President, I have another important reason for supporting a 1-
year extension of MFN: American jobs.
Using the Commerce Department's rules of thumb, United States exports
to China account for roughly 200,000 American jobs. Should we stop
doing business with China, I have no doubt but that other nations will
step in to take our place, and to take jobs now occupied by Americans
both here and in China. Thus, we would not significantly punish the
Chinese Government, but we would visit hardship on our own workers.
Rather than eliminate jobs and stifle growth through increased
tariffs, in my view, it would be better to take actions showing our
displeasure with the Chinese Government, while encouraging China to
become a more free and open society.
I believe that Members of this body can agree on the need for strong
American actions responding to human rights abuses in China. That is
why I am introducing the China Sanctions and Human Rights Advancement
Act.
And I am convinced that Members on both sides of the MFN debate can
agree that the sanctions I am proposing today are necessary and
justified, and that they will be effective.
The goal of these sanctions will be to show our disapproval of the
actions of the Chinese Government, while at the same time encouraging
worthwhile economic and cultural exchanges that can lead to positive
change in China.
This legislation would focus on: First, who the United States allows
into the country from China; second, United States taxpayer funds that
subsidize China; third, United States Government votes and assistance
in international bodies that provide financial assistance to China;
fourth, targeted sanctions of PLA companies; and fifth, measures to
promote human rights in China.
Let me be specific. Under my bill, the U.S. Government would take the
following actions:
First, it would prohibit issuance of U.S. visas to human rights
violators.
The bill would prohibit the granting of United States visas to
Chinese Government officials who work in entities involved in the
implementation and enforcement of China's law and directives on
religious practices.
Specifically, this targets high-ranking officials of the state
police, the Religious Affairs Bureau, and China's family planning
apparatus. The same would go for all those involved in the massacre of
students in Tianenman Square.
Written notice from the President to Congress explaining why the
entry of such individuals overrides our concerns about China's human
rights abuses would be required for such individuals to enter the
United States.
Second, the bill would prohibit direct and indirect United States-
taxpayer financed foreign aid for China.
We can no longer ask U.S. taxpayers to subsidize a Communist
leadership and government with which we have so many serious
disagreements.
Between 1985 and 1995 the United States supported 111 of 183 loans
approved by the World Bank Group and 15 of 92 loans that the Asian
Development Bank approved. In addition, the United States Government is
providing assistance through international family planning institutions
that provide money and services to support China's restrictive policies
on reproduction.
Under my bill, United States representatives would be required to
vote ``no'' on all loans to China at the World Bank, Asian Development
Bank, and the International Monetary Fund.
An exception would be made in the case of humanitarian relief in the
event of a natural disaster or famine.
In addition, for every dollar a multilateral development bank or
international family planning organization gives to China, my bill
would subtract out a dollar in United States taxpayer funding to those
bodies.
Simply put, America should not be subsidizing current Chinese
Government policies. If China continues its current behavior then it
can fund programs by reducing the money it spends on building up its
military or in propping up state enterprises. We do not want to
encourage China to postpone tough decisions on moving to a free-market
economy.
Though we are standing on principle, we know from past experience
that these measures will be more effective with help from our allies.
That is why the bill requires the President to begin consultations with
these allies on enacting similar measures and for the President to
report to the Congress on the progress of those consultations.
Third, the legislation includes actions targeted at companies
associated with the Chinese military.
There is increasing concern in America about Chinese companies backed
by the People's Liberation Army.
My bill would require the U.S. Government to publish a list of such
companies operating in the United States. That would allow informed
consumers and other purchasers to make a choice about whether they wish
to do business with such companies.
Most troubling have been the actions of two Chinese companies--
Polytechnologies Inc., known as Poly, and Norinco, the China North
Industries Group.
On May 22, 1996, officials from the United States Customs Service and
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms arrested seven individuals and
seized 2,000 Chinese-made AK-47 machine guns.
On June 4, 1996, a grand jury in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California indicted these seven individuals, along
with seven others not in the United States, for violating 12 different
sections of Federal law, including conspiracy, smuggling, and unlawful
importation of defense articles.
Those indicted individuals worked for Poly and Norinco. Leading
executives of the firms, as well as Chinese Government officials, were
indicted.
The People's Liberation Army owns a majority share of Poly, while
Norinco's operations are overseen by the State Council of the People's
Republic of China.
Undercover agents were told by a representative of Poly and Norinco
that Chinese-made hand-held rocket launchers, tanks, and surface-to-air
missiles could also be delivered. And who were to be the ultimate
purchasers of the AK-47's and other military hardware? According to
Federal agents, California street gangs and other criminal groups.
This type of activity cannot be tolerated by the U.S. Congress. These
companies need to be held responsible for their actions.
Under my bill, for a period of 1 year, Poly and Norinco will not be
allowed to export to, or maintain a physical presence in, the United
States. Senator DeWine plans to introduce a separate bill that will
target these two companies and I applaud him and Representative Chris
Cox for their leadership on this issue.
Mr. President, these tough measures are justified and necessary. But
even as we implement them we should not cut off valuable interchange
with China. We must always be open to more contact and exchange of
ideas with the Chinese people.
That is why the legislation calls for a doubling of current United
States funding for student, cultural, and legislative exchange programs
between the United States and the People's Republic of China, as well
as doubling the funding for Radio Free Asia and programs in China
operated through the National Endowment for Democracy.
[[Page S5128]]
In addition, adopting a measure advocated by Representatives Frank
Wolf and Chris Smith, the bill requires additional and extensive
training for U.S. asylum officers in recognizing religious persecution.
The legislation would require an annual report by the President on
whether there has been improvement in China's policy of religious
toleration and in its overall human rights record, including during the
transition in Hong Kong.
The sanctions would sunset after 1 year. This will allow Congress to
evaluate the situation to determine whether and in what form sanctions
should be continued.
In my judgment, the combination of these sanctions and a 1-year
extension of MFN offers the best approach to change the behavior of the
Chinese Government.
Mr. President, these measures will direct punishment where it
belongs, with the Chinese Government, not the Chinese people.
By refusing to allow known violators of basic human rights to enter
this country we can signal our revulsion at these practices.
By refusing to use taxpayer money to subsidize Chinese activities we
can show our disapproval of their military actions and make them choose
between prosperity and belligerence.
By banning Chinese companies from this country for attempting to sell
weapons to violent street criminals we can show our willingness to
defend our streets and our insistence that the Chinese Government cease
its intrusive, illegal practices.
In closing, Mr. President, we should not forget the government-led
massacre of students in Tianenman Square. It has been less than 10
years since the atrocity, and we should not let it slip from our minds.
Let me read you a dispatch filed from Beijing by New York Times
reporter Nicholas Kristoff on June 4, 1989:
The violence against students and workers in Tianenman
Square was most obvious today, because for the most part they
were the ones getting killed * * * To be an American on the
square this morning was to be the object of fervent hope and
inarticulate pleas for help. ``We appeal to your country,'' a
university student begged as bullets careened overhead. ``Our
Government is mad. We need help from abroad, especially
America. There must be something that America can do.''
Through this legislation, America can stand with the Chinese people,
and stand by the principles of political, religious, and economic
liberty on which our Nation was founded.
Let's not punish American and Chinese families by raising tariffs.
Instead, let's punish specific abuses and encourage the further
development of the economic and political liberties we cherish.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a summary of this bill be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the summary of the bill was ordered to be
printed in the Record, as follows:
The China Sanctions and Human Rights Advancement Act--Executive Summary
american concerns with china
The United States has serious policy disagreements with the
People's Republic of China. Such differences in the way China
treats its own people and U.S. interests requires appropriate
action by the United States Congress. Unfortunately,
Administration policy in this area has been lacking. That is
why the China Sanctions and Human Rights Advancement Act will
enable America to respond in a manner consistent with our
values and interests as a nation.
As the world's leading democracy, the United Stats cannot
simply look the other way at the Chinese government's record
on human rights and religious persecution. ``A fifth of the
world's people are ruled by a government that treats
fundamental human rights with contempt,'' reports Amnesty
International. ``Human rights violations continue on a
massive scale.'' What is the best response to Chinese
government repression of its citizens, including increased
repression of religious believers? The status quo, it
appears, is not the answer.
China's willingness to abide by international agreements is
already being tested in Hong Kong. The 1994 Sino-British
Joint Declaration is an international agreement registered
with the United Nations. In it, China promises that the
people of Hong Kong will rule Hong Kong with autonomy, except
in the areas of defense and foreign affairs. With 35,000 U.S.
citizens and 1,000 U.S. firms in Hong Kong America must be
certain that China honors its agreement.
China's attempt to intimidate Taiwan and the activities of
its military, the People's Liberation Army (PLA), both in the
United States and abroad, are of major concern. In addition,
the efforts of two Chinese companies, NORINCO and POLY,
deserve special rebuke for their involvement in the sale of
AK-47 machine guns to California street gangs. Finally, there
are numerous press reports of Chinese government efforts to
influence the course of U.S. elections through political
donations.
the larger picture
Trade, investment, and people-to-people exchanges must be a
part of America's relationship with China. Countries the size
of China and the United States will always trade with each
other, the debate over MFN is the terms of that trade. Yet
those who disagree on MFN should be able to unite behind
measures that, for example, end subsidies for China, yet seek
to promote democratic values and human rights in China. There
is no doubt that trade and U.S. investment in China has a
positive effect in providing more opportunities for average
Chinese citizens. Even in short term, we should not
underestimate trade and investment's positive impact.
``Employees at U.S. firms earn higher wages and are free to
choose where to live, what to eat, and how to educate and
care for their children,'' writes China policy expert Stephen
J. Yates. ``This real and measurable expansion of freedom
does not require waiting for middle-class civil society to
emerge in China; it is taking place now and should be
encouraged.''
summary of legislation
The time has come to take steps that would signal to
Chinese leaders that their current behavior is unacceptable
to the American people and the American Congress. In crafting
the best response to Chinese government policy we must be
careful not to punish the innocent with the guilty. Our
quarrel is with the Chinese political leadership, not with
the Chinese and American peoples.
The Abraham ``China Sanctions and Human Rights Advancement
Act'' takes aim at U.S.-China government-to-government
programs and contacts. It is time for Congress to end U.S.
taxpayer subsidies and other foreign aid to China and to set
more appropriate limits on who we allow into this country
from the Chinese government.
