[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 153 (Wednesday, November 5, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S11764-S11778]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Ms. MIKULSKI (for herself, Ms. Snowe, Mr. Lott, Mr. Sarbanes, 
        Mr. Cochran, Mr. Glenn, Mr. D'Amato, Mr. Hollings, Mr. 
        Hutchinson, Ms. Moseley-Braun, Mr. Inouye, Mr. Ford, and Ms. 
        Collins):
  S. 1370. A bill to amend title II of the Social Security Act to 
provide that a monthly insurance benefit thereunder shall be paid for 
the month in which the recipient dies, subject to a reduction of 50 
percent if the recipient dies, during the first 15 days of such month, 
and for other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.


               THE SOCIAL SECURITY FAMILY PROTECTION ACT

  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, today, I rise to talk about an issue 
that is very important to me, very important to my constituents in 
Maryland and very important to the people of the United States of 
America.
  For the second Congress in a row, I am joining in a bipartisan effort 
with my friend and colleague, Senator Olympia Snowe, to end an unfair 
policy of the Social Security System.
  Senator Snowe and I are introducing the Social Security Family 
Protection Act. This bill addresses retirement security and family 
security. We want the middle class of this Nation to know that we are 
going to give help to those who practice self-help.
  What is it I am talking about? We have found that Social Security 
does not pay benefits for the last month of life. If a Social Security 
retiree dies on the 18th of the month or even on the 30th of the month, 
the surviving spouse or family members must send back the Social 
Security check for that month.
  I think that is an harsh and heartless rule. That individual worked 
for Social Security benefits, earned those benefits, and paid into the 
Social Security trust fund. The system should allow the surviving 
spouse or the estate of the family to use that Social Security check 
for the last month of life.
  This legislation has an urgency, Mr. President. When a loved one 
dies, there are expenses that the family must take care of. People have 
called my office in tears. Very often it is a son or a daughter that is 
grieving the death of a parent. They are clearing up the paperwork for 
their mom or dad, and there is the Social Security check. And they say, 
``Senator, the check says for the month of May. Mom died on May 28. Why 
do we have to send the Social Security check back? We have bills to 
pay. We have utility coverage that we need to wrap up, mom's rent, or 
her mortgage, or health expenses. Why is Social Security telling me, 
`Send the check back or we're going to come and get you'?''
  With all the problems in our country today, we ought to be going 
after drug dealers and tax dodgers, not honest people who have paid 
into Social Security, and not the surviving spouse or the family who 
have been left with the bills for the last month of their loved one's 
life. They are absolutely right when they call me and say that Social 
Security was supposed to be there for them.
  I've listened to my constituents and to the stories of their lives. 
What they say is this: ``Senator Mikulski, we don't want anything for 
free. But our family does want what our parents worked for. We do want 
what we feel we deserve and what has been paid for in the trust fund in 
our loved one's name. Please make sure that our family gets the Social 
Security check for the last month of our life.''
  That is what our bill is going to do. That is why Senator Snowe and I 
are introducing the Family Social Security Protection Act. When we talk 
about retirement security, the most important part of that is income 
security. And the safety net for most Americans is Social Security.
  We know that as Senators we have to make sure that Social Security 
remains solvent, and we are working to do that. We also don't want to 
create an undue administrative burden at the Social Security 
Administration--a burden that might affect today's retirees. But it is 
absolutely crucial that we provide a Social Security check for the last 
month of life.
  How do we propose to do that? We have a very simple, straightforward 
way of dealing with this problem. Our legislation says that if you die 
before the 15th of the month, you will get a check for half the month. 
If you die after the 15th of the month, your surviving spouse or the 
family estate would get a check for the full month.
  We think this bill is fundamentally fair. Senator Snowe and I are 
old-fashioned in our belief in family values. We believe you honor your 
father and your mother. We believe that it is not only a good religious 
and moral principle, but it is good public policy as well.
  The way to honor your father and mother is to have a strong Social 
Security System and to make sure the system is fair in every way. That 
means fair for the retiree and fair for the spouse and family. That is 
why we support making sure that the surviving spouse or family can keep 
the Social Security check for the last month of life.
  Mr. President, we urge our colleagues to join us in this effort and 
support the Social Security Family Protection Act.
  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleague and 
friend, the Senator from Maryland, Senator Mikulski, in introducing 
legislation to correct an inequity that exists in our Social Security 
system.
  Currently, when a Social Security beneficiary dies, his or her last 
monthly benefit check must be returned to the Social Security 
Administration. This provision often causes problems for the surviving 
family members because they are unable to financially subsidize the 
expenses accrued by the late beneficiary in their last month of life. 
The bill we are introducing today is based on legislation I have 
introduced during the last four Congresses. My original legislation 
prorated the Social Security benefit based on the date of death. If the 
beneficiary died before the 15th, the surviving spouse received 50 
percent of the benefit, if the beneficiary died after the 15th, the 
surviving spouse received the entire

[[Page S11765]]

check. The bill Senator Mikulski and I are introducing today expands on 
this bill by making other family members eligible to receive the check 
if there is not a surviving spouse.
  Current law makes an inappropriate assumption that a beneficiary has 
not incurred expenses during his or her last month of life. I know that 
my colleagues have heard, as have Senator Mikulski and I, from 
constituents who have lost a husband or wife, father or mother, toward 
the end of the month, received the Social Security check and spent all 
or part of it to pay the bills, only to receive a notice from Social 
Security that the check must be returned. For many of these people, 
that check was the only income they had and they are left struggling to 
find the money to pay back the Social Security Administration and pay 
the rest of the expense their family member incurred in their last 
month.
  I would like to read a part of a letter I received from a constituent 
about the experience of his family when his brother-in-law died. This 
letter, along with Senator Mikulski's own experience when she lost a 
loved one, serves to highlight why this bill is necessary.

       On February 29, 1996, at 9:20 p.m. he passed away. . . . he 
     was alive for 99.99617% of the month missing a full month by 
     0.0038314%. With this evidence in hand, the SSA then decided 
     that his check for the month of Feburary had to be returned 
     to them. Unfortunately, his debts for the month didn't 
     disappear just because he failed to live the extra 0.0038315% 
     of the month. . . . it would be nice to see some kind of pro-
     rating system put into place for the rest of the people who 
     are going to encounter this ghoulish practice.

  I know that my colleagues have all received letters like this. For 
many of these people, that Social Security check is the only financial 
resource available to deal with the costs incurred during their loved 
one's last day of life. Without it, they are left struggling to find 
the money to pay back the Social Security Administration.
  I believe that this legislation provides a fair solution to an unfair 
situation and I hope my colleagues will join un in supporting this 
bill.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mrs. BOXER (for herself and Mrs. Feinstein):
  S. 1372. A bill to provide for the protection of farmland at the 
Point Reyes National Seashore, and for other purposes; to the Committee 
on Energy and Natural Resources.


   THE POINT REYES NATIONAL SEASHORE FARMLAND PROTECTION ACT OF 1997

  Mrs. BOXER. As with many of our national parks, monuments, and other 
protected treasures, the character and beauty of the Point Reyes 
National Seashore are threatened--not by development or environmental 
degradation within the national seashore--but by proposed development 
outside the boundary line over which the Park Service has no control.
  The Point Reyes National Seashore Farmland Protection Act of 1997, 
which I am introducing today, is an innovative proposal which will 
ensure that the ecological integrity of the Point Reyes National 
Seashore is protected for future generations, while also preserving the 
property rights and historic agricultural use of the farmland in the 
area.
  The legislation establishes a Farmland Protection Area adjacent to 
the Point Reyes National Seashore within which willing farmers and 
ranchers will have the opportunity to sell conservation easements for 
their land. The Farmland Protection Area includes 38,000 acres of the 
eastern shore of Tomales Bay visible from within Point Reyes. Property 
owners within that area will be available, but not required, to sell 
conservation easements to their land.
  Conservation easements are legal agreements between a land-owner and 
a land trust, non-profit, conservation organization. The conservation 
easements restrict development on the land which is incompatible with 
the agricultural uses of the land. The easements would not expand 
public access, pesticide regulations, or hunting rights. Furthermore, 
the easements will remain with the land in perpetuity providing 
security for ranchers as well as continued protection for the national 
seashore.
  The easements will allow existing agricultural activities to continue 
and will preserve the pastoral nature of the land adjacent to Point 
Reyes National Seashore and the Golden Gate National Recreation Areas 
by guaranteeing no new development.
  This bill will not allow the Secretary to acquire land without the 
consent of the owner.
  I believe this legislation will become a model for land conservation 
across the Nation as Governments lack the funds to purchase fee title 
to protect valuable properties from development. This approach may be 
used to address similar problems at other parks, wildlife refuges, and 
marine sanctuaries by preserving compatible land use areas that protect 
view sheds and prevent environmental damage.
  This legislation will allow the National Park Service, working with 
the Marin Agricultural Land Trust [MALT], the Sonoma Land Trust [SLT], 
and the Sonoma County Agricultural Preservation and Open Space District 
[SCAPOSD] to protect this beautiful area at a fraction of the cost of 
acquiring title to the properties within the new boundaries. In 
addition, those properties would be maintained on Marin County's tax 
rolls.
  Without this legislation, almost 40,000 acres of scenic ranch land 
will be vulnerable to development. This bill has the strong support of 
the local farmers and ranchers within the area to be protected, local 
environmental groups including the Marin Conservation League, effected 
local governments and the local chamber of commerce.
  I commend Congresswoman Lynn Woolsey for her hard work and dedication 
to the House companion legislation. She has been working closely with 
interested parties in an effort to find this innovative approach to 
conservation which benefits ranchers, environmentalists, the county, 
and the Park Service alike.
  Last week, the House Resources Committee National Parks and Public 
Lands Subcommittee held a hearing on this legislation. In that hearing, 
concerns were raised over the Department of Interior's involvement in 
the conservation easements and the creation of a boundary around 
private agricultural lands.
  While I understand that the National Park Service is not usually 
involved in agricultural conservation easements I believe it is the 
most suitable agency in this case. The United States Department of 
Agriculture [USDA] does have a program whereby ranchers can sell 
conservation easements. These farmlands may not be critical 
agricultural lands at a national level, but they are critical to the 
Nation's investment in the Point Reyes National Seashore. A simple 
increase in funding for USDA's Farmland Protection Program would not 
ensure any new funding for the Farmland Protection Area.
  That also leads to the need for a boundary. While I believe it would 
be beneficial to authorize conservation easements for the entire 
agricultural area, we must first concentrate on the most critical 
lands. The boundary will ensure that the funding is used on these 
critical lands--lands closest to the national park which the Federal 
Government has the most interest in protecting.
  Currently, there are 18 operating ranches within the existing Point 
Reyes National Seashore. It is my understanding that these ranchers are 
pleased with their relationship with the National Park Service. All the 
landowners who wanted to continue ranching when the Point Reyes 
National Seashore was formed are still operating ranches. In fact, 
every single rancher has signed a statement affirming their 
satisfaction with the continuing cooperation and support they receive 
from the National Park Service as they continue their ranching 
operations.
  This legislation creates a completely voluntary program. Landowners 
who wish to sell their land to developers, continue to have that right. 
While I don't encourage such actions, this legislation does nothing to 
impede it. We have an opportunity here to take an important step toward 
protecting farmers and enhancing a national park. It is not often that 
we have such an occasion where often competing interests can co-exist. 
This legislation provides that opening. I encourage my colleagues to 
support this legislation and I am hopeful that we can pass it quickly.

