[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informed that the land they occupied was withdrawn by the Bureau of 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.

                          ____________________