The legislation focuses on (1) who the United States allows
into the country from China; (2) U.S. taxpayer funds that
subsidize China; (3) U.S. government votes and assistance
in international bodies that provide financial assistance
to China; (4) targeted sanctions of PLA companies; and (5)
measures to promote human rights in China.
Contents of China sanctions and human rights advancement act
Under the legislation, the U.S. government will take the
following actions:
No U.S. visas for human rights violators
Prohibit the granting of U.S. visas to Chinese government
officials who work in entities involved in the implementation
and enforcement of China's laws and directives on religious
practices and coercive family planning. This measure would
deny visas to high ranking officials who are employed by the
Public Security Bureau (the state police), the Religious
Affairs Bureau, and China's family planning apparatus. An
exception is made in the case of individuals whose presence
in the United States is deemed necessary for an ongoing
criminal investigation or judicial proceedings as determined
by the Attorney General.
Prohibit the granting of U.S. visas to Chinese government
officials found to be materially involved in the ordering or
carrying out of the massacre of Chinese students in Tiananmen
Square.
The President of the United States must provide written
notification to Congress each time a proscribed individual is
to enter this country that explains why awarding such visas
is in the national interest of the United States and
overrides U.S. concerns about China's human rights practices
past and present.
The legislation also mandates additional and extensive
training for U.S. asylum officers in recognizing religious
persecution.
No U.S. taxpayer subsidies for China
Require U.S. representatives to vote ``no'' on all loans to
China at the World Bank. Between 1985 and 1995 the United
States supported 111 of 183 loans approved by the World Bank
Group and 15 of 92 loans that the Asian Development Bank
approved. An exception in the legislation is provided for
human needs arising from a natural disaster or famine.
Require U.S. representatives to vote ``no'' on all loans to
China at the Asian Development Bank.
Require U.S. representatives to vote ``no'' on all loans to
China at the International Monetary Fund.
Reduce U.S. contributions to multilateral development banks
(World Bank, etc.) by the amount of the loan commitments made
to China in the coming year. Stipulate the Secretary of
Treasury shall reduce the amount the World Bank can borrow in
U.S. capital markets to no more than 82% of what the World
Bank borrowed in the United States in the previous year.
Require the Secretary of Treasury to oppose and instruct
the U.S. executive director of the World Bank to oppose any
change in the World Bank's rules that limit the total share
of the bank's lending that can be made in any one country.
Require the President to begin consultations with major
U.S. allies and trading partners to encourage them to adopt
similar measures contained in this bill and to lobby our
allies to vote against loans for China at
[[Page S5129]]
multilateral development banks. Within 60 days of a G-7
meeting, the President shall submit a report to Congress on
the progress of this effort.
Reduce annually U.S. financial assistance to international
bodies and organizations that provide family planning
assistance to China by the amount of such annual assistance
and services made by such institutions to China in the prior
fiscal year. This would include funding provided to U.N.
agencies and affiliates.
PLA companies: targeted sanctions and more public information
On an annual basis, the U.S. Government shall publish a
list of all companies owned in part or wholly by the People's
Liberation Army (PLA) of the P.R.C. who export to, or have
an office in, the United States.
For a period of one year, China North Industries Group
(NORINCO) and the PLA-owned company China Poly Group (POLY)
will not be allowed to export to, nor maintain a physical
presence in, the United States. The attempted illegal sale of
AK-47 machine guns to street gangs in California warrant
these targeted sanctions against these firms.
Promoting Democratic Values in China
The U.S. government shall double the U.S. funding available
to existing students, cultural, and legislative exchange
programs between the United States and the People's Republic
of China.
The U.S. government shall double the authorization of funds
available to Radio Free Asia.
The U.S. government shall double the funding available to
the National Endowment for Democracy's programs in China.
in one year: an opportunity to discontinue, maintain or add new
sanctions
The legislation requires an annual report by the President
on whether there has been improvement in China's policy of
religious toleration and in its overall human rights record,
including during the transition in Hong Kong. The sanctions
sunset after one year, allowing Congress an opportunity to
evaluate the situation and determine whether and in what form
sanctions should continue.
conclusion
The legislation emphasizes appropriate limits on U.S. and
Chinese government-to-government contacts and U.S. taxpayer
subsidies, while seeking to promote greater freedom in China.
These measures would signal to China's leadership that it
cannot simply be business as usual with the U.S. government
so long as it mistreats its citizens and tramples on their
fundamental right to practice the religion of their choice.
It also applies appropriate measures with regard to PLA
companies. The United States must stay engaged with China,
and trade and investment is a valuable avenue for that
engagement, but there is no reason the U.S. government should
be subsidizing a government with whom we have so many serious
and fundamental disagreements. This approach is designed to
signal our displeasure with China's policies, encourage its
leaders to improve the treatment of its citizens, and to end
U.S. taxpayer subsidies for a repressive regime while
expanding basic interaction between the American and Chinese
people.
______
By Mr. KOHL:
S. 812. A bill to establish an independent commission to recommend
reforms in the laws relating to elections for Federal office; to the
Committee on Rules and Administration.
the campaign finance reform commission act of 1997
Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss an important issue
before the Senate--campaign finance reform. First, let me state that I
am a cosponsor of S. 25, Senators John McCain and Russ Feingold's
Senate Campaign Finance Reform Act of 1997. I cosponsored S. 25 because
I feel it is the best legislation moving through the Congress to reform
our campaign finance system. My Wisconsin colleague, Senator Feingold
and Senator McCain deserve our gratitude and praise for keeping this
issue alive. It's been nearly 20 years since Congress enacted
meaningful campaign finance reform, and they have come closer than
anyone at passing a bipartisan plan.
We are at a crossroads in this debate. America's campaign finance
laws have not been significantly altered since the 1970's. Since that
time we've seen an explosion in the costs of running campaigns and a
growing public perception that special interests are far too
influential in the electoral process. The last election cycle saw the
problems in our system grow to new proportions, and we are now
witnessing two congressional investigations and a Justice Department
investigation into alleged illegalities and improprieties. Despite
these widely agreed-upon problems, Congress and the President seem
incapable of enacting a campaign finance reform bill.
We have seen initiatives by Democratic and Republican Presidents.
Democratic and Republican Congresses, even widely hailed bipartisan
approaches all fail. One can easily conclude that this issue is so
mired in partisan politics, trapped in a quagmire of self-interest and
special interest, that Congress will not be able to craft a
comprehensive reform bill. S. 25 is the best legislation to be proposed
in two decades, and yet, when we voted on the measure in the last
Congress, we could not get 60 Senators to support it, and the House of
Representatives leadership wouldn't even bring it up for a vote.
Mr. President, I am very concerned that this important piece of
legislation may face the same fate this year. I support S. 25, and will
continue to strongly support it until we have a clear vote on the
measure this year. However, I do not believe it would be in the
country's best interest to let another campaign cycle go by without the
Congress taking clear action to reform our campaign finance system.
Therefore, I am introducing today the Campaign Finance Reform
Commission Act of 1997. Let me be clear from the outset: I would prefer
to pass a bill such as S. 25, and I desperately hope that we do. But,
in the case that we do not, Congress needs to be ready with legislation
that moves us toward a better system.
The Campaign Finance Reform Commission is modeled on the successful
Base Realignment and Closure Commissions. The legislation would
establish a balanced, bipartisan commission, appointed by Senate
leaders, House leaders, and the President to propose comprehensive
campaign finance reform. Like the BRAC Commissions, the proposals of
the Campaign Finance Reform Commission would be subject to
congressional approval or disapproval, but no amendments would be
permitted. The Commission would have a limited duration--1 year after
its creation. And Congress would have a limited time to consider the
Commission's proposals.
Mr. President, there are many who will object to this plan and argue
that, through the creation of a commission, the Congress is conceding
that it cannot solve this problem on its own. To the contrary, the
creation of a Campaign Finance Reform Commission would be a concrete
sign to the American public that Congress is serious about reforming
our election laws. We have seen the success of the BRAC Commissions in
removing political influences from the decision-making process. This
same formula could be used for our campaign finance reform laws.
When Congress enacted the first BRAC Commission law, it was argued
that a nonpartisan commission was required because the closure of
military bases was so politically sensitive, Congress could not be
expected to make the tough choices of closing bases. Well, Mr.
President, if closing military bases is considered tough, altering the
campaign laws that literally determine whether Members could retain
their jobs must be just as politically sensitive, if not more so.
Again, I wish to praise the efforts of Senators Feingold, McCain, and
the broad coalition of grassroots organizations which have kept the
campaign finance issue in front of the American public and the
Congress. I hope that they succeed in their efforts with their bill and
we can present the American public with a new campaign system before
the 1998 election. I offer this bill today only as an alternative to be
considered, if, and only if, we cannot pass S. 25 this year.
Mr. President, like all commonsense ideas, the idea of a Campaign
Finance Reform Commission did not spring from a text book but came from
a simpler setting. Two years ago President Clinton and House Speaker
Newt Gingrich held an historic conversation at a New Hampshire meeting.
The first question came from a retiree, Mr. Frank McConnell, Jr. Mr.
McConnell had a simple, commonsense idea--form a commission like the
one that closed the military bases to reform our election system, so,
in Mr. McConnell's words, ``it would be out of the political scene.''
The time for Mr. McConnell's idea has come.
I am pleased to put Mr. McConnell's idea into legislative form. If S.
25 fails this year, this Commission could give us the reform we all
demand. And, it
[[Page S5130]]
would give the American public a restored faith that their democratic
institutions have responded to their cry for change in our electoral
system.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the entire text of my
legislation be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 812
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 ``Campaign Finance Reform
Commission Act of 1997''.
SEC. 2. ESTABLISHMENT OF COMMISSION.
(a) Establishment.--There is established a Commission to be
known as the ``Federal Election Law Reform Commission''
(referred to in this Act as the ``Commission'').
(b) Membership.--
(1) Appointments.--The Commission shall be comprised of 8
qualified members, who shall be appointed not later than the
date that is 30 days after the date of enactment of this Act
as follows:
(A) Appointments by majority leader and speaker.--The
Majority Leader of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of
Representatives shall jointly appoint to the Commission--
(i) 1 member who is a retired Federal judge as of the date
on which the appointment is made;
(ii) 1 member who is a former Member of Congress as of the
date on which the appointment is made; and
(iii) 1 member who is from the academic community.
(B) Appointments by minority leaders.--The Minority Leader
of the Senate and the Minority Leader of the House of
Representatives shall jointly appoint to the Commission--
(i) 1 member who is a retired Federal judge as of the date
on which the appointment is made; and
(ii) 1 member who is a former Member of Congress as of the
date on which the appointment is made.