[[Page S11766]]

  I ask unanimous consent that the full text 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. 1372

       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 ``Point Reyes National 
     Seashore Farmland Protection Act of 1997''.

     SEC. 2. PURPOSES.

       The purposes of this Act are--
       (1) to protect the pastoral nature of the land adjacent to 
     the Point Reyes National Seashore from development that would 
     be incompatible with the character, integrity, and visitor 
     experience of the park;
       (2) to create a model public/private partnership among the 
     Federal, State, and local governments, and as organizations 
     and citizens that will preserve and enhance the agricultural 
     land along Tomales and Bodega Bay Watersheds;
       (3) to protect the substantial Federal investment in Point 
     Reyes National Seashore by protecting land and water 
     resources and maintaining the relatively undeveloped nature 
     of the land surrounding Tomales and Bodega Bays; and
       (4) to preserve productive uses of land and waters in Marin 
     and Sonoma counties adjacent to Point Reyes National 
     Seashore, primarily by maintaining the land in private 
     ownership restricted by conservation easements.

     SEC. 3. ADDITION OF FARMLAND PROTECTION AREA TO POINT REYES 
                   NATIONAL SEASHORE AND ACQUISITION OF 
                   DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS.

       (a) Addition.--Section 2 of Public Law 87-657 (16 U.S.C. 
     459c-1) is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(c) Farmland Protection Area.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Point Reyes National Seashore shall 
     include the Farmland Protection Area depicted on the map 
     numbered 612/60,163 and dated July 1995, which shall be on 
     file and available for public inspection in the Offices of 
     the National Park Service of the Department of the Interior 
     in Washington, District of Columbia.
       ``(2) Objective.--Within the Farmland Protection Area 
     depicted on the map described in paragraph (1), the primary 
     objective shall be to maintain agricultural land in private 
     ownership protected from nonagricultural development by 
     conservation easements.''.
       (b) Farmland Acquisition and Management.--Section 3 of 
     Public Law 97-657 (16 U.S.C. 459c-2) is amended by adding at 
     the end the following:
       ``(d) Farmland Acquisition and Management.--
       ``(1) In general.--Notwithstanding subsections (a) through 
     (c), the Secretary, to encourage continued agricultural use, 
     may acquire land or interests in land from the owners of the 
     land within the Farmland Protection Area depicted on the map 
     described in section 2(c).
       ``(2) Method of acquisition.--
       ``(A) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (4), 
     land and interests in land may be acquired under this 
     subsection only by donation, purchase with donated or 
     appropriated funds, or exchange.
       ``(B) Land acquired by exchange.--Land acquired under this 
     subsection by exchange may be exchanged for land outside the 
     State of California, notwithstanding section 206(b) of the 
     Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 
     1716(b)).
       ``(3) Requirements.--
       ``(A) Priority.--The Secretary shall give priority to--
       ``(i) acquiring interests in land through the purchase of 
     development rights and conservation easements;
       ``(ii) acquiring land and interests in land from nonprofit 
     corporations operating primarily for conservation purposes; 
     and
       ``(iii) acquiring land and interests in land by donation or 
     exchange.
       ``(B) Conservation easements.--The Secretary shall not 
     acquire any conservation easement on land within the Farmland 
     Protection Area from a nonprofit organization that was 
     acquired by the nonprofit organizations before January 1, 
     1997.
       ``(C) Cooperative agreements.--For the purpose of managing, 
     in the most cost-effective manner, interests in land acquired 
     under this subsection, and for the purpose of maintaining 
     continuity with land that has an easement on the date of 
     enactment of this subsection, the Secretary shall enter into 
     cooperative agreements with public agencies or nonprofit 
     organizations having substantial experience holding, 
     monitoring, and managing conservation easements on 
     agricultural land in the region, such as the Marin 
     Agricultural Land Trust, the Sonoma County Agricultural 
     Preservation and Open Space District, and the Sonoma Land 
     Trust.
       ``(4) Regulation.--
       ``(A) In general.--Within the boundaries of the Farmland 
     Protection Area depicted on the map described in section 
     2(c)--
       ``(i) absent an acquisition of privately owned land or an 
     interest in land by the United States, nothing in this Act 
     authorizes any Federal agency or official to regulate the use 
     or enjoyment of privately owned land, including land that, on 
     the date of enactment of this subsection, is subject to an 
     easement held by the Marin Agricultural Land Trust, the 
     Sonoma County Agricultural Preservation and Open Space 
     District, or the Sonoma Land Trust; and
       ``(ii) such privately owned land shall continue under the 
     jurisdiction of the State and political subdivisions within 
     which the land is located.
       ``(B) Permits and leases.--
       ``(i) In general.--The Secretary may permit, or lease, land 
     acquired in fee under this subsection.
       ``(ii) Consistency.--Any such permit or lease shall be 
     consistent with the purposes of the Point Reyes National 
     Seashore Farmland Protection Act of 1997.
       ``(iii) Use of revenues.--Notwithstanding any other 
     provision of law, revenues derived from any such permit or 
     lease--

       ``(I) may be retained by the Secretary; and
       ``(II) shall be available, without further appropriation, 
     for expenditure to further the goals and objectives of 
     agricultural preservation within the boundaries of the area 
     depicted on the map described to in section 2(c).

       ``(C) Land of state and local governments.--Land or an 
     interest in land, within the area depicted on the map 
     described in section 2(c) that is owned by the State of 
     California or a political subdivision of the State of 
     California, may be acquired only by donation or exchange.
       ``(5) Owner's reservation of right.--Section 5 shall not 
     apply with respect to land and or an interest in land 
     acquired under this subsection.''.
       (c) Authorization of Appropriations.--Section 9 of Public 
     Law 87-657 (16 U.S.C. 459c-7) is amended--
       (1) by inserting ``(a) In General.--'' before ``There are 
     authorized''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(b) Land Acquisition.--
       ``(1) In general.--In addition to the sums authorized to be 
     appropriated by this section before the enactment of the 
     Point Reyes National Seashore Farmland Protection Act of 
     1997, there is authorized to be appropriated $30,000,000 to 
     be used on a matching basis to acquire land and interests in 
     land under section 3(d).
       ``(2) Federal share.--The Federal share of the costs for 
     acquiring land and interests in land under section 3(d) shall 
     be 50 percent of the total costs of the acquisition.
       ``(3) Non-federal share.--
       ``(A) Form.--The non-Federal share of the acquisition costs 
     may be paid in the form of property, moneys, services, or in-
     kind contributions, fairly valued.
       ``(B) Land of state and local governments.--For the purpose 
     of determining the non-Federal share of the costs, any land 
     or interests in land that is within the boundaries of the 
     area depicted on the map described in section 2(c), that, on 
     the date of enactment of this subsection, is held under a 
     conservation easement by the Marin Agricultural Land Trust, 
     the Sonoma County Agricultural Preservation and Open Space 
     District, the Sonoma Land Trust, or any other land protection 
     agency or by the State of California or any political 
     subdivision of the State, shall be considered to be a 
     matching contribution from non-Federal sources in an amount 
     that is equal to the fair market value of the land or 
     interests in land, as determined by the Secretary.''.
                                 ______
                                 

  By Mr. MURKOWSKI:
  S. 1373. A bill to establish the Commonwealth of Guam, and for other 
purposes; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.