(C) Appointment by president.--The President shall appoint
to the Commission 1 member who is from the academic
community.
(D) Appointments by commission members.--The members
appointed under subparagraphs (A), (B), and (C) shall jointly
appoint 2 members to the Commission, neither of whom shall
have held any elected or appointed public or political party
office, including any position with an election campaign for
Federal office, during the 10 years preceding the date on
which the appointment is made.
(2) Qualifications.--
(A) In general.--A person shall not be qualified for an
appointment under this subsection if the person, during the
10-year period preceding the date on which the appointment is
made--
(i) held a position under schedule C of subpart C of part
213 of title 5, Code of Federal Regulations;
(ii) was an employee of the legislative branch of the
Federal Government, not including any service as a Member of
Congress; or
(iii) was required to register under the Lobbying
Disclosure Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.) or derived a
significant income from influencing, or attempting to
influence, members or employees of the executive branch or
legislative branch of the Federal Government.
(B) Party affiliations.--Not more than 4 members of the
Commission shall be members of, or associated with, the same
political party (as defined in section 301 of the Federal
Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 431)).
(3) Chairperson and vice chairperson.--
(A) Designation by commission members.--The members of the
Commission shall designate a chairperson and a vice
chairperson from among the members of the Commission.
(B) Party affiliations.--The chairperson shall be a member
of, or associated with, a political party other than the
political party of the vice chairperson.
(4) Financial disclosure.--Not later than 60 days after
appointment to the Commission, a member of the Commission
shall file with the Secretary of the Senate, the Office of
the Clerk of the House of Representatives, and the Federal
Election Commission a report containing the information
required by section 102 of the Ethics in Government Act of
1978 (5 U.S.C. App.).
(5) Period of appointment; vacancies.--
(A) Period of appointment.--A member of the Commission
shall be appointed for the life of the Commission.
(B) Vacancy.--Any vacancy in the Commission shall--
(i) not affect the powers of the Commission; and
(ii) be filled in the same manner as the original
appointment.
(6) Termination of commission.--The Commission shall
terminate on the date that is 1 year after the date of
enactment of this Act.
(c) Powers.--
(1) Hearings.--The Commission may hold such hearings, sit
and act at such times and places, take such testimony, and
receive such evidence as the Commission considers advisable
to carry out this Act.
(2) Information from federal agencies.--
(A) In general.--The Commission may secure directly from
any Federal department or agency any information that the
Commission considers necessary to carry out this Act.
(B) Request of the chairperson.--On request of the
chairperson of the Commission, the head of a Federal
department or agency shall furnish the requested information
to the Commission.
(3) Postal services.--The Commission may use the United
States mails in the same manner and under the same conditions
as other Federal departments and agencies.
(d) Pay and Travel Expenses.--
(1) Members.--Each member of the Commission, other than the
chairperson, shall be paid at a rate equal to the daily
equivalent of the annual rate of basic pay prescribed for
level IV of the Executive Schedule under section 5315 of
title 5, United States Code, for each day (including travel
time) during which the member is engaged in the actual
performance of duties vested in the Commission.
(2) Chairperson.--The chairperson shall be paid for each
day referred to in paragraph (1) at a rate equal to the daily
equivalent of the annual rate of basic pay prescribed for
level III of the Executive Schedule under section 5315 of
title 5, United States Code.
(e) Staff.--
(1) Executive director.--The chairperson of the Commission
may, without regard to the civil service laws (including
regulations), appoint and terminate an executive director of
the Commission, who shall be paid at the rate of basic pay
prescribed for level IV of the Executive Schedule under
section 5315 of title 5, United States Code.
(2) Other personnel.--
(A) Appointment and pay.--Subject to subparagraph (B), the
executive director may, without regard to the civil service
laws (including regulations), appoint and fix the pay of
additional personnel as may be necessary to enable the
Commission to perform the duties of the Commission.
(B) Maximum rate of pay.--The pay of any individual
appointed under this paragraph shall be not more than the
maximum annual rate of basic pay prescribed for grade GS-15
of the General Schedule under section 5332 of title 5, United
States Code.
(3) Detail of federal employees.--Any Federal Government
employee may be detailed to the Commission without
reimbursement, and the detail shall be without interruption
or loss of civil service status or privilege.
(f) Procurement of Temporary and Intermittent Services.--
The chairperson of the Commission may procure temporary and
intermittent services under section 3109(b) of title 5,
United States Code, at rates for individuals that do not
exceed the daily equivalent of the annual rate of basic pay
prescribed for level V of the Executive Schedule under
section 5316 of title 5, United States Code.
SEC. 3. DUTIES OF COMMISSION.
(a) In General.--The Commission shall--
(1) identify the appropriate goals and values for Federal
election campaign finance laws;
(2) evaluate the extent to which the Federal Election
Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 431 et seq.) has promoted or
hindered the attainment of the goals identified under
paragraph (1); and
(3) make recommendations to Congress for the achievement of
those goals, taking into consideration the impact of the
Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971.
(b) Considerations.--In making recommendations under
subsection (a)(3), the Commission shall consider with respect
to election campaigns for Federal office--
(1) whether campaign spending levels should be limited,
and, if so, to what extent;
(2) the role of interest groups and whether that role
should be limited or regulated;
(3) the role of other funding sources, including political
parties, candidates, and individuals from inside and outside
the State in which the contribution is made;
(4) public financing and benefits; and
(5) problems in existing election campaign finance law,
such as soft money, bundling, and independent expenditures.
(c) Report and Recommendations.--Not later than the date
that is 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, the
Commission shall submit to Congress--
(1) a report on the activities of the Commission; and
(2) a draft of legislation (including technical and
conforming provisions) recommended by the Commission to amend
the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 431 et
seq.) and any other law relating to elections for Federal
office.
SEC. 4. FAST-TRACK PROCEDURES.
(a) Rules of House of Representatives and Senate.--This
section is enacted by the Congress--
(1) as an exercise of the rulemaking power of the House of
Representatives and of the Senate, respectively, and as such
it shall be considered as part of the rules of each House,
respectively, or of the House to which it specifically
applies, and the rules shall supersede other rules only to
the extent that they are inconsistent; and
(2) with full recognition of the constitutional right of
either House to change the rules (so far as the rules relate
to that House) at any time, in the same manner, and to the
same extent as in the case of any other rule of that House.
[[Page S5131]]
(b) Definitions.--In this section, the term ``Federal
election bill'' means only a bill of either House of Congress
that is introduced as provided in subsection (c) to carry out
the recommendations of the Commission as set forth in the
draft legislation submitted under section 5(c)(2).
(c) Introduction and Referral.--Not later than 3 days after
the Commission submits draft legislation under section
5(c)(2), a Federal election bill shall be introduced (by
request) in the House of Representatives by the Majority
Leader of the House, shall be introduced (by request) in the
Senate by the Majority Leader of the Senate, and shall be
referred to the appropriate committee.
(d) Amendments Prohibited.--No amendment to a Federal
election bill shall be in order in either the House of
Representatives or the Senate, no motion to suspend the
application of this subsection shall be in order in either
House, and it shall not be in order in either House to
entertain a request to suspend the application of this
subsection by unanimous consent.
(e) Period for Committee and Floor Consideration.--
(1) Automatic discharge.--If the committee of either House
to which a Federal election bill is referred has not reported
the bill by the close of the 30th day after introduction, the
committee shall be automatically discharged from further
consideration of the bill, and the bill shall be placed on
the appropriate calendar.
(2) Procedure when there is prior passage of bill by other
House.--If, prior to the passage by 1 House of a Federal
election bill of that House, that House receives the same
Federal election bill from the other House--
(A) the procedure in that House shall be the same as if no
Federal election bill had been received from the other House;
but
(B) the vote on final passage shall be on the Federal
election bill of the other House.
(3) Computation.--For purposes of paragraph (1), in
computing a number of days in either House, there shall be
excluded the days on which that House is not in session
because of an adjournment of more than 3 days to a day
certain or an adjournment of the Congress sine die.
(f) Floor Consideration in the House.--
(1) Motion to proceed to consider.--
(A) Privilege.--A motion in the House of Representatives to
proceed to the consideration of a Federal election bill shall
be highly privileged and not debatable, except that a motion
to proceed to consider may be made only on the 2d legislative
day after the calendar day on which the Member making the
motion announces to the House the Member's intention to do
so.
(B) No amendment or motion to reconsider.--An amendment to
the motion shall not be in order, and it shall not be in
order to move to reconsider the vote by which the motion is
agreed to or disagreed to.
(2) Debate.--
(A) Time.--Consideration of a Federal election bill in the
House of Representatives shall be in the House, with debate
limited to not more than 10 hours, which shall be divided
equally between the proponents and opponents of the bill.
(B) No intervening motion.--The previous question on the
Federal election bill shall be considered as ordered to final
passage without intervening motion.
(C) Motion to reconsider not in order.--It shall not be in
order to move to reconsider the vote by which a Federal
election bill is agreed to or disagreed to.
(3) Appeals from decision of chair.--All appeals from the
decisions of the Chair relating to the application of the
rules of the House of Representatives to the procedure
relating to a Federal election bill shall be decided without
debate.
(g) Floor Consideration in the Senate.--
(1) Motion to proceed to consideration.--
(A) Privilege.--A motion in the Senate to proceed to the
consideration of a Federal election bill shall be privileged
and not debatable.
(B) No amendment or motion to reconsider.--An amendment to
the motion shall not be in order, and it shall not be in
order to move to reconsider the vote by which the motion is
agreed to or disagreed to.
(2) Debate of bill.--
(A) Time.--Debate in the Senate on a Federal election bill,
and all debatable motions and appeals in connection with the
bill, shall be limited to not more than 10 hours.
(B) Division of time.--The time shall be equally divided
between, and controlled by, the Majority Leader and the
Minority Leader or their designees.
(3) Debate of motion or appeal.--
(A) Time.--Debate in the Senate on any debatable motion or
appeal in connection with a Federal election bill shall be
limited to not more than 1 hour, to be equally divided
between, and controlled by, the proponent of the motion and
the manager of the bill, except that if the manager of the
bill is in favor of the motion or appeal, the time in
opposition to the motion or appeal, shall be controlled by
the Minority Leader or a designee of the Minority Leader.
(B) Allotment of additional time.--The leaders under
subparagraph (A), or either of them, may, from time under
their control on the passage of a Federal election bill,
allot additional time to a Senator during the consideration
of a debatable motion or appeal.