                       THE GUAM COMMONWEALTH ACT

  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I send to the desk, for appropriate 
reference, legislation to establish the Commonwealth of Guam. This 
measure is identical to H.R. 100 which was introduced by Congressman 
Underwood. I am introducing this measure at the request of Congressman 
Underwood and Governor Gutierrez of Guam.
  The quest for self-government and recognition of the authority to 
determine the laws and programs that facilitate or impede our social, 
political, and economic growth are an integral part of the territorial 
history of this Nation. Even before the Constitution had been ratified, 
the Northwest Ordinance set the pattern for the territory subject to 
the new Federal Government. The ordinance set a policy that the 
territory would be settled as soon as possible and admitted into the 
Union with the other States. That policy, of full self-government and 
limited governance from the Federal Establishment, marked territorial 
policy until the beginning of this century.
  While this century has seen the admission of States such as Arizona 
and New Mexico, as well as the more recent admission of Alaska and 
Hawaii, the progress of full self-government has been slower for most 
of the areas acquired as a result of the Spanish-American War or since 
that time. In 1898, a century ago, the United States acquired the 
Philippines, Guam, and Puerto Rico. In 1900 and 1904 treaties of 
cession confirmed the extension of sovereignty over American Samoa. In 
1916

[[Page S11767]]

we acquired the Virgin Islands. In 1976 the covenant that provided the 
basis for the acquisition of the Northern Mariana Islands was enacted 
following a plebiscite in the islands.
  These areas, with the exception of the Philippines, have not followed 
the path taken by the other territories of the United States. The 
Philippines achieved commonwealth and independence, although World War 
II delayed full implementation. Shortly after World War II, Puerto Rico 
was permitted to replace the local government provisions of federal 
organic legislation with a locally drafted Constitution and to elect 
its Governor. Not until the 1970's were Guam, the Virgin Islands, and 
American Samoa afforded the opportunity to popularly elect their own 
Governor. Also, during that period, Guam and the Virgin Islands were 
provided the opportunity to develop a constitution to govern local 
matters.
  The Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands and American Samoa 
are in a slightly different situation. American Samoa has a locally 
developed constitution promulgated by secretarial order and the 
Northern Marianas operate under the local constitution authorized under 
the covenant.
  The process of local self-government and improvements in Federal-
territorial relations has not stopped for any of these areas. This 
Congress has already seen as much attention as has occurred over the 
past decade. The Senate has passed legislation that provides the Virgin 
Islands with the same flexibility to issue short-and long-term bonds as 
the States enjoy. The Senate has also passed legislation that would 
reform the way surplus Federal lands are disposed of in Guam, providing 
the Government of Guam with an effective voice in decisions with 
respect to future land use management. We have also considered 
modifications requested by the executives in Guam and the Virgin 
Islands to the powers of the Governor and Lieutenant Governor. Both the 
Senate and the House have pending legislation to provide a referendum 
in Puerto Rico on future political status. In that context we are 
considering status in the larger constitutional context of Statehood or 
independence as well as possible refinements to the present 
relationship. We also have pending in the Senate legislation forwarded 
by the administration that would revise Federal-territorial relations 
with the Northern Marianas in the areas of minimum wage, immigration, 
and trade.
  The legislation that I am introducing today is a very broad approach 
to Federal relations with Guam. The provisions address several 
different issues ranging from problems over resource allocation and use 
to operations of government to social and cultural issues. In the past 
decade since the voters in Guam approved the present draft, some of the 
provisions, such as judicial reform or disposal of excess Federal 
lands, have been addressed individually. Others may no longer be 
relevant due to other changes. The central issue, however, is as 
current and relevant as it was in 1982 when the voters in Guam decided 
to seek commonwealth as a means to obtain greater self-government.
  The central issue is the proper role and authority of Federal versus 
local government. Where should decisions be made, be they right or 
wrong, and who should bear the burden of providing for the future? 
Should the Federal or local government have the authority to safeguard 
and manage local resources and provide for the health, safety, 
education, and welfare of the local residents? Should noncontiguous 
areas bear the burden of regulations crafted to meet the needs of the 
contiguous United States and for the administrative convenience of 
bureaucrats in Washington? I use the word noncontiguous because the 
concerns that led Guam to seek the provisions of this legislation are 
equally applicable to areas in Alaska or Hawaii. Status, in the 
constitutional sense, is not the problem or the answer, but rather the 
allocation of power and authority under the Constitution between 
Federal and local government.
  An example of this would be the application of provisions of the 
Clean Air Act to Guam. Notwithstanding the fact that Guam is a 
relatively small island located in the western Pacific in the middle of 
the trade winds, it had to comply with the same emission requirements 
as did places like Los Angeles or Washington. My colleagues should 
remember that what made Guam so valuable to the Spanish was that the 
galleons leaving Acapulco were blown by the trade winds to Guam, where 
they reprovisioned prior to heading to Manila. The powerplants in Guam 
were required to install expensive scrubbers even though the nearest 
point of land was the Philippines. Eventually we managed to obtain a 
waiver for Guam, but it was only after years of effort by our 
committee, with the help I would note of my colleagues on the 
Environment and Public Works Committee, to convince EPA that granting a 
waiver for Guam was not a precedent for exempting the State of 
Nebraska. Alaska and Hawaii have not been as successful, I would note. 
Another example is the visa waiver that we finally managed to obtain 
for Guam for tourists.
  These are not unique problems. Administrative convenience seems to 
always outweigh the realities of life in the noncontiguous areas, nor 
are our provisions uniform. In some instances, the difference in 
treatment aggravates the local unhappiness with Washington. Guam is the 
southernmost of the Mariana Islands. The Northern Mariana Islands, 
which can be seen from Guam, are not subject to the Jones Act, but Guam 
is. The Virgin Islands has an exception, but Guam does not. While I 
would never argue for uniformity as an inflexible principle, I do think 
that Washington can be considerably more creative than it has been, and 
certainly can be more understanding of the uniqueness of the 
noncontiguous areas.
  Insensitivity is also a reason underlying some of the provisions of 
the legislation. The most recent example is the actions of the Fish and 
Wildlife Service in carrying out its land grab in Guam. Rather than 
devoting resources to the eradication of the brown tree snake, the Fish 
and Wildlife Service rushed to use the depredation caused by the snake 
as a reason for creating a refuge and overlay covering almost one-third 
of Guam. Well know habitat such as runways were covered. The reason for 
the rush to create the refuge is understandable since several of the 
native species are already extinct and the rest are scurrying for what 
little remains of their existence from the snake. If the Fish and 
Wildlife Service had not moved quickly, they would have had to defend 
creating the only refuge for non-existent species. I suppose they could 
have used it as a precedent for creating a refuge for dinosaurs in Utah 
and locking up whatever lands the President and Secretary Babbitt 
missed last year. In that context, I would suggest that at the next 
meeting of the Western Governors, the Governors of Guam and Utah swap 
stories of Federal land grabs.

  I am in full sympathy with the objectives of this legislation. The 
Governor of Guam may feel that he is alone, but we in Alaska know full 
well what dealing with Washington entails. We also must deal with 
insensitive bureaucrats, acquisitive Secretaries, irrelevant stateside 
standards, and a wealth of officious and fussy Federal agencies who 
seem to have as their sole mission making life as difficult, expensive, 
and complex as possible. Guam at least has a central road system and 
the possibility of developing the southern end of the island--an option 
that Federal managers are committed to denying Alaska. I fully 
understand the frustrations that led the U.S. citizens in Guam to 
develop this legislation. Unfortunately, I must say that the problem is 
not the plenary authority of Congress under the Territorial Clause.
  As I stated, this legislation is a companion measure to one 
introduced by Congressman Underwood and I am introducing it at his 
request and at the request of the Governor of Guam. I ask unanimous 
consent that a copy of the letter be included in the Record.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See exhibit 1.)
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I do not necessarily support every 
provision in this legislation as drafted, but I do support the 
underlying objective of redressing the balance of power and authority 
between Washington and Agana. As a result of my trip to Guam last year, 
I introduced legislation to deal with the disposal of surplus Federal 
property and prevent any future

[[Page S11768]]

land grabs such as the one engaged in by the Fish and Wildlife Service. 
That legislation was not everything that either the Governor or I would 
have preferred, but I think that the end result of the Senate action, 
if finally enacted, will be a significant improvement in Federal-
territorial relations. I intend to take the same constructive approach 
to the provisions of this legislation.
  I appreciate that questions have been raised over some of the 
provisions from constitutional as well as policy grounds, but that 
should not be an excuse to avoid addressing the underlying concerns 
that led to the drafting and approval of those provisions by the voters 
in Guam. As I said before, we have a lot of experience with foolish and 
petty restrictions from Federal agencies. As a percentage, far more of 
Alaska is subject to Federal land domination and our communities suffer 
the consequences of an inability to obtain transportation and utility 
corridors across the Federal lands. I have sympathy and sensitivity to 
local cultural concerns as well because we also see Federal agencies 
trying to frustrate the benefits and protections afforded our Native 
Alaskans. Guam is concerned over the loss of the economic potential of 
its marine resources and Alaska holds the single most promising 
petroleum area on the continent.
  I hope to meet shortly with the Governor and with members of the Guam 
Legislature to discuss the provisions of this legislation. I fully 
expect that the next few years will be particularly active for our 
Committee as we consider not only how to improve and strengthen local 
self-government in and revise Federal relations with Guam, but also 
deal with concerns that have arisen with some of the expectations and 
implementation of provisions of the Northern Marianas Covenant, 
political status in Puerto Rico, and renegotiation and extension of 
certain provisions of the Compacts of Free Association with the 
Republic of the Marshall Islands and the Federated States of 
Micronesia. Much has happened in the north Pacific since World War II 
and it is our responsibility to be as sensitive and responsible as 
possible to the needs and aspirations of the local governments who are 
either within or in free association with the United States. I 
encourage my colleagues to take the time to become more familiar with 
these areas and to take their particular needs and problems into 
consideration when crafting legislation. It is far easier to address 
the situation of the noncontiguous areas at the outset of legislative 
efforts, than it is to come in later when we have entrenched 
bureaucrats who see their power threatened if we act responsibly.

                               Exhibit 1

                                              Carl T.C. Gutierrez,


                                             Governor of Guam.

                                              Robert A. Underwood,


                                           Member of Congress,

                                                 October 29, 1997.
     Senator Frank Murkowski,
     Chairman, Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Murkowski: Today we had our first hearing on 
     H.R. 100, the Guam Commonwealth Act, before the House 
     Committee on Resources. As we work with the Members of the 
     House Committee to perfect their version, we believe it is 
     time to move forward and proceed to the next step in the 
     process.
       Therefore, we respectfully request your support for the 
     introduction of companion legislation to this bill in the 
     Senate and consideration of a hearing at the earliest 
     possible convenience of the committee.
       We pledge to work closely with you and your staff and 
     assist you in any way we can.
           Sincerely,
     Carl T.C. Gutierrez,
       Governor of Guam.
     Robert A. Underwood,
       Member of Congress.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. McCAIN:
  S. 1374. A bill to clarify that unmarried adult children of 
Vietnamese reeducation camp internees are eligible for refugee status 
under the Orderly Departure Program; to the Committee on Foreign 
Relations.


        THE ORDERLY DEPARTURE PROGRAM CLARIFICATION ACT OF 1997

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation that is 
basically a technical correction to language that I had included in the 
fiscal year 1997 Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Act. That 
language, and the legislation I offer today, are designed to make 
humanitarian exceptions for the unmarried adult children of former 
reeducation camp detainees seeking to emigrate to the United States 
under the Orderly Departure Program [ODP]. Despite what I considered to 
have been pretty unambiguous legislation in both word and intent, the 
Immigration and Naturalization Service and Department of State 
interpreted my amendment to the 1997 bill so as to exclude the very 
people to whom the provision was targeted.
  An amendment identical to the bill I am introducing today was 
included, without objection, to the State Department authorization bill 
for fiscal year 1998. Because that bill is hung-up over an unrelated 
issue, and because the State Department ceased accepting new 
applications for the ODP at the end of September, it was imperative 
that another avenue be sought for attaining passage of this important 
legislation. I wish to reiterate that this is an uncontroversial bill, 
supported earlier this year by the Senate, and which enjoys the backing 
of the Department of State.
  Prior to April 1995, the adult unmarried children of former 
Vietnamese re-education camp prisoners were granted derivative refugee 
status and were permitted to accompany their parents to the United 
States under a subprogram of the Orderly Departure Program.
  This policy changed in April 1995. My amendment to fiscal year 1997 
foreign operations appropriations bill, which comprises part of the 
Omnibus Appropriations Act, was intended to restore the status quo ante 
regarding the adult unmarried children of former prisoners. My comments 
in the Congressional Record from July 25, 1996, clearly spelled this 
out.
  Unfortunately, certain categories of children who, prior to April 
1995, had received derivative refugee status and whom Congress intended 
to be covered by last year's amendment, are now considered ineligible 
to benefit from that legislation.
  First, prior to April 1995 the widows of prisoners who died in re-
education camps were permitted to be resettled in the United States 
under this subprogram of the ODP, and their unmarried adult children 
were allowed to accompany them. These children are now considered 
ineligible to benefit from last year's legislation.
  To ask these widows to come to the United States without their 
children is equal to denying them entry under the program. Many of 
these women are elderly and in poor health, and the presence of their 
children is essential to providing the semblance of a family unit with 
the care that includes.
  The second problem stemming from INS and the State Department's 
interpretation of the 1997 language involves the roughly 20 percent of 
former Vietnamese re-education camp prisoners resettled in the United 
States who were processed as immigrants, at the convenience of the 
United States Government.
  Their unmarried adult children, prior to April 1995, were still given 
derivative refugee status; however, the position of INS and State is 
that these children are now ineligible because the language in the 
fiscal year 1997 bill included the phrase ``processed as refugees for 
resettlement in the United States.''
  That phrase was intended to identify the children of former prisoners 
being brought to the United States under the subprogram of the ODP and 
eligible to be processed as a refugee--which all clearly were--as 
distinct from the children of former prisoners who were not being 
processed for resettlement in the United States.
  The fact that a former prisoner, eligible to be processed as a 
refugee under the ODP subprogram, was processed as an immigrant had no 
effect prior to April 1995, and their children were granted refugee 
status. The intention of last year s legislation was to restore the 
status quo ante, including for the unmarried adult children of former 
prisoners eligible for and included in this subprogram but resettled as 
migrants.
  Mr. President, I urge support for this legislation.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.

[[Page S11769]]

  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 1374

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

     SECTION 1. ELIGIBILITY FOR REFUGEE STATUS.

       Section 584 of the Foreign Operations, Export Financing, 
     and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 1997 (Public Law 
     104-208; 110 Stat. 3009-171) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)--
       (A) by striking ``For purposes'' and inserting 
     ``Notwithstanding any other provision of law, for purposes''; 
     and
       (B) by striking ``fiscal year 1997'' and inserting ``fiscal 
     years 1997 and 1998''; and
       (2) by amending subsection (b) to read as follows:
       ``(b) Aliens Covered.--
       ``(1) In general.--An alien described in this subsection is 
     an alien who--
       ``(A) is the son or daughter of a qualified national;
       ``(B) is 21 years of age or older; and
       ``(C) was unmarried as of the date of acceptance of the 
     alien's parent for resettlement under the Orderly Departure 
     Program.
       ``(2) Qualified national.--For purposes of paragraph (1), 
     the term `qualified national' means a national of Vietnam 
     who--
       ``(A)(i) was formerly interned in a reeducational camp in 
     Vietnam by the Government of the Socialist Republic of 
     Vietnam; or
       ``(ii) is the widow or widower of an individual described 
     in clause (i); and
       ``(B)(i) qualified for refugee processing under the 
     reeducation camp internees subprogram of the Orderly 
     Departure Program; and
       ``(ii) on or after April 1, 1995, is accepted--
       ``(I) for resettlement as a refugee; or
       ``(II) for admission as an immigrant under the Orderly 
     Departure Program.''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. KOHL (for himself, Mr. Feingold, Mr. Bumpers, Mr. Johnson, 
        Mr. Bingaman, and Mr. Jeffords):
  S. 1375. A bill to promote energy conservation investments in Federal 
facilities, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Energy and 
Natural Resources.


                  the federal energy bank act of 1997

  Mr. KOHL.
  Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation entitled ``the 
Federal Energy Bank Act.'' The purpose of this legislation is to 
provide a stable long-term source of funding for energy efficiency 
projects throughout the Federal Government. If we are to start the 
Nation on the road toward increased energy conservation we must begin 
with the Federal Government. This bill will help provide the necessary 
investments to make this first step toward long-term energy 
conservation possible.
  I have long believed that our Nation must implement a sensible 
national energy policy which emphasizes greater energy conservation and 
efficiency, as well as the development of renewable resources. This 
bill is just one step of many that need to be taken to reduce our 
energy consumption problems. The events in the Middle East, coupled 
with the environmental problems associated with the use of fossil 
fuels, have only increased the need for improved energy conservation. 
Simply put, we cannot continue to rely on imported oil to meet such a 
large part of our Nation's energy needs. This dependence places our 
economic security at great risk. At present, petroleum imports account 
for fully one-half of our trade deficit. In addition, the use of oil 
and other fossil fuels contributes to global climate change, air 
pollution, and acid rain.
  Mr. President our attempts to remedy this situation are nothing new. 
In fact, the laws requiring significant energy use reductions are 
already in place. The Energy Policy Act of 1992 mandated that Federal 
agencies use cost-effective measures, with less than a 10-year payback, 
to reduce energy consumption in their facilities by 20 percent by the 
year 2000 compared to 1985 levels. President Clinton, with Executive 
Order 12902, extended the mandate by requiring Federal agencies to 
reduce energy consumption by 30 percent by the year 2005 compared to 
1985 energy uses. If accomplished, this would save the American 
taxpayer millions in annual energy costs and in turn put us on the road 
to future energy savings. This would also improve our environment, our 
balance of trade, and our national security.
  But the road toward energy efficiency or even self-sufficiency is not 
an easy one and requires capital investment. The administration and 
Congress must back their policies with real dollars for investment in 
energy efficiency projects. According to the recent Federal energy 
efficiency and water conservation study, drafted by the Department of 
Energy, an investment of $5.7 billion is required through 1996 to 2005 
to meet National Energy Policy and Conservation Act and Executive order 
goals. The best estimate of the total funding available has resulted in 
a shortfall of $2 billion. Without significant funding the goals as set 
forth by the President will not be met. Laws and mandates alone will 
not solve our energy problems. It requires long-term capital 
investment.
  Mr. President, my business background has taught me that most large 
paybacks come from positive long-term investments. Unfortunately, the 
Federal Government does not traditionally take this approach. More 
often that not, it seeks short-term savings and cuts which do not 
address the problem of energy consumption or encourage future energy 
conservation.
  Mr. President, my bill will help address this funding shortfall. The 
bill creates a bank to fund the purchase of energy efficiency projects 
by Federal agencies and in the long run will reduce the overall amount 
of money spent on energy consumption by the Federal Government. For 
each of the fiscal years 1999, 2000, 2001, each Federal agency will 
contribute an amount equal to 5 percent of its previous year's utility 
costs into a fund or bank managed by the Secretary of the Treasury.
  The Secretary of Energy will authorize loans from the bank to any 
Federal agency for use toward investment in energy efficiency projects. 
The agency will then repay the loan, making the bank self-supporting 
after a few years. The Secretary of Energy will also establish 
selection criteria for each energy efficiency project, determining the 
project is cost-effective and produces a payback in 3 years or less. 
Agencies will be required to report the progress of each project with a 
cost of more than $1 million to the Secretary 1 year after 
installation. The Secretary will then report to Congress each year on 
all the operations of the bank.
  Mr. President, this bill will provide the real dollars required to 
make the Executive order goals a reality. The Congressional Budget 
Office has projected a 5-year savings for the bill at $3 million. Our 
energy savings will be even greater over the long term.
  Mr. President, in closing I would like to thank Johnson Controls, the 
largest public company in Wisconsin, for their continued leadership and 
input on this bill. As a maker of energy conservation systems, Johnson 
has provided me with the real world insights that have helped me draft 
a bill that attempts to address our energy conservation needs.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the full text of the bill be 
printed in full in the Record. I urge my colleagues to support this 
bill and will push for its early enactment.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 1375

       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 ``Federal Energy Bank Act''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSE.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
       (1) energy conservation is a cornerstone of national energy 
     security policy;
       (2) the Federal Government is the largest consumer of 
     energy in the economy of the United States;
       (3) many opportunities exist for significant energy cost 
     savings within the Federal Government; and
       (4) to achieve the energy savings required by Executive 
     Order, the Federal Government must make significant 
     investments in energy savings systems and products, including 
     energy management control systems.
       (b) Purpose.--The purpose of this Act is to promote energy 
     conservation investments in Federal facilities.

     SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act:
       (1) Agency.--The term ``agency'' means--
       (A) an Executive agency (as defined in section 105 of title 
     5, United States Code, except that the term also includes the 
     United States Postal Service);
       (B) Congress and any other entity in the legislative 
     branch; and
       (C) a court and any other entity in the judicial branch.
       (2) Bank.--The term ``Bank'' means the Federal Energy Bank 
     established by section 4.
       (3) Energy efficiency project.--The term ``energy 
     efficiency project'' means a project that assists an agency 
     in meeting or exceeding the energy efficiency goals stated 
     in--

[[Page S11770]]

       (A) part 3 of title V of the National Energy Conservation 
     Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 8251 et seq.);
       (B) subtitle F of title I of the Energy Policy Act of 1992; 
     and
       (C) applicable Executive orders, including Executive Order 
     Nos. 12759 and 12902.
       (4) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
     of Energy.
       (5) Total utility payments.--The term ``total utility 
     payments'' means payments made to supply electricity, natural 
     gas, and any other form of energy to provide the heating, 
     ventilation, and air conditioning, lighting, and other energy 
     needs of an agency facility.

     SEC. 4. ESTABLISHMENT OF BANK.

       (a) In General.--There is established in the Treasury of 
     the United States a trust fund to be known as the ``Federal 
     Energy Bank'', consisting of--
       (1) such amounts as are appropriated to the Bank under 
     section 8;
       (2) such amounts as are transferred to the Bank under 
     subsection (b);
       (3) such amounts as are repaid to the Bank under section 
     5(b)(4); and
       (4) any interest earned on investment of amounts in the 
     Bank under subsection (c).
       (b) Transfers to Bank.--
       (1) In general.--At the beginning of each of fiscal years 
     1999, 2000, and 2001, each agency shall transfer to the 
     Secretary of the Treasury, for deposit in the Bank, an amount 
     equal to 5 percent of the total utility payments paid by the 
     agency in the preceding fiscal year.
       (2) Utilities paid for as part of rental payments.--The 
     Secretary shall by regulation establish a formula by which 
     the appropriate portion of a rental payment that covers the 
     cost of utilities shall be considered to be a utility payment 
     for the purposes of paragraph (1).
       (c) Investment of Funds.--The Secretary of the Treasury 
     shall invest such portion of funds in the Bank as is not, in 
     the Secretary's judgment, required to meet current 
     withdrawals. Investments may be made only in interest-bearing 
     obligations of the United States.

     SEC. 5. LOANS FROM THE BANK.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary of the Treasury shall 
     transfer from the Bank to the Secretary such amounts as are 
     appropriated to carry out the loan program under subsection 
     (b).
       (b) Loan Program.--
       (1) In general.--In accordance with section 6, the 
     Secretary shall establish a program to loan amounts from the 
     Bank to any agency that submits an application satisfactory 
     to the Secretary in order to finance an energy efficiency 
     project.
       (2) Performance contracting funding.--To the extent 
     practicable, an agency shall not submit a project for which 
     performance contracting funding is available.
       (3) Purposes of loan.--
       (A) In general.--A loan under this section may be made to 
     pay the costs of--
       (i) an energy efficiency project; or
       (ii) development and administration of a performance 
     contract.
       (B) Limitation.--An agency may use not more than 15 percent 
     of the amount of a loan under subparagraph (A)(i) to pay the 
     costs of administration and proposal development (including 
     data collection and energy surveys).
       (4) Repayments.--
       (A) In general.--An agency shall repay to the Bank the 
     principal amount of the energy efficiency project loan plus 
     interest at a rate determined by the President, in 
     consultation with the Secretary and the Secretary of the 
     Treasury.
       (B) Waiver.--The Secretary may waive the requirement of 
     subparagraph (A) if the Secretary determines that payment of 
     interest by an agency is not required to sustain the needs of 
     the Bank in making energy efficiency project loans.
       (5) Agency energy budgets.--Until a loan is repaid, an 
     agency budget submitted to Congress for a fiscal year shall 
     not be reduced by the value of energy savings accrued as a 
     result of the energy conservation measure implemented with 
     funds from the Bank.
       (6) Availability of funds.--An agency shall not rescind or 
     reprogram funds made available by this Act. Funds loaned to 
     an agency shall be retained by the agency until expended, 
     without regard to fiscal year limitation.

     SEC. 6. SELECTION CRITERIA.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary shall establish criteria for 
     the selection of energy efficiency projects to be awarded 
     loans in accordance with subsection (b).
       (b) Selection Criteria.--The Secretary may make loans only 
     for energy efficiency projects that--
       (1) are technically feasible;
       (2) are determined to be cost-effective using life cycle 
     cost methods established by the Secretary by regulation;
       (3) include a measurement and management component to--
       (A) commission energy savings for new Federal facilities; 
     and
       (B) monitor and improve energy efficiency management at 
     existing Federal facilities; and
       (4) have a project payback period of 3 years or less.

     SEC. 7. REPORTS AND AUDITS.

       (a) Reports to the Secretary.--Not later than 1 year after 
     the installation of an energy efficiency project that has a 
     total cost of more than $1,000,000, and each year thereafter, 
     an agency shall submit to the Secretary a report that--
       (1) states whether the project meets or fails to meet the 
     energy savings projections for the project; and
       (2) for each project that fails to meet the savings 
     projections, states the reasons for the failure and describes 
     proposed remedies.
       (b) Audits.--The Secretary may audit any energy efficiency 
     project financed with funding from the Bank to assess the 
     project's performance.
       (c) Reports to Congress.--At the end of each fiscal year, 
     the Secretary shall submit to Congress a report on the 
     operations of the Bank, including a statement of the total 
     receipts into the Bank, and the total expenditures from the 
     Bank to each agency.

     SEC. 8. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       There are authorized to be appropriated such sums as are 
     necessary to carry out this Act.

  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I am delighted to join with my 
colleague, the senior Senator from Wisconsin [Mr. Kohl] as an original 
co-sponsor of the Federal Energy Bank Act.
  The idea of the Federal Government leading by example in the area of 
energy efficiency has made sense to me for a long time, so much so, in 
fact, that in campaigning for the Senate in 1992, I included energy 
efficiency in my campaign platform. I proposed an 82-point plan to 
reduce the deficit, a series of specific spending reductions and 
revenue changes which, if enacted in sum total, would have eliminated 
the deficit.
  Among those items, as I was a candidate for office after the passage 
of the 1992 Energy Policy Act and after the United States' signing of 
the Framework Convention on Climate Change in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, 
was one to encourage the Federal Government to implement a 
comprehensive energy savings program for the Federal Government through 
energy efficiency investments.
  After all, I believe that if Wisconsin consumers and business have 
been converted to the wisdom of compact fluorescent light bulbs, 
efficient heating and cooling systems, weatherization, and energy 
saving computers, among the wide range of potential efficiency 
improvements, that the Federal Government promoting those actions 
should also make the same investments to the taxpayers' benefit.
  Section 152 of the Energy Policy Act mandated that Federal agencies 
use all cost-effective measures that could be implemented with less 
than a 10-year payback to reduce energy consumption in their facilities 
by 20 percent by the year 2000 compared to 1985 consumption levels.
  On March 8, 1994, President Clinton signed Executive Order 12902. 
This order was an even more aggressive mandate to improve energy 
efficiency in Federal buildings nationwide by requiring agencies to use 
cost-effective measures to reduce energy use by fiscal year 2005 by 30 
percent compared with the agency's 1985 energy use.
  After taking office, I have learned that among the most significant 
constraints to implementing more energy efficient practices in the 
Federal Government is the lack of sufficient funds to invest in energy 
efficient equipment.
  Section 162 of the Energy Policy Act of 1992 directed the Secretary 
of Energy to conduct a detailed study of options for financing energy 
and water conservation measures in Federal facilities as required under 
the act and by subsequent Executive orders. On June 3, 1997, the 
Secretary of Energy, Mr. Pena released that study. It documents a need 
for a $5.7 billion financial investment between 1996 and 2005 to meet 
the Energy Policy Act and Executive order goals, a value which could 
vary from a low of $4.4 billion to a high of $7.1 billion given 
variability in both energy and water investment requirements.
  The best estimate, according to the same study of the total Federal 
funding available to spend on energy and water efficiency improvements 
from various sources, including direct agency appropriations, energy 
savings performance contracts, and utility demand-side management 
programs, and appropriations to the Federal energy efficiency fund, to 
the Federal Government to meet those needs over the same time period is 
$3.7 billion. Thus, under DOE's best estimate, at the Federal level we 
face a potential shortfall of funds necessary to achieve our Federal 
energy and water conservation objectives of $2 billion.