(4) Motion to limit debate.--A motion in the Senate to
further limit debate is not debatable.
(5) Motion to recommit not in order.--A motion to recommit
a Federal election bill is not in order.
SEC. 5. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
There are authorized to be appropriated to the Commission
such sums as are necessary to carry out the duties of the
Commission under this Act.
______
By Mr. THURMOND (for himself and Mr. McCain):
S. 813. A bill to amend chapter 91 of title 18, United States Code,
to provide criminal penalties for theft and willful vandalism at
national cemeteries; to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs.
the veterans' cemetery protection act of 1997
Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, this coming Monday, May 26, our Nation
will observe Memorial Day. For some Americans, Memorial Day is simply
the opening of the summer vacation season. However, for millions of
patriotic Americans this day is much more. To us, Memorial Day is the
day we pay tribute to those who made the ultimate sacrifice in
defending this Nation and our freedoms.
Honoring those who died in war is a practice and custom of many
cultures and countries. In the United States, tributes to fallen
soldiers took place in many locations during the War Between the
States. An early observance occurred on May 30, 1865, in Charleston,
SC, when a group of school children scattered flowers over trenches in
which the remains of several hundred Union soldiers had been interred.
Another commemoration occurred in Columbus, MS, on April 25, 1866, when
a group of women visited a cemetery to decorate the graves of
Confederate soldiers who had fallen in battle at Shiloh. Flowers were
placed on the nearby bare and neglected graves of Union soldiers as
well. Throughout the North and South, this practice of decorating
graves became more widespread.
On May 5, 1868, Gen. John A. Logan issued a general order that
designated the 30th day of May, 1868, as a day for decorating the
graves of comrades who died in defense of their country. Decoration
Day, as it came to be celebrated, was first observed that day at
Arlington National Cemetery, which held the remains of 20,000 Union
dead and several hundred Confederate dead. By the end of the 19th
century, Memorial Day, or Decoration Day ceremonies were being held
throughout the Nation. In 1971 Memorial Day was declared a national
holiday, and was placed on the last Monday in May.
Mr. President, Memorial Day services will be held throughout the
Nation next Monday, in our national cemeteries, where thousands of war
dead are buried. A national service will be held at Arlington Cemetery.
Local traditions will be included in ceremonies at the Punchbowl Center
in Hawaii. Decorations will be placed in the 114 national cemeteries
operated by the Department of Veterans Affairs National Cemetery
System. A few other national cemeteries are under the jurisdiction of
the Department of Defense and the Department of Interior. I encourage
my colleagues, and all citizens of this Nation, to visit these
cemeteries and pay respect to those who have given their life for their
country.
Mr. President, unfortunately not all activities at our national
cemeteries have honored the dead. There have been, unfortunately,
instances of vandalism and theft at our national cemeteries. Last
month, the Punchbowl in Hawaii, the National Memorial Cemetery of the
Pacific, was desecrated by vandals. Vandals caused over $20,000 in
damage by spray painting racial epithets and obscenities on graves,
marble memorials, and other parts of the cemetery. Other cemeteries,
private and State, were also damaged that same weekend. Last year, at
the Riverside National Cemetery in California, engraved grave markers
were stolen from 128 graves. Months before that incident, over 500
markers were stolen from a storage facility.
The time has come to demand a stop to this type of insulting
behavior. That is why I am introducing the Veterans' Cemetery
Protection Act of 1997. This bill is a companion bill to one introduced
in the House, H.R. 1532. This bill imposes criminal penalties for
vandalism and theft at national cemeteries operated by the VA, the
Department of Defense, and the Department of Interior. Penalties for
vandalism and theft, are consistent with similar crimes against other
Federal property. In addition, the bill establishes penalties for
[[Page S5132]]
attempted vandalism and theft. I am delighted that Senator McCain, a
fellow veteran and true national hero, joins me in introducing this
bill.
Mr. President, as we pause to remember our fallen comrades, it is
appropriate that we protect their final resting places. I invite may
colleagues to join Senator McCain and me in supporting this
legislation.
Mr. McCain. Mr. President, I rise today to cosponsor the Veterans'
Cemetery Protection Act of 1997, sponsored by my colleague and
distinguished veteran, Senator Strom Thurmond.
There is nothing more egregious than the desecration of our Nation's
veterans' cemeteries. These men and women gave their lives to defend
the United States and freedom throughout the world. This act will
propose a penalty for theft or destruction of any property of a
national cemetery. This is a simple piece of legislation and I hope my
colleagues in the Senate will give their full support to this critical
measure.
______
By Mr. BAUCUS (for himself, Mr. Gorton, and Mrs. Murray):
S. 815. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide
tax treatment for foreign investment through a United States regulated
investment company comparable to the tax treatment for direct foreign
investment and investment through a foreign mutual fund; to the
Committee on Finance.
the investment competitiveness act of 1997
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr President, the U.S. mutual fund industry has become a
dominant force in developing, marketing, and managing assets for
American investors. Since 1990, assets under management by U.S. mutual
funds have grown from $1 trillion to about $3.5 trillion today. Yet,
while direct foreign investment in U.S. securities is strong, foreign
investment in U.S. mutual funds has remained relatively flat.
Mr President, today I am introducing, along with Senators Gorton and
Murray, the Investment Competitiveness Act of 1997. This legislation,
which I have had the honor of cosponsoring in each of the last three
Congresses, would eliminate a major barrier to attracting foreign
capital into the United States while improving the competitiveness of
the U.S. mutual fund industry.
This legislation would remove a barrier to the sale and distribution
of U.S. mutual funds outside the United States. The bill would change
the Internal Revenue Code to provide that foreign investors in U.S.
mutual funds be accorded the same tax treatment as if they had made
their investments directly in U.S. stocks or shares of a foreign mutual
fund.
Under current law, most kinds of interest and short-term capital
gains received directly by an investor outside the United States or
received through a foreign mutual fund are not subject to the 30-
percent withholding tax on investment income. However, interest and
short-term capital gain income received by a foreign investor through a
U.S. mutual fund are subject to the withholding tax. This result occurs
because current law characterizes interest income as short-term capital
gain distributed by a U.S. mutual fund to a foreign investor as a
dividend subject to withholding.
The Investment Competitiveness Act would correct this inequity and
put U.S. mutual funds on a competitive footing with foreign funds. The
bill would correctly permit interest income and short-term capital gain
to retain their character upon distribution.
Current law acts as a prohibitive export tax on foreign investors who
choose to invest in U.S. funds. That is why the amount of foreign
investment in U.S. mutual funds is small.
Mr President, it is time to dismantle the unfair and unwanted tax
barrier to foreign investment in U.S. mutual funds. The American
economy will benefit from exporting U.S. mutual funds, creating an
additional inflow of investment into U.S. securities markets without a
dilution of U.S. control of American business that occurs through
direct foreign investment in U.S. companies. Moreover, the legislation
will support job creation among ancillary fund service providers
located in the United States, rather than in offshore service
facilities.
Mr President, I very much appreciate the efforts of Senators Gorton
and Murray in cosponsoring this legislation and I urge my colleagues to
support this bill.
______
By Mr. CRAIG:
S. 816. A bill to amend title 18, United States Code, to provide a
national standard in accordance with which nonresidents of a State may
carry certain concealed firearms in the State, and to exempt qualified
current and former law enforcement officers from State laws prohibiting
the carrying of concealed handguns; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
THE PERSONAL SAFETY AND COMMUNITY PROTECTION ACT
Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Personal Safety and
Community Protection Act.
In recent years, a movement has swept the Nation to enable
individuals to carry concealed firearms for their protection. Forty-two
of the fifty States have some right-to-carry permit mechanism in place,
and they are finding these laws make a significant impact on crime.
The benefits of right-to-carry laws were verified by a landmark study
released late last year. Following a comprehensive analysis of annual
FBI crime statistics from all the Nation's counties, over 15 years, the
authors concluded:
[a]llowing citizens to carry concealed weapons deters
violent crimes and it appears to produce no increase in
accidental death or suicides. If those states who did not
have right-to-carry concealed gun provisions had adopted them
in 1992, approximately 1,800 murders and over 3,000 rapes
would have been avoided yearly . . .
The primary author of the study, John R. Lott Jr. of the University
of Chicago Law School, has pointed out that the benefits of concealed-
carry laws are not limited to those who carry the weapons but extend to
their fellow citizens, as well. The drop in crime is not necessarily
the result of using firearms in self-defense, but of criminals changing
their behavior to avoid coming into direct contact with a person who
might have a gun--which in a concealed-carry State could extend to a
wide cross-section of the public.
The legislation I am introducing today builds on the experience of
the States. It is designed to protect the rights of citizens no matter
where they may travel in the United States, and to enhance the
protection of our communities.
This bill applies to any person holding a valid concealed firearm
carrying permit or license issued by a State, and who is not prohibited
from carrying a firearm under Federal law.
In States that issue concealed carry permits, the individual would be
able to carry a concealed firearm in accordance with State laws. In
States that do not have right-to-carry laws, the bill sets a
reasonable, bright-line Federal standard that would permit carrying
except in certain designated places, such as police stations;
courthouses; public polling places; meetings of State, county, or
municipal governing bodies; schools; passenger areas of airports.
The second part of the bill provides an exemption for certain
qualified current and former law enforcement officers, who bear valid
written identification of their status, from laws prohibiting the
carrying of concealed firearms. The bill does not override any existing
training requirements or restrictions on gun ownership or use by
current or former law enforcement officers. The individuals covered by
this section of the bill have proven records of responsible, lawful gun
use in defense of their fellow citizens and communities.
Again, Mr. President, this portion of the bill takes a practical,
experience-based approach to self defense and community protection.
I'm pleased to note that my bill is a companion to H.R. 339,
introduced in the House of Representatives by Congressman Cliff Stearns
and cosponsored by more than 40 Members from nearly half the States.
I urge all my colleagues to join us in protecting the rights of your
constituents and enhancing the protection of your communities by
supporting the Personal Safety and Community Protection Act.
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:
[[Page S5133]]
S. 816
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. NATIONAL STANDARD FOR THE CARRYING OF CERTAIN
CONCEALED FIREARMS BY NONRESIDENTS.