[[Page S11771]]

  In order to address this shortfall, I am pleased joining as a 
cosponsor of this legislation to create a Federal energy revolving fund 
or ``energy bank.''
  Some in this body may be concerned that the existence of the current 
Federal energy efficiency fund alleviates the need for additional 
Federal conservation investment. The problem with the current fund, 
which operates as a grant program for agencies to make efficiency 
improvements, is that it does not contribute to the replenishment of 
capital resources because it does not have to be paid back and is 
therefore dependent upon appropriations.
  Under the legislation, I join in co-sponsoring with my colleague from 
Wisconsin today, Federal agencies will be required, in fiscal years 
1998-2000, to deposit an amount equal to 5 percent of their total 
utility payments in the proceeding fiscal year to capitalize the fund. 
After 2000, the Secretary of Energy will determine an amount necessary 
to ensure that the fund meets its obligations.
  Agencies will then be able to get a loan from the fund to finance 
efficiency projects, which they will be responsible for repaying with 
interest. The projects must use off-the-shelf technologies and must be 
cost effective.
  The best part of this approach is that the technologies are required 
to have a 3-year pay back period, and, therefore, this legislation 
achieves some modest savings for the taxpayer. CBO scores this measure 
as saving $3 million over 5 years.
  In addition to savings for the taxpayer, I am also pleased to assist 
the Federal Government in advancing what I believe to be an important 
part of our overall strategy to combat greenhouse gas emissions. As 
many in the body are aware, President Clinton announced his plan for 
meeting the challenge of global climate change on October 22, 1997, in 
preparation for negotiating meetings in Bonn, Germany on a new protocol 
to the Climate Convention. Among the items the President cited was the 
need to do more in the area of federal energy management. Aggressive 
energy management can reduce carbon emissions from the activities of 
the Federal Government, which, the President indicated, has the 
Nation's largest energy bill at almost $8 billion per year. The 
President specifically stated that there is a need to improve federal 
procurement of energy efficient technologies, and this measure is a 
positive, proactive measure to ensure that federal agencies 
specifically set aside funds to achieve this goal. The senior Senator 
from Wisconsin [Mr. Kohl] and I look forward to working with the 
administration to advance this legislation as a piece of the country's 
overall greenhouse gas reductions strategy.
  In conclusion, I look forward to working with my senior Senator on 
this issue. I believe that this is a unique opportunity for Senate 
colleagues to support legislation that is both fiscally responsible and 
environmentally sound.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. AKAKA (for himself and Mr. Inouye):
  S. 1376. A bill to increase the Federal medical assistance percentage 
for Hawaii to 59.8 percent; to the Committee on Finance.


the hawaii federal medical assistance percentage adjustment act of 1997

  Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to 
adjust the Federal medical assistance percentage [FMAP] rate for Hawaii 
to reflect more fairly the State's ability to bear its share of 
Medicaid payments. I am pleased that my colleague, the senior Senator 
from Hawaii, Senator Inouye, has joined me as a sponsor of this 
measure.

  The Federal share of Medicaid payments varies depending on each 
State's ability to pay--wealthier States bear a larger share of the 
cost of the program, and thus have lower FMAP rates. Per capita income 
is used as the measure of State wealth. Because per capita income in 
Hawaii is quite high, the State's FMAP rate is at the lowest level--50 
percent. Hawaii is one of only a dozen States whose FMAP rate is at the 
50 percent level. My bill would increase Hawaii's FMAP rate from 50 
percent to 59.8 percent.
  Because of our geographic location and other factors, the cost of 
living in Hawaii greatly exceeds the cost of living in the mainland 
States. Per capita income is a poor measure of a State's relative 
ability to bear the cost of Medicaid services. An excellent analysis of 
this issue is included in the 21st edition of ``The Federal Budget and 
the States'', a joint study conducted by the Taubman Center for State 
and local Government at Harvard University's John F. Kennedy School of 
Government and the office of U.S. Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan. 
According to the study, if per capita income is measured in real terms, 
Hawaii ranks 47th at $19,755 compared to the national average of 
$24,231. This sheds a totally different light on the State's financial 
status.
  The cost of living in Honolulu is 83 percent higher than the average 
of the metropolitan areas tracked by the U.S. Census Bureau, based on 
1995 data. Recent studies have shown that for the State as a whole, the 
cost of living is more than one-third higher than the rest of the U.S. 
In fact, Hawaii's Cost of Living Index ranks it as the highest in the 
country. Some government programs take the high cost of living in 
Hawaii into account and funding is adjusted accordingly. These include 
Medicare prospective payment rates, food stamp allocations, school 
lunch programs, housing insurance limits, and military living expenses.
  These examples reflect the recognition that the higher cost of living 
in noncontiguous States should be taken into account in fashioning 
government program policies. It is time for similar recognition of this 
factor in gauging Hawaii's ability to support its health care 
programs. During consideration of the Balanced Budget Act this past 
summer, the Senate included a provision increasing Alaska's FMAP rate 
to 59.8 percent for the next 3 years. Setting a higher match rate as 
was done for Alaska would still leave Hawaii with a lower FMAP rate 
than a majority of the States, but would better recognize Hawaii's 
ability to pay its fair share of the costs of the Medicaid program.

  Despite the high cost of living, the Harvard-Moynihan study finds 
that Hawaii also has one of the highest poverty rates in the Nation. 
The State's 16.9 percent poverty rate is ranked eighth in the country, 
compared to the national average of 14.7 percent. These higher cost 
levels are reflected in State government expenditures and State 
taxation. Thus, on a per capita basis State revenue and expenditures 
are far higher in Hawaii, as well as Alaska, than in the 48 mainland 
States. The higher expenditure levels are necessary to assure an 
adequate level of public services which are more costly to provide in 
these States.
  Of the top 10 States with the highest poverty rates in the country, 
the Harvard-Moynihan study finds that only 3 others have an FMAP rate 
between 50-60 percent. The other six States have FMAP rates of 65 
percent and higher. Even more astonishing is that of the top 10 States 
with the lowest real per capita income, only Hawaii has a 50-percent 
FMAP rate.
  To bring equity to this situation, Hawaii has sought an increase in 
its FMAP rate over the past several years. Just as we did for Alaska 
this past summer, Hawaii should be included in this long-warranted 
change, as the same factors justifying an increase for Alaska apply to 
Hawaii. Recognition of this point was made by House and Senate 
conferees to the Balanced Budget Act. The conferees, on page 879 of the 
conference report, note that poverty guidelines for Alaska and Hawaii 
are different than those for the rest of the Nation, yet there is no 
variation from the national calculation in the FMAP. The conferees 
correctly noted that comparable adjustments are generally made for 
Alaska and Hawaii.
  The case for an FMAP increase is especially compelling in Hawaii, 
which has a proud history of providing essential health services in an 
innovative and cost-effective manner. That commitment is not easy to 
fulfill. Unlike most States, for example, Hawaii's Aid to Families with 
Dependent Children/ Temporary Assistance for Needy Families [AFDC/TANF] 
caseloads have been increasing dramatically. In Hawaii, our caseload 
has risen by 21 percent since 1994 compared to a national decline of 23 
percent during this same period. Since TANF block grants are based on

[[Page S11772]]

historical spending levels, the increased demand has placed extreme 
pressure on State resources.

  Hawaii has sought to maintain a social safety net while striving for 
more efficient delivery of government services. The most striking 
example is the QUEST Medical Assistance Program, which operates under a 
Federal waiver. QUEST has brought managed care and broader coverage to 
the State's otherwise uninsured populations. At the same time, Hawaii 
is the only State whose employers guarantee health care coverage to 
every full-time employee, a further example of Hawaii's commitment to a 
strong social support system.
  There is a particularly strong need for a more suitable FMAP rate for 
Hawaii now. The State has not participated in the economic growth that 
has benefitted most of the rest of the Nation. Hawaii's unemployment 
rate is above the national average and State tax revenues have fallen 
short of projected estimates. The need to fund 50 percent of the cost 
of the Medicaid program puts an increasing strain on the State's 
resources.
  For all of these reasons, the FMAP rates for Hawaii should be 
adjusted to reflect more equitably the State's ability to support the 
Medicaid program. This will assure that the special problem of the 
noncontiguous States is dealt with in a principled manner. I believe it 
is also important to point out that based on Hawaii's current Medicaid 
spending level of approximately $700 million, each percentage point 
increase in our FMAP rate would provide approximately $7 million 
annually in additional Federal funds. Thus, the cost of enhancing the 
State's FMAP rate would be relatively modest.
  I urge my colleagues in the Senate to support an upward adjustment in 
Hawaii's Federal medical assistance percentage.
  Mr. President, in closing, 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. 1376

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

     SECTION 1. INCREASED FMAP FOR HAWAII.

       (a) Increased FMAP.--The first sentence of section 1905(b) 
     of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396d(b)), as amended 
     by section 4725 of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 (Public 
     Law 105-33; 111 Stat. 418), is amended--
       (1) by striking ``and (3)'' and inserting ``, (3)''; and
       (2) by inserting before the period at the end the 
     following: ``, and (4) for purposes of this title and title 
     XXI, the Federal medical assistance percentage for Hawaii 
     shall be 59.8 percent''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection (a) 
     shall apply to--
       (1) items and services furnished on or after October 1, 
     1997, under--
       (A) a State plan or under a waiver of such plan under title 
     XIX; and
       (B) a State child health plan under title XXI of such Act;
       (2) payments made on a capitation or other risk-basis for 
     coverage occurring under plans under such titles on or after 
     such date; and
       (3) payments attributable to DSH allotments for Hawaii 
     determined under section 1923(f) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 
     1396r-4(f)) for fiscal years beginning with fiscal year 1998.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. DeWINE (for himself, Mr. Moynihan, Mr. Hatch, Mr. D'Amato, 
        Mr. Dodd, Mr. Kohl, Mr. Coverdell, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Inouye, Mr. 
        Lieberman, Ms. Snowe, Mr. Hutchinson, Mr. Thurmond, Mr. McCain, 
        Mr. Shelby, Mr. Campbell, and Mr. Wyden):
  S. 1379. A bill to amend section 552 of title 5, United States Code, 
and the National Security Act of 1947 to require disclosure under the 
Freedom of Information Act regarding certain persons, disclose Nazi war 
criminal records without impairing any investigation or prosecution 
conducted by the Department of Justice or certain intelligence matters, 
and for other purposes; to the Committee on the Judiciary.


                   The Nazi war crimes disclosure act

  Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I am pleased to be part of a bipartisan 
group of Senators, led by my friend from New York, Senator Moynihan, to 
introduce the Nazi War Crimes Disclosure Act. Passage of this 
legislation will lift the last remaining veils of secrecy on one of the 
darkest periods in human history.
  the Nazi War Crimes Disclosure Act represents what I hope will be the 
culmination of work begun in the last Congress to release U.S. 
Government-held records of Nazi war criminals, the Nazi Holocaust, and 
the trafficking of Nazi-held assets.
  Just 2 years ago, we celebrated the 50th anniversary of the end of 
the Second World War, and with it, the Nazis' death grip on an entire 
continent. Since that time, searingly detailed accounts of the Nazi 
Holocaust have come to our attention.
  We have learned so much. Yet, if the last few years are any 
indication, we still have so much more to learn.
  After the fall of Communist rule, Russia and several former Soviet-
bloc nations opened volumes of secret files on Nazi war crimes. 
Argentina has cooperated in the public release of its files. British 
Government records are being declassified and made available for public 
scrutiny. And over the past year, Swiss banks and the Swiss Government 
have been under intense international pressure to make a full 
accounting of unclaimed funds belonging to Holocaust victims, as well 
as Nazi assets that may have once belonged to Holocaust victims.
  Mr. President, here at home, our own Government has been gradually 
making records available about what it knew of Nazi-related activities 
and atrocities. Earlier this year, a Government-conducted study 
revealed new information about what the U.S. Government knew regarding 
the transfer and flow of funds held by Nazi officials. This report 
found that the U.S. Government was aware that the Nazi mint took gold 
stolen from European central banks and melted it together with gold 
obtained in horrible fashion--from tooth-fillings, wedding bands and 
other items seized from death camp victims. Last Sunday's New York 
Times detailed newly released Government documents that described how 
the Federal Reserve Bank of New York had melted down and recast 
hundreds of Nazi-held gold bars. According to the released records, the 
U.S. Government knew that a good portion of this gold had been looted 
from the Netherlands and Belgium. It is not known if any of these bars 
contained gold from Holocaust victims, or to what extent the U.S. 
Government knew it.
  Mr. President, earlier today, at a press conference to announce the 
introduction of this legislation, I had on display several aerial U.S. 
intelligence photographs taken in 1944. The pictures were of Auschwitz, 
with prisoners being led to the gas chambers. These pictures were 
discovered by photo analysts from the Central Intelligence Agency in 
1978. They confirm what we had heard from the Polish underground that a 
death camp did in fact exist at Auschwitz. They also demonstrated that 
our Government had photographs of these camps as these atrocities were 
occurring.
  These pictures tell a grisly story. How many more exist? With our 
legislation, we intend to answer that question.
  So, the fact is, the dark tragedy of the Nazi Holocaust, which ended 
more than 60 years ago, has been unfolding long after these tragic 
events occurred and is still unfolding with each new release of 
information.
  Both Congress and the President have taken action to promote the 
release of Government-held records during this tragic era. On April 17, 
1995, the President issued an Executive order calling for the release 
of national security data and information older than 25 years. Last 
year, thanks to the tireless efforts of my friend from New York, 
Senator Moynihan and Representative Carolyn Maloney and several others, 
Congress passed a sense-of-the-Congress resolution, which stated that 
any U.S. Government agencies should make public any records in its 
possession about individuals who are alleged to have committed Nazi war 
crimes. The President agreed, noting that learning the remaining 
secrets about the Holocaust are in the clear public interest.

  The Nazi War Crimes Disclosure Act is designed to put the concerns 
expressed by the last Congress into strong action. What our bill would 
do is amend the Freedom of Information Act to establish a presumption 
that Nazi war criminal records are to be made available to the public. 
This means that all materials would be required to be released in their 
entirety unless a Federal agency head concludes

[[Page S11773]]

that the release of all or part of these records would compromise 
privacy or national security interests. The agency head must notify 
Congress of any determination to not release records.
  To facilitate this process, the bill would establish the Nazi War 
Criminal Records Interagency Working Group. This working group would to 
the greatest extent possible locate, identify, inventory, declassify, 
and make available for the public all Nazi war records held by the 
United States.
  This pro-active search is necessary because a full Government search 
and inventory has never been completed. For example, some documents 
that surfaced this spring were found in holdings related to Southeast 
Asia.
  Our bill would be targeted toward two classes of Nazi-related 
materials: First, war crimes information regarding Nazi persecutions; 
and second, any information related to transactions involving assets of 
Holocaust and other Nazi victims.
  In summary, what we are trying to do with this bill is strike a clear 
balance between our Government's legitimate privacy and national 
security interests and the people's desire to know the truth about Nazi 
atrocities. These records, once released, will be held in a repository 
at the National Archives.
  This bill is a bipartisan effort to ensure the Federal Government has 
done all it can to ensure Holocaust victims and their families can 
obtain the answers they need.
  Again, this bill is the culmination of years of tireless work by a 
number of leaders. First, I want to pay special tribute to the Senators 
from New York--both have worked tirelessly on Holocaust related 
legislation for years. Senator Moynihan has been a leader in the drive 
to declassify U.S. Government records and a well-respected historian. 
He championed the release of the so-called VENONA cables that confirmed 
that the Soviet Union had an active spy network that had penetrated our 
Government. I am pleased to be working with Senator Moynihan on a 
similar endeavor--the cataloging and declassification of as many World 
War II documents on the Holocaust as possible.
  Senator D'Amato has worked to make public scores of Swiss bank 
records and lost accounts of Holocaust victims. His efforts inspired us 
to redraft our legislation to ensure the Federal Government releases 
records related to the trafficking of Nazi-held assets.
  This bill has the support of the chairmen of the Judiciary and 
Intelligence Committees--respectively, my friend from Utah, Senator 
Hatch, and my friend from Alabama, Senator Shelby.
  Mr. President, I also would be remiss if I did not mention my friend 
from Wisconsin, Senator Kohl, who serves with me on the Antitrust 
Subcommittee on the Judiciary Committee. He has brought insight on this 
issue that none of us has.
  Together, with this kind of bipartisan support, I am hopeful we can 
move this legislation quickly through Congress and to the President 
early next year. As a member of the Intelligence Committee, I intend to 
make this a priority issue--so that people from my State and across our 
Nation can have access to the most complete inventory of U.S. 
Government records on the Holocaust. The clock is running, and time is 
running out for so many victims of the Holocaust. They, and history 
itself, deserve to know as much as possible about this tragic chapter 
in the story of humanity.
  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. 1379

       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 ``Nazi War Crimes Disclosure 
     Act''.

     SEC. 2. REQUIREMENT OF DISCLOSURE UNDER FREEDOM OF 
                   INFORMATION REGARDING PERSONS WHO COMMITTED 
                   NAZI WAR CRIMES.

       (a) In General.--Section 552 of title 5, United States 
     Code, is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)(4)(B) in the second sentence, by 
     inserting ``or subsection (h)'' after ``subsection (b)''; and
       (2) by inserting after subsection (g) the following:
       ``(h)(1) For the purposes of this subsection, the term 
     `Nazi war criminal records' means records or portions of 
     records that--
       ``(A) pertain to any person as to whom the United States 
     Government, in its sole discretion, has determined there 
     exists reasonable grounds to believe that such person, during 
     the period beginning on March 23, 1933, and ending on May 8, 
     1945, under the direction of, or in association with--
       ``(i) the Nazi government of Germany;
       ``(ii) any government in any area occupied by the military 
     forces of the Nazi government of Germany;
       ``(iii) any government established with the assistance or 
     cooperation of the Nazi government of Germany; or
       ``(iv) any government which was an ally of the Nazi 
     government of Germany,