(a) In General.--Chapter 44 of title 18, United States
Code, is amended by inserting after section 926A the
following:
``Sec. 926B. National standard for the carrying of certain
concealed firearms by nonresidents
``(a) In General.--Notwithstanding any provision of the law
of any State or political subdivision thereof, a person who
is not prohibited by Federal law from possessing,
transporting, shipping, or receiving a firearm, and who is
carrying a valid license or permit that is issued by a State
and that permits the person to carry a concealed firearm
(other than a machinegun or destructive device), may carry in
another State a concealed firearm (other than a machinegun or
destructive device) that has been shipped or transported in
interstate or foreign commerce, in accordance with subsection
(b).
``(b) Conditions.--
``(1) States issuing concealed weapons permits.--For
purposes of subsection (a), if such other State issues
licenses or permits to carry concealed firearms, the person
may carry a concealed firearm in the State under the same
restrictions that apply to the carrying of a concealed
firearm by a person to whom the State has issued such a
license or permit.
``(2) Other states.--For purposes of subsection (a), if
such other State does not issue licenses or permits to carry
concealed firearms, except to the extent expressly permitted
by State law, the person may not, in the State, carry a
concealed firearm--
``(A) in a police station;
``(B) in a public detention facility;
``(C) in a courthouse;
``(D) in a public polling place;
``(E) at a meeting of a State, county, or municipal
governing body;
``(F) in a school;
``(G) at a professional or school athletic event not
related to firearms;
``(H) in a portion of an establishment licensed by the
State to dispense alcoholic beverages for consumption on the
premises; or
``(I) inside the sterile or passenger area of an
airport.''.
(b) Clerical Amendment.--The analysis for chapter 44 of
title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting after
the item relating to section 926A the following:
``926B. National standard for the carrying of certain concealed
firearms by nonresidents.''.
SEC. 2. EXEMPTION OF QUALIFIED CURRENT AND FORMER LAW
ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS FROM STATE LAWS
PROHIBITING THE CARRYING OF CONCEALED HANDGUNS.
(a) In General.--Chapter 44 of title 18, United States
Code, is amended by inserting after section 926B (as added by
section 1(a) of this Act) the following:
``Sec. 926C. Carrying of concealed handguns by qualified
current and former law enforcement officers
``(a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
the law of any State or any political subdivision thereof, an
individual who is a qualified law enforcement officer or a
qualified former law enforcement officer and who is carrying
appropriate written identification of that status may carry a
concealed handgun.
``(b) Definitions.--In this section:
``(1) Appropriate written identification.--The term
`appropriate written identification' means, with respect to
an individual, a document which--
``(A) was issued to the individual by the public agency
with which the individual serves or served as a law
enforcement officer; and
``(B) identifies the holder of the document as a current or
former officer, agent, or employee of the agency.
``(2) Law enforcement officer.--The term `law enforcement
officer' means an individual authorized by law to engage in
or supervise the prevention, detection, investigation, or
prosecution of any violation of law, and includes
corrections, probation, parole, and judicial officers.
``(3) Qualified former law enforcement officer.--The term
`qualified former law enforcement officer' means an
individual who--
``(A) retired from service with a public agency as a law
enforcement officer, other than for reasons of mental
disability;
``(B) immediately before such retirement, was a qualified
law enforcement officer;
``(C) has a nonforfeitable right to benefits under the
retirement plan of the agency;
``(D) meets such requirements as have been established by
the State in which the individual resides with respect to
training in the use of firearms; and
``(E) is not prohibited by Federal law from receiving a
firearm.
``(4) Qualified law enforcement officer.--The term
`qualified law enforcement officer' means an officer, agent,
or employee of a public agency who--
``(A) is a law enforcement officer;
``(B) is authorized by the agency to carry a firearm in the
course of duty;
``(C) is not the subject of any disciplinary action by the
agency; and
``(D) meets such requirements as have been established by
the agency with respect to firearms.''.
(b) Clerical Amendment.--The analysis for chapter 44 of
title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting after
the item relating to section 926B (as added by section 1(b)
of this Act) the following:
``926C. Carrying of concealed handguns by qualified current and former
law enforcement officers.''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall take effect 180 days after the date of enactment of
this Act.
______
By Mr. CAMPBELL (for himself and Mr. Inouye):
S. 818. A bill to improve the economic conditions and supply of
housing in native American communities by creating the Native American
Financial Services Organization, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on Indian Affairs.
the native american financial services organization Act of 1997
Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, today I introduce the Native American
Financial Services Organization Act of 1996 [NAFSO]. This bill, based
on a similar measure I introduced in the last Congress, seeks to
provide new opportunity and hope for native American families by
addressing the serious lack of private capital on Indian reservations.
Having access to banking services is more than just a convenience. It
means being able to get a loan to fix a leaky roof. It means getting
the money to buy computers to start a small business. It means having
enough money to send your son or daughter to college. It means buying
your own home.
Too often, these dreams never become a reality for Indian families.
Many opportunities and services most of America takes for granted are
not available in Indian country. Native Americans can't simply walk
into a local bank to open a checking account or get a loan for a new
house because for the most part, these institutions are nowhere near
Indian reservations.
NAFSO is not about new Government programs or bureaucracy. NAFSO is
about supporting private banks that will not only provide basic
services, but take the time to educate people, to bring them into the
mainstream of financial services and give them a chance to build a home
or start a business.
NAFSO gives native Americans the same kind of access to banking
services that other Americans enjoy. By eliminating provisions dealing
with the secondary mortgage market, this version of NAFSO allows the
organization to focus where the rubber meets the road. Working in
conjunction with the community development financial institutions fund,
NAFSO's primary role is to expand the availability of basic banking
services through the creation and support of Native American Financial
Institutions [NAFI's]. This provides the services that families need
the most--checking accounts, mortgages, and other basic banking
services.
NAFSO will also play a crucial role in assisting NAFI's by providing
them with much-needed technical assistance and developing specialized
assistance to overcome barriers to lending on reservations. The
organization will also work with the secondary market and other
important financial mechanisms to identify barriers to private lending
and make recommendations about how banks, Tribes, and government can do
more to help this process.
NAFSO does more than support new lending institutions or existing
Indian-oriented banks and begins to address the historical barriers to
private banking in Indian country. The trust status of reservation land
and the inability to transfer title are serious concerns of bankers
that need to be overcome and understood. Equally as challenging is the
need to overcome stereotypes about Indian families and their social or
economic condition. Often, banks decide Indians are not a good credit
risk without ever having gone to the reservation.
By providing information and interested in becoming more involved in
Indian country, NAFSO can foster a new understanding of the real
challenges we face. It can eliminate some of these misconceptions and
myths and bring the private market and Indian communities together in
ways never thought possible before.
I had hoped that we would be assisted in this process by a report by
the community development financial institutions fund at the Department
of Treasury on Indian banking issues. Regrettably, work on that report,
which was
[[Page S5134]]
due almost 9 months ago, has not yet begun. Nevertheless, I feel that
we should not delay our work. We need to concentrate now on finding
real solutions to the economic, social and cultural challenges facing
tribes and native American families.
Mr. President, most people agree that Government cannot be the
solution to all of this great Nation's problems. We can fix the
Government programs, we can make them more efficient, but now we need
to get the private sector involved in the challenges facing Indian
country. The road to economic independence for all native American
communities is a long one, but this bill is a big step in the right
direction.
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. 818
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Native
American Financial Services Organization Act of 1997''.
(b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents for this Act
is as follows:
Sec. 1. Short title.
Sec. 2. Findings.
Sec. 3. Policy.
Sec. 4. Purposes.
Sec. 5. Definitions.
TITLE I--NATIVE AMERICAN FINANCIAL SERVICES ORGANIZATION
Sec. 101. Establishment of the Organization.
Sec. 102. Authorized assistance and service functions.
Sec. 103. Native American lending services grant.
Sec. 104. Audits.
Sec. 105. Annual housing and economic development reports.
Sec. 106. Advisory Council.
TITLE II--CAPITALIZATION OF ORGANIZATION
Sec. 201. Capitalization of the Organization.
TITLE III--REGULATION, EXAMINATION, AND REPORTS
Sec. 301. Regulation, examination, and reports.
Sec. 302. Authority of the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development.
TITLE IV--FORMATION OF NEW CORPORATION
Sec. 401. Formation of new corporation.
Sec. 402. Adoption and approval of merger plan.
Sec. 403. Consummation of merger.
Sec. 404. Transition.
Sec. 405. Effect of merger.
TITLE V--AUTHORIZATIONS OF APPROPRIATIONS
Sec. 501. Authorization of appropriations for Native American Financial
Institutions.
Sec. 502. Authorization of appropriations for Organization.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
Congress finds that--
(1) clause 3 of section 8 of article I of the United States
Constitution recognizes the special relationship between the
United States and Indian tribes;
(2) Congress has carried the responsibility of the United
States for the protection and preservation of Indian tribes
and the resources of Indian tribes through the endorsement of
treaties, and the enactment of other laws, including laws
that provide for the exercise of administrative authorities;
(3) despite the availability of abundant natural resources
on Indian lands and a rich cultural legacy that accords great
value to self-determination, self-reliance, and independence,
American Indians, Alaska Natives, and Native Hawaiians suffer
rates of unemployment, poverty, poor health, substandard
housing, and associated social ills to a greater degree than
any other group in the United States;
(4) the economic success and material well-being of
American Indian, Alaska Native, and Native Hawaiian
communities depends on the combined efforts of the Federal
Government, tribal governments, the private sector, and
individuals;
(5) the lack of employment opportunities and affordable
homes in the communities referred to in paragraph (4) is
grounded in the almost complete absence of available private
capital and private capital institutions to serve those
communities;
(6) the lack of capital referred to in paragraph (5) has
resulted in a multigenerational dependence on Federal
assistance that is--
(A) insufficient to address the magnitude of needs; and
(B) unreliable in availability;
(7) a review of the history of the United States bears out
the fact that solutions to social and economic problems that
have been crafted by the Federal Government without the
active involvement of local communities and the private
sector fail at unacceptably high rates; and
(8) the twin goals of economic self-sufficiency and
political self-determination for American Indians, Alaska
Natives, and Native Hawaiians can best be served by making
available to address the challenges faced by those groups--
(A) the resources of the private market;
(B) adequate capital; and
(C) technical expertise.
SEC. 3. POLICY.
(a) In General.--Based upon the findings and
recommendations of the Commission on American Indian, Alaska
Native and Native Hawaiian Housing established by the
Department of Housing and Urban Development Reform Act of
1989, Congress has determined that--
(1) housing shortages and deplorable living conditions are
at crisis proportions in Native American communities
throughout the United States; and
(2) the lack of private capital to finance housing and
economic development for Native Americans and Native American
communities seriously exacerbates these housing shortages and
poor living conditions.
(b) Policy of the United States To Address Native American
Housing Shortage.--It is the policy of the United States to
improve the economic conditions and supply of housing in
Native American communities throughout the United States by
creating the Native American Financial Services Organization
to address the housing shortages and poor living conditions
described in subsection (a).
SEC. 4. PURPOSES.
The purposes of this Act are--
(1) to help serve the mortgage and other lending needs of
Native Americans by assisting in the establishment and
organization of Native American Financial Institutions,
developing and providing financial expertise and technical
assistance to Native American Financial Institutions,
including assistance concerning overcoming--
(A) barriers to lending with respect to Native American
lands; and
(B) the past and present impact of discrimination;
(2) to promote access to mortgage credit in Native American
communities in the United States by increasing the liquidity
of financing for housing and improving the distribution of
investment capital available for such financing, primarily
through Native American Financial Institutions; and
(3) to promote the infusion of public capital into Native
American communities throughout the United States and to
direct sources of public and private capital into housing and
economic development for Native American individuals and
families, primarily through Native American Financial
Institutions.
SEC. 5. DEFINITIONS.
In this Act:
(1) Alaska native.--The term ``Alaska Native'' has the
meaning given the term ``Native'' by section 3(b) of the
Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act.
(2) Board.--The term ``Board'' means the Board of Directors
of the Organization established under section 101(a)(2).
(3) Chairperson.--The term ``Chairperson'' means the
chairperson of the Board.
(4) Council.--The term ``Council'' means the Advisory
Council established under section 106.
(5) Designated merger date.--The term ``designated merger
date'' means the specific calendar date and time of day
designated by the Board under section 402(b).
(6) Department of hawaiian home lands.--The term
``Department of Hawaiian Home Lands'' means the agency that
is responsible for the administration of the Hawaiian Homes
Commission Act, 1920 (42 Stat. 108 et seq.).
(7) Fund.--The term ``Fund'' means the Community
Development Financial Institutions Fund established under
section 104 of the Riegle Community Development and
Regulatory Improvement Act of 1994 (12 U.S.C. 4703).
(8) Indian tribe.--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 that is recognized as
eligible for the special programs and services provided by
the Federal Government to Indians because of their status as
Indians.
(9) Merger plan.--The term ``merger plan'' means the plan
of merger adopted by the Board under section 402(a).
(10) Native american.--The term ``Native American'' means
any member of an Indian tribe or a Native Hawaiian.
(11) Native american financial institution.--The term
``Native American Financial Institution'' means a person
(other than an individual) that--
(A) qualifies as a community development financial
institution under section 103 of the Riegle Community
Development and Regulatory Improvement Act of 1994 (12 U.S.C.
4702);
(B) satisfies the requirements established by subtitle A of
title I of the Riegle Community Development and Regulatory
Improvement Act of 1994 (12 U.S.C. 4701 et seq.) and the Fund
for applicants for assistance from the Fund;
(C) demonstrates a special interest and expertise in
serving the primary economic development and mortgage lending
needs of the Native American community; and
(D) demonstrates that the person has the endorsement of the
Native American community that the person intends to serve.
[[Page S5135]]
(12) Native american lender.--The term ``Native American
lender'' means a Native American governing body, Native
American housing authority, or other Native American
Financial Institution that acts as a primary mortgage or
economic development lender in a Native American community.
(13) Native hawaiian.--The term ``Native Hawaiian'' has the
meaning given that term in section 201 of the Hawaiian Homes
Commission Act, 1920 (42 Stat. 108).
(14) New corporation.--The term ``new corporation'' means
the corporation formed in accordance with title IV.
(15) Organization.--The term ``Organization'' means the
Native American Financial Services Organization established
under section 101.
(16) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of Housing and Urban Development.
(17) Transition period.--The term ``transition period''
means the period beginning on the date on which the merger
plan is approved by the Secretary and ending on the
designated merger date.
TITLE I--NATIVE AMERICAN FINANCIAL SERVICES ORGANIZATION
SEC. 101. ESTABLISHMENT OF THE ORGANIZATION.
(a) Creation; Board of Directors; Policies; Principal
Office; Membership; Vacancies.--
(1) Creation.--
(A) In general.--There is established and chartered a
corporation to be known as the Native American Financial
Services Organization.
(B) Period of time.--The Organization shall be a
congressionally chartered body corporate until the earlier
of--
(i) the designated merger date; or
(ii) the date on which the charter is surrendered by the
Organization.
(C) Changes to charter.--The right to revise, amend, or
modify the Organization charter is specifically and
exclusively reserved to Congress.
(2) Board of directors; principal office.--
(A) Board.--The powers of the Organization shall be vested
in a Board of Directors. The Board shall determine the
policies that govern the operations and management of the
Organization.
(B) Principal office; residency.--The principal office of
the Organization shall be in the District of Columbia. For
purposes of venue, the Organization shall be considered to be
a resident of the District of Columbia.
(3) Membership.--
(A) In general.--
(i) Nine members.--Except as provided in clause (ii), the
Board shall consist of 9 members, 3 of whom shall be
appointed by the President and 6 of whom shall be elected by
the class A stockholders, in accordance with the bylaws of
the Organization.
(ii) Thirteen members.--If class B stock is issued under
section 201(b), the Board shall consist of 13 members, 9 of
whom shall be appointed and elected in accordance with clause
(i) and 4 of whom shall be elected by the class B
stockholders, in accordance with the bylaws of the
Organization.
(B) Terms.--Each member of the Board shall be elected or
appointed for a 4-year term, except that the members of the
initial Board shall be elected or appointed for the following
terms:
(i) Of the 3 members appointed by the President--
(I) 1 member shall be appointed for a 2-year term;
(II) 1 member shall be appointed for a 3-year term; and
(III) 1 member shall be appointed for a 4-year term;
as designated by the President at the time of the
appointments.
(ii) Of the 6 members elected by the class A stockholders--
(I) 2 members shall each be elected for a 2-year term;
(II) 2 members shall each be elected for a 3-year term; and
(III) 2 members shall each be elected for a 4-year term.
(iii) If class B stock is issued and 4 additional members
are elected by the class B stockholders--
(I) 1 member shall be elected for a 2-year term;
(II) 1 member shall be elected for a 3-year term; and
(III) 2 members shall each be elected for a 4-year term.
(C) Qualifications.--Each member appointed by the President
shall have expertise in 1 or more of the following areas:
(i) Native American housing and economic development
programs.
(ii) Financing in Native American communities.
(iii) Native American governing bodies and court systems.
(iv) Restricted and trust land issues, economic
development, and small consumer loans.
(D) Members of indian tribes.--Not less than 2 of the
members appointed by the President shall each be an member of
an Indian tribe who is enrolled in accordance with the
applicable requirements of that Indian tribe.
(E) Chairperson.--The Board shall select a Chairperson from
among its members, except that the initial Chairperson shall
be selected from among the members of the initial Board who
have been appointed or elected to serve for a 4-year term.
(F) Vacancies.--
(i) Appointed members.--Any vacancy in the appointed
membership of the Board shall be filled by appointment by the
President, but only for the unexpired portion of the term.
(ii) Elected members.--Any vacancy in the elected
membership of the Board shall be filled by appointment by the
Board, but only for the unexpired portion of the term.
(G) Transitions.--Any member of the Board may continue to
serve after the expiration of the term for which the member
was appointed or elected until a qualified successor has been
appointed or elected.
(b) Powers of the Organization.--The Organization--
(1) shall adopt bylaws, consistent with this Act,
regulating, among other things, the manner in which--
(A) the business of the Organization shall be conducted;
(B) the elected members of the Board shall be elected;
(C) the stock of the Organization shall be issued, held,
and disposed of;
(D) the property of the Organization shall be disposed of;
and
(E) the powers and privileges granted to the Organization
by this Act and other law shall be exercised;
(2) may make and perform contracts, agreements, and
commitments, including entering into a cooperative agreement
with the Secretary;
(3) may prescribe and impose fees and charges for services
provided by the Organization;
(4) may, if such settlement, adjustment, compromise,
release, or waiver is not adverse to the interests of the
United States--
(A) settle, adjust, and compromise; and
(B) with or without consideration or benefit to the
Organization, release or waive in whole or in part, in
advance or otherwise, any claim, demand, or right of, by, or
against the Organization;
(5) may sue and be sued, complain and defend, in any
tribal, Federal, State, or other court;
(6) may acquire, take, hold, and own, and to deal with and
dispose of any property;
(7) may determine the necessary expenditures of the
Organization and the manner in which such expenditures shall
be incurred, allowed, and paid, and appoint, employ, and fix
and provide for the compensation and benefits of officers,
employees, attorneys, and agents as the Board determines
reasonable and not inconsistent with this section;
(8) may incorporate a new corporation under State, District
of Columbia, or tribal law, as provided in section 401;
(9) may adopt a plan of merger, as provided in section 402;
(10) may consummate the merger of the Organization into the
new corporation, as provided in section 403; and
(11) may have succession until the designated merger date
or any earlier date on which the Organization surrenders its
Federal charter.
(c) Investment of Funds; Designation as Depositary,
Custodian, or Agent.--
(1) Investment of funds.--Funds of the Organization that
are not required to meet current operating expenses shall be
invested in obligations of, or obligations guaranteed by, the
United States or any agency thereof, or in obligations,
participations, or other instruments that are lawful
investments for fiduciary, trust, or public funds.
(2) Designation as depositary, custodian, or agent.--Any
Federal Reserve bank or Federal home loan bank, or any bank
as to which at the time of its designation by the
Organization there is outstanding a designation by the
Secretary of the Treasury as a general or other depositary of
public money, may--
(A) be designated by the Organization as a depositary or
custodian or as a fiscal or other agent of the Organization;
and
(B) act as such depositary, custodian, or agent.
(d) Actions By and Against the Organization.--
Notwithstanding section 1349 of title 28, United States Code,
or any other provision of law--
(1) the Organization shall be deemed to be an agency
covered under sections 1345 and 1442 of title 28, United
States Code;
(2) any civil action to which the Organization is a party
shall be deemed to arise under the laws of the United States,
and the appropriate district court of the United States shall
have original jurisdiction over any such action, without
regard to amount or value; and
(3) in any case in which all remedies have been exhausted
in accordance with the applicable ordinances of an Indian
tribe, in any civil or other action, case, or controversy in
a tribal court, court of a State, or in any court other than
a district court of the United States, to which the
Organization is a party, may at any time before the
commencement of the trial be removed by the Organization,
without the giving of any bond or security and by following
any procedure for removal of causes in effect at the time of
the removal--
(A) to the district court of the United States for the
district and division in which the action is pending; or
(B) if there is no such district court, to the district
court of the United States for the District of Columbia.
SEC. 102. AUTHORIZED ASSISTANCE AND SERVICE FUNCTIONS.
The Organization may--
[[Page S5136]]
(1) assist in the planning establishment and organization
of Native American Financial Institutions;
(2) develop and provide financial expertise and technical
assistance to Native American Financial Institutions,
including methods of underwriting, securing, servicing,
packaging, and selling mortgage and small commercial and
consumer loans;
(3) develop and provide specialized technical assistance on
overcoming barriers to primary mortgage lending on Native
American lands, including issues related to trust lands,
discrimination, high operating costs, and inapplicability of
standard underwriting criteria;
(4) provide mortgage underwriting assistance (but not in
originating loans) under contract to Native American
Financial Institutions;
(5) work with the Federal National Mortgage Association,
the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, and other
participants in the secondary market for home mortgage
instruments in identifying and eliminating barriers to the
purchase of Native American mortgage loans originated by
Native American Financial Institutions and other lenders in
Native American communities;
(6) obtain capital investments in the Organization from
Indian tribes, Native American organizations, and other
entities;
(7) act as an information clearinghouse by providing
information on financial practices to Native American
Financial Institutions;
(8) monitor and report to Congress on the performance of
Native American Financial Institutions in meeting the
economic development and housing credit needs of Native
Americans; and
(9) provide any of the services described in this section
directly, or under a contract authorizing another national or
regional Native American financial services provider to
assist the Organization in carrying out the purposes of this
Act.
SEC. 103. NATIVE AMERICAN LENDING SERVICES GRANT.
(a) Initial Grant Payment.--If the Secretary and the
Organization enter into a cooperative agreement for the
Organization to provide technical assistance and other
services to Native American Financial Institutions, such
agreement shall, to the extent that funds are available as
provided in section 502, provide that the initial grant
payment, anticipated to be $5,000,000, shall be made when all
members of the initial Board have been appointed under
section 101.
(b) Payment of Grant Balance.--The payment of the grant
balance of $5,000,000 shall be made to the Organization not
later than 1 year after the date on which the initial grant
payment is made under subsection (a).
SEC. 104. AUDITS.
(a) Independent Audits.--
(1) In general.--The Organization shall have an annual
independent audit made of its financial statements by an
independent public accountant in accordance with generally
accepted auditing standards.
(2) Determinations.--In conducting an audit under this
subsection, the independent public accountant shall determine
and report on whether the financial statements of the
Organization--
(A) are presented fairly in accordance with generally
accepted accounting principles; and
(B) to the extent determined necessary by the Secretary,
comply with any disclosure requirements imposed under section
301.
(b) GAO Audits.--
(1) In general.--Beginning after the first 2 years of the
operation of the Organization, unless an earlier date is
required by any other statute, grant, or agreement, the
programs, activities, receipts, expenditures, and financial
transactions of the Organization shall be subject to audit by
the Comptroller General of the United States under such rules
and regulations as may be prescribed by the Comptroller
General.
(2) Access.--To carry out this subsection, the
representatives of the General Accounting Office shall--
(A) have access to all books, accounts, financial records,
reports, files, and all other papers, things, or property
belonging to or in use by the Organization and necessary to
facilitate the audit;
(B) be afforded full facilities for verifying transactions
with the balances or securities held by depositaries, fiscal
agents, and custodians; and
(C) have access, upon request to the Organization or any
auditor for an audit of the Organization under subsection
(a), to any books, accounts, financial records, reports,
files, or other papers, or property belonging to or in use by
the Organization and used in any such audit and to any
papers, records, files, and reports of the auditor used in
such an audit.
(3) Reports.--The Comptroller General of the United States
shall submit to Congress a report on each audit conducted
under this subsection.
(4) Reimbursement.--The Organization shall reimburse the
General Accounting Office for the full cost of any audit
conducted under this subsection.
SEC. 105. ANNUAL HOUSING AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT REPORTS.
Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this
Act, and annually thereafter, the Organization shall collect,
maintain, and provide to the Secretary, in a form determined
by the Secretary, such data as the Secretary determines to be
appropriate with respect to the activities of the
Organization relating to economic development.
SEC. 106. ADVISORY COUNCIL.
(a) Establishment.--The Board shall establish an Advisory
Council in accordance with this section.
(b) Membership.--
(1) In general.--The Council shall consist of 13 members,
who shall be appointed by the Board, including 1
representative from each of the 12 districts established by
the Bureau of Indian Affairs and 1 representative from the
State of Hawaii.
(2) Qualifications.--Not less than 6 of the members of the
Council shall have financial expertise, and not less than 9
members of the Council shall be Native Americans.
(3) Terms.--Each member of the Council shall be appointed
for a 4-year term, except that the initial Council shall be
appointed, as designated by the Board at the time of
appointment, as follows:
(A) Four members shall each be appointed for a 2-year term.
(B) Four members shall each be appointed for a 3-year term.
(C) Five members shall each be appointed for a 4-year term.
(c) Duties.--The Council shall advise the Board on all
policy matters of the Organization. Through the regional
representation of its members, the Council shall provide
information to the Board from all sectors of the Native
American community.
TITLE II--CAPITALIZATION OF ORGANIZATION
SEC. 201. CAPITALIZATION OF THE ORGANIZATION.
(a) Class A Stock.--The class A stock of the Organization
shall--
(1) be issued only to Indian tribes and the Department of
Hawaiian Home Lands;
(2) be allocated--
(A) with respect to Indian tribes, on the basis of Indian
tribe population, as determined by the Secretary in
consultation with the Secretary of the Interior, in such
manner as to issue 1 share for each member of an Indian
tribe; and
(B) with respect to the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands,
on the basis of the number of current leases at the time of
allocation;
(3) have such par value and other characteristics as the
Organization shall provide;
(4) be issued in such manner as voting rights may only be
vested upon purchase of those rights from the Organization by
an Indian tribe or the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands,
each share being entitled to 1 vote; and
(5) be nontransferable.
(b) Class B Stock.--
(1) In general.--The Organization may issue class B stock
evidencing capital contributions in the manner and amount,
and subject to any limitations on concentration of ownership,
as may be established by the Organization.
(2) Characteristics.--Any class B stock issued under
paragraph (1) shall--
(A) be available for purchase by investors;
(B) be entitled to such dividends as may be declared by the
Board in accordance with subsection (c);
(C) have such par value and other characteristics as the
Organization shall provide;
(D) be vested with voting rights, each share being entitled
to 1 vote; and
(E) be transferable only on the books of the Organization.
(c) Charges and Fees; Earnings.--
(1) Charges and fees.--The Organization may impose charges
or fees, which may be regarded as elements of pricing, with
the objectives that--
(A) all costs and expenses of the operations of the
Organization should be within the income of the Organization
derived from such operations; and
(B) such operations would be fully self-supporting.
(2) Earnings.--All earnings from the operations of the
Organization shall be annually transferred to the general
surplus account of the Organization. At any time, funds in
the general surplus account may, in the discretion of the
Board, be transferred to the reserves of the Organization.
(d) Capital Distributions.--
(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), the
Organization may make such capital distributions (as such
term is defined in section 1303 of the Federal Housing
Enterprise Financial Safety and Soundness Act of 1992 (12
U.S.C. 4502)) as may be declared by the Board. All capital
distributions shall be charged against the general surplus
account of the Organization.
(2) Restriction.--The Organization may not make any capital
distribution that would decrease the total capital (as such
term is defined in section 1303 of the Federal Housing
Enterprise Financial Safety and Soundness Act of 1992 (12
U.S.C. 4502)) of the Organization to an amount less than the
capital level for the Organization established under section
301, without prior written approval of the distribution by
the Secretary.
TITLE III--REGULATION, EXAMINATION, AND REPORTS
SEC. 301. REGULATION, EXAMINATION, AND REPORTS.
(a) In General.--The Organization shall be subject to the
regulatory authority of the Department of Housing and Urban
Development with respect to all matters relating to the
financial safety and soundness of the Organization.
[[Page S5137]]
(b) Duty of Secretary.--The Secretary shall ensure that the
Organization is adequately capitalized and operating safely
as a congressionally chartered body corporate.
(c) Reports to Secretary.--
(1) Annual reports.--Not later than 1 year after the date
of enactment of this Act, and annually thereafter, the
Organization shall submit to the Secretary a report
describing the financial condition and operations of the
Organization. The report shall be in such form, contain such
information, and be submitted on such date as the Secretary
shall require.
(2) Contents of reports.--Each report submitted under this
subsection shall contain a declaration by the president, vice
president, treasurer, or any other officer of the
Organization designated by the Board to make such
declaration, that the report is true and correct to the best
of the knowledge and belief of that officer.
SEC. 302. AUTHORITY OF THE SECRETARY OF HOUSING AND URBAN
DEVELOPMENT.
The Secretary shall--
(1) have general regulatory power over the Organization;
and
(2) issue such rules and regulations applicable to the
Organization as the Secretary determines to be necessary or
appropriate to ensure that the purposes specified in section
4 are accomplished.
TITLE IV--FORMATION OF NEW CORPORATION
SEC. 401. FORMATION OF NEW CORPORATION.
(a) In General.--In order to continue the accomplishment of
the purposes specified in section 3 beyond the terms of the
charter of the Organization, the Board shall, not later than
10 years after the date of enactment of this Act, cause the
formation of a new corporation under the laws of any tribe,
any State, or the District of Columbia.
(b) Powers of New Corporation Not Prescribed.--Except as
provided in this section, the new corporation may have any
corporate powers and attributes permitted under the laws of
the jurisdiction of its incorporation which the Board shall
determine, in its business judgment, to be appropriate.
(c) Use of NAFSO Name Prohibited.--The new corporation may
not use in any manner the name ``Native American Financial
Services Organization'' or ``NAFSO'' or any variation
thereof.
SEC. 402. ADOPTION AND APPROVAL OF MERGER PLAN.
(a) In General.--Not later than 10 years after the date of
enactment of this Act and after consultation with the Indian
tribes that are stockholders of class A stock referred to in
section 201(a), the Board shall prepare, adopt, and submit to
the Secretary for approval, a plan for merging the
Organization into the new corporation.
(b) Designated Merger Date.--
(1) In general.--The Board shall establish the designated
merger date in the merger plan as a specific calendar date on
which, and time of day at which, the merger of the
Organization into the new corporation shall take effect.
(2) Changes.--The Board may change the designated merger
date in the merger plan by adopting an amended plan of
merger.
(3) Restriction.--Except as provided in paragraph (4), the
designated merger date in the merger plan or any amended
merger plan shall not be later than 11 years after the date
of enactment of this Act.
(4) Exception.--Subject to the restriction contained in
paragraph (5), the Board may adopt an amended plan of merger
that designates a date later than 11 years after the date of
enactment of this Act if the Board submits to the Secretary a
report--
(A) stating that an orderly merger of the Organization into
the new corporation is not feasible before the latest date
designated by the Board;
(B) explaining why an orderly merger of the Organization
into the new corporation is not feasible before the latest
date designated by the Board;
(C) describing the steps that have been taken to consummate
an orderly merger of the Organization into the new
corporation not later than 11 years after the date of
enactment of this Act; and
(D) describing the steps that will be taken to consummate
an orderly and timely merger of the Organization into the new
corporation.
(5) Limitation.--The date designated by the Board in an
amended merger plan shall not be later than 12 years after
the date of enactment of this Act.
(6) Consummation of merger.--The consummation of an orderly
and timely merger of the Organization into the new
corporation shall not occur later than 13 years after the
date of enactment of this Act.
(c) Governmental Approvals of Merger Plan Required.--The
merger plan or any amended merger plan shall take effect on
the date on which the plan is approved by the Secretary.
(d) Revision of Disapproved Merger Plan Required.--If the
Secretary disapproves the merger plan or any amended merger
plan--
(1) the Secretary shall--
(A) notify the Organization of such disapproval; and
(B) indicate the reasons for the disapproval; and
(2) not later than 30 days after the date of notification
of disapproval under paragraph (1), the Organization shall
submit to the Secretary for approval, an amended merger plan
responsive to the reasons for the disapproval indicated in
that notification.
(e) No Stockholder Approval of Merger Plan Required.--The
approval or consent of the stockholders of the Organization
shall not be required to accomplish the merger of the
Organization into the new corporation.
SEC. 403. CONSUMMATION OF MERGER.
The Board shall ensure that the merger of the Organization
into the new corporation is accomplished in accordance with--
(1) a merger plan approved by the Secretary under section
402; and
(2) all applicable laws of the jurisdiction in which the
new corporation is incorporated.
SEC. 404. TRANSITION.
Except as provided in this section, the Organization shall,
during the transition period, continue to have all of the
rights, privileges, duties, and obligations, and shall be
subject to all of the limitations and restrictions, set forth
in this Act.
SEC. 405. EFFECT OF MERGER.
(a) Transfer of Assets and Liabilities.--On the designated
merger date, all property, real, personal, and mixed, all
debts due on any account, and any other interest, of or
belonging to or due to the Organization, shall be transferred
to and vested in the new corporation without further act or
deed, and title to any property, whether real, personal, or
mixed, shall not in any way be impaired by reason of the
merger.
(b) Termination of the Organization and its Federal
Charter.--On the designated merger date--
(1) the surviving corporation of the merger shall be the
new corporation;
(2) the Federal charter of the Organization shall
terminate; and
(3) the separate existence of the Organization shall
terminate.
(c) References to the Organization in Law.--After the
designated merger date, any reference to the Organization in
any law or regulation shall be deemed to refer to the new
corporation.
(d) Savings Clause.--
(1) Proceedings.--The merger of the Organization into the
new corporation shall not abate any proceeding commenced by
or against the Organization before the designated merger
date, except that the new corporation shall be substituted
for the Organization as a party to any such proceeding as of
the designated merger date.
(2) Contracts and agreements.--All contracts and agreements
to which the Organization is a party and which are in effect
on the day before the designated merger date shall continue
in effect according to their terms, except that the new
corporation shall be substituted for the Organization as a
party to those contracts and agreements as of the designated
merger date.
TITLE V--AUTHORIZATIONS OF APPROPRIATIONS
SEC. 501. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS FOR NATIVE AMERICAN
FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS.
(a) In General.--There are authorized to be appropriated to
the Fund, without fiscal year limitation, $20,000,000 to
provide financial assistance to Native American Financial
Institutions.
(b) Not Matching Funds.--To the extent that a Native
American Financial Institution receives a portion of an
appropriation made under subsection (a), such funds shall not
be considered to be matching funds required of the Native
American Financial Institution under section 108(e) of the
Riegle Community Development and Regulatory Improvement Act
of 1994 (12 U.S.C. 4707(e)).
SEC. 502. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS FOR ORGANIZATION.
The Secretary may, subject to the availability of
appropriations, provide not more than $10,000,000 for the
funding of a cooperative agreement to be entered into by the
Secretary and the Organization for technical assistance and
other services to be provided by the Organization to Native
American Financial Institutions.
ADDITIONAL COSPONSORS
S. 102
At the request of Mr. Breaux, the name of the Senator from Florida
[Mr. Graham] was added as a cosponsor of S. 102, a bill to amend title
XVIII of the Social Security Act to improve medicare treatment and
education for beneficiaries with diabetes by providing coverage of
diabetes outpatient self-management training services and uniform
coverage of blood-testing strips for individuals with diabetes.
S. 387
At the request of Mr. Hatch, the name of the Senator from Michigan
[Mr. Abraham] was added as a cosponsor of S. 387, a bill to amend the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide equity to exports of software.
S. 394
At the request of Mr. Hatch, the name of the Senator from South
Dakota [Mr. Daschle] was added as a cosponsor of S. 394, a bill to
partially restore compensation levels to their past equivalent in terms
of real income and establish the procedure for adjusting future
compensation of justices and judges of the United States.
S. 415
At the request of Mr. Baucus, the name of the Senator from Iowa [Mr.
[[Page S5138]]
Harkin] was added as a cosponsor of S. 415, a bill to amend the
medicare program under title XVIII of the Social Security Act to
improve rural health services, and for other purposes.
S. 428
At the request of Mr. Kohl, the name of the Senator from New Jersey
[Mr. Lautenberg] was added as a cosponsor of S. 428, a bill to amend
chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, to improve the safety of
handguns.
S. 567
At the request of Mr. Smith, the name of the Senator from Arkansas
[Mr. Hutchinson] was added as a cosponsor of S. 567, a bill to permit
revocation by members of the clergy of their exemption from Social
Security coverage.
S. 623
At the request of Mr. Inouye, the name of the Senator from California
[Mrs. Feinstein] was added as a cosponsor of S. 623, a bill to amend
title 38, United States Code, to deem certain service in the organized
military forces of the Government of the Commonwealth of the Philipines
and the Philippine Scouts to have been active service for purposes of
benefits under programs administered by the Secretary of Veterans
Affairs.
S. 711
At the request of Mr. Breaux, the names of the Senator from
Massachusetts [Mr. Kerry] and the Senator from New Mexico [Mr.
Domenici] were added as cosponsors of S. 711, a bill to amend the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to simplify the method of payment of
taxes on distilled spirits.
S. 716
At the request of Mr. Craig, the name of the Senator from Wyoming
[Mr. Thomas] was added as a cosponsor of S. 716, a bill to establish a
Joint United States-Canada Commission on Cattle and Beef to identify,
and recommend means of resolving, national, regional, and provincial
trade-distorting differences between the countries with respect to the
production, processing, and sale of cattle and beef, and for other
purposes.
S. 732
At the request of Mr. Faircloth, the names of the Senator from
Arizona [Mr. Kyl], the Senator from Oklahoma [Mr. Nickles], the Senator
from Utah [Mr. Hatch], the Senator from Tennessee [Mr. Thompson], the
Senator from Rhode Island [Mr. Chafee], the Senator from Alaska [Mr.
Stevens], and the Senator from Iowa [Mr. Grassley] were added as
cosponsors of S. 732, a bill to require the Secretary of the Treasury
to mint and issue coins in commemoration of the centennial anniversary
of the first manned flight of Orville and Wilbur Wright in Kitty Hawk,
North Carolina, on December 17, 1903.
S. 755
At the request of Mr. Campbell, the name of the Senator from New
Hampshire [Mr. Gregg] was added as a cosponsor of 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.
S. 797
At the request of Mr. Chafee, the name of the Senator from
Mississippi [Mr. Lott] was added as a cosponsor of S. 797, a bill to
amend the John F. Kennedy Center Act to authorize the design and
construction of additions to the parking garage and certain site
improvements, and for other purposes.
Senate Joint Resolution 6
At the request of Mrs. Feinstein, the name of the Senator from
Connecticut [Mr. Lieberman] was added as a cosponsor of Senate Joint
Resolution 6, a joint resolution proposing an amendment to the
Constitution of the United States to protect the rights of crime
victims.
Senate Resolution 57
At the request of Mr. Dorgan, the name of the Senator from Tennessee
[Mr. Thompson] was added as a cosponsor of Senate Resolution 57, a
resolution to support the commemoration of the bicentennial of the
Lewis and Clark Expedition.
Senate Resolution 82
At the request of Mr. Bennett, the names of the Senator from Florida
[Mr. Graham], the Senator from Tennessee [Mr. Thompson], the Senator
from Ohio [Mr. DeWine], the Senator from Arkansas [Mr. Hutchinson], the
Senator from Kentucky [Mr. McConnell], and the Senator from Oklahoma
[Mr. Inhofe] were added as cosponsors of Senate Resolution 82, a
resolution expressing the sense of the Senate to urge the Clinton
administration to enforce the provisions of the Iran-Iraq Arms Non-
Proliferation Act of 1992 with respect to the acquisition by Iran of C-
802 cruise missiles.
Amendment No. 314
At the request of Mr. Wellstone the name of the Senator from Illinois
[Ms. Moseley-Braun] was added as a cosponsor of amendment No. 314
proposed to Senate Concurrent Resolution 27, an original concurrent
resolution setting forth the congressional budget for the U.S.
Government for fiscal years 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, and 2002.
Amendment No. 316
At the request of Mr. Abraham the names of the Senator from North
Carolina [Mr. Faircloth], the Senator from Colorado [Mr. Allard], and
the Senator from Texas [Mrs. Hutchison] were added as cosponsors of
amendment No. 316 proposed to Senate Concurrent Resolution 27, an
original concurrent resolution setting forth the congressional budget
for the U.S. Government for fiscal years 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, and
2002.
____________________