     ordered, incited, assisted, or otherwise participated in the 
     persecution of any person because of race, religion, national 
     origin, or political opinion; or
       ``(B) pertain to any transaction as to which the United 
     States Government, in its sole discretion, has determined 
     there exists reasonable grounds to believe--
       ``(i) involved assets taken from persecuted persons during 
     the period beginning on March 23, 1933, and ending on May 8, 
     1945, by, under the direction of, on behalf of, or under 
     authority granted by the Nazi government of Germany or any 
     nation then allied with that government; and
       ``(ii) such transaction was completed without the assent of 
     the owners of those assets or their heirs or assigns or other 
     legitimate representatives.
       ``(2)(A) Notwithstanding subsection (b), this subsection 
     shall apply to Nazi war criminal records.
       ``(B) Subject to subparagraphs (C), (D), and (E), Nazi war 
     criminal records that are responsive to a request for records 
     made in accordance with subsection (a) shall be released in 
     their entirety.
       ``(C) An agency head may exempt from release under 
     subparagraph (B) specific information, the release of which 
     should be expected to--
       ``(i) constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal 
     privacy;
       ``(ii) reveal the identity of a confidential human source, 
     or reveal information about the application of an 
     intelligence source or method, or reveal the identity of a 
     human intelligence source when the unauthorized disclosure of 
     that source would clearly and demonstrably damage the 
     national security interests of the United States;
       ``(iii) reveal information that would assist in the 
     development or use of weapons of mass destruction;
       ``(iv) reveal information that would impair United States 
     cryptologic systems or activities;
       ``(v) reveal information that would impair the application 
     of state-of-the-art technology within a United States weapon 
     system;
       ``(vi) reveal actual United States military war plans that 
     remain in effect;
       ``(vii) reveal information that would seriously and 
     demonstrably impair relations between the United States and a 
     foreign government, or seriously and demonstrably undermine 
     ongoing diplomatic activities of the United States;
       ``(viii) reveal information that would clearly and 
     demonstrably impair the current ability of United States 
     Government officials to protect the President, Vice 
     President, and other officials for whom protection services, 
     in the interest of national security, are authorized;
       ``(ix) reveal information that would seriously and 
     demonstrably impair current national security emergency 
     preparedness plans; or
       ``(x) violate a statute, treaty, or international 
     agreement.
       ``(D) In applying exemptions (ii) through (x) of 
     subparagraph (C), there shall be a presumption that the 
     public interest in the release of Nazi war criminal records 
     outweighs the damage to national security that might 
     reasonably be expected to result from disclosure. The agency 
     head, as an exercise of discretion, may rebut this 
     presumption with respect to a Nazi war criminal record, or 
     portion thereof, based on an exemption listed in subparagraph 
     (C). The exercise of this discretion shall be promptly 
     reported to the committees of Congress with appropriate 
     jurisdiction.
       ``(E) This subsection shall not apply to records--
       ``(i) related to or supporting any active or inactive 
     investigation, inquiry, or prosecution by the Office of 
     Special Investigations of the Department of Justice; or
       ``(ii) in the possession, custody or control of that 
     office.''.
       (b) Inapplicability of National Security Act of 1947 
     Exemption.--Section 701 of the National Security Act of 1947 
     (50 U.S.C. 431) is amended--
       (1) by redesignating subsections (e) and (f) as subsections 
     (f) and (g), respectively; and
       (2) by inserting after subsection (d) the following:
       ``(e) Subsection (a) shall not apply to any operational 
     file, or any portion of any operational file, that 
     constitutes a Nazi war criminal record under section 552(h) 
     of title 5, United States Code.''.

     SEC. 3. INTERAGENCY INVENTORY OF NAZI WAR CRIMINAL RECORDS.

       (a) Definitions.--In this section the term--
       (1) ``agency'' has the meaning given such term under 
     section 551 of title 5, United States Code;

[[Page S11774]]

       (2) ``Interagency Group'' means the Nazi War Criminal 
     Records Interagency Working Group established under 
     subsection (b);
       (3) ``Nazi war criminal records'' has the meaning given 
     such term under section 552(h)(1) of title 5, United States 
     Code (as added by section 2(a)(2) of this Act); and
       (4) ``record'' means a Nazi war criminal record.
       (b) Establishment of Interagency Group.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than 30 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the President shall establish the Nazi 
     War Criminal Records Interagency Working Group.
       (2) Membership.--The President shall appoint to the 
     Interagency Group the heads of agencies who the President 
     determines will most completely and effectively carry out the 
     functions of the Interagency Group within the time 
     limitations provided in this section. The head of an agency 
     appointed by the President may designate an appropriate 
     officer to serve on the Interagency Group in lieu of the head 
     of such agency.
       (3) Initial meeting.--Not later than 90 days after the date 
     of enactment of this Act, the Interagency Group shall hold an 
     initial meeting and begin the functions required under this 
     section.
       (c) Functions.--Not later than 1 year after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Interagency Group shall, to the 
     greatest extent possible consistent with section 552(h)(2) of 
     title 5, United States Code (as added by section 2(a)(2) of 
     this Act)--
       (1) locate, identify, inventory, recommend for 
     declassification, and make available to the public at the 
     National Archives and Records Administration, all Nazi war 
     criminal records of the United States;
       (2) coordinate with agencies and take such actions as 
     necessary to expedite the release of such records to the 
     public; and
       (3) submit a report to Congress describing all such 
     records, the disposition of such records, and the activities 
     of the Interagency Group and agencies under this section.

     SEC. 4. EXPEDITED PROCESSING OF REQUESTS FOR NAZI WAR 
                   CRIMINAL RECORDS.

       (a) Definitions.--In this section, the term--
       (1) ``Nazi war criminal record'' has the meaning given the 
     term under section 552(h)(1) of title 5, United States Code 
     (as added by section 2(a)(2) of this Act); and
       (2) ``requester'' means any person who was persecuted in 
     the manner described under section 552(h)(1)(A) of title 5, 
     United States Code (as added by section 2(a)(2) of this Act), 
     who requests a Nazi war criminal record.
       (b) Expedited Processing.--For purposes of expedited 
     processing under section 552(a)(6)(E) of title 5, United 
     States Code, any requester of a Nazi war criminal record 
     shall be deemed to have a compelling need for such record.

     SEC. 5. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       The amendments made by this Act shall apply to requests 
     under section 552 of title 5, United States Code (known as 
     Freedom of Information Act requests) received by an agency 
     after the expiration of the 90-day period beginning on the 
     date of enactment of this Act.

  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, today we introduce a revised War Crimes 
Disclosure Act which Senators D'Amato, Dodd and I originally sponsored 
in the 104th Congress as a companion to a measure introduced by 
Representative Maloney.
  The measure is a simple one. It requires the disclosure of 
information under the Freedom of Information Act regarding individuals 
who participated in Nazi war crimes. This bill, which Senator DeWine 
has carefully crafted, builds on our original measure by expanding its 
scope to include information regarding stolen assets of the victims of 
Nazi war crimes, and by requiring a Governmentwide search of records to 
ensure the release of as many relevant documents as possible. A similar 
search for information regarding Nazi assets was recently conducted 
under the direction of Stuart Eizenstat, with significant results.
  Ideally, documents regarding Nazi war crimes would be made available 
to the public without further legislation and without having to go 
through the slow process involved in getting information through the 
Freedom of Information Act [FOIA]. Unfortunately, this is not the case. 
Researchers seeking information on Nazi war criminals are denied access 
to relevant materials in the possession of the United States 
Government, even when the disclosure of these documents no longer poses 
a threat to national security--if indeed such disclosure ever did.
  Perhaps the most important provision contained in the legislation is 
the balancing test. This requires that ``there shall be a presumption 
that the public interest in the release of Nazi war criminal records 
outweighs the damage to national security that might reasonably be 
expected to result from disclosure.'' The provision is in keeping with 
the report of the Commission on Protecting and Reducing Government 
Secrecy which recommended that such a balancing test be applied in all 
classification decisions.
  The Commission on Protecting and Reducing Government Secrecy was the 
second statutory examination of Government secrecy. I was honored to 
Chair the Commission; Representative Combest served as vice-chairman. 
Also serving on the Commission were John Deutch, Martin Faga, John 
Podesta, and Samuel Huntington. We presented our report to the 
President in March, and the congressional members of the Commission 
introduced legislation to implement the recommendations of the 
Commission in May.
  We have welcomed the many editorials and feature articles supporting 
our efforts as, in the words of the Sacramento Bee, a ``sensible, much-
needed proposal for reforming runaway classification of secrets by the 
federal government.'' And Albany's Times Union assessment that our bill 
represents a ``bipartisan effort * * * to make more government 
documents accessible to the public and, in the process, make government 
more accountable.''
  Our's is a report that, I believe, sets out a new framework for how 
to think about Government secrecy. Beginning with the concept that 
secrecy should be understood as a form of Government regulation. In the 
words of the German sociologist Max Weber, writing some eight decades 
ago:

       Every bureaucracy seeks to increase the superiority of the 
     professionally informed by keeping their knowledge and 
     intentions secret. Bureaucratic administration always tends 
     to be an administration of ``secret sessions''; in so far as 
     it can, it hides its knowledge and action from criticism.
       The pure interest of the bureaucracy in power, however, is 
     efficacious far beyond those areas where purely functional 
     interests make for secrecy. The concept of the ``official 
     secret'' is the specific invention of bureaucracy, and 
     nothing is so fanatically defended by the bureaucracy as this 
     attitude, which cannot be substantially defended beyond these 
     specifically qualified areas.

  What we traditionally think of in this country as regulation concerns 
how citizens are to behave. Whereas public regulation involves what the 
citizen may do, secrecy concerns what that citizen may know. And the 
citizen does not know what may not be known. As our Commission stated: 
``Americans are familiar with the tendency to overregulate in other 
areas. What is different with secrecy is that the public cannot know 
the extent or the content of the regulation.''
  Thus, secrecy in the ultimate mode of regulation; the citizen does 
not even know that he or she is being regulated. It is a parallel 
regulatory regime with a far greater potential for damage if it 
malfunctions. In our democracy, where the free exchange of ideas is so 
essential, it can be suffocating.
  We must develop what might be termed a competing ``culture of 
openness'' fully consistent with our interests in protecting national 
security, but in which power and authority are no longer derived 
primarily from one's ability to withhold information from others in 
Government and the public at large.
  The Nazi War Crimes Disclosure Act is in keeping with the work of the 
Commission on Protecting and Reducing Government Secrecy. With the 
passing of time it becomes ever more important to document Nazi war 
crimes, lest the enormity of those crimes be lost to history. The 
greater access which this legislation provides will add clarity to this 
important effort. I applaud those researchers who continue to pursue 
this important work.
  I would like to thank Representative Maloney for her original work on 
this subject in the House of Representatives and I would also thank 
Senator DeWine for joining me in this effort here in the Senate.
  Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I am pleased to be an original cosponsor of 
the Nazi War Crimes Disclosure Act. I want to thank Senator DeWine and 
commend him for taking the lead on this important issue.
  This bill demonstrates America's commitment to the same historical 
honesty that we are demanding of Switzerland and other countries only 
now facing their role in the atrocities of World War II. It is not 
enough for us to talk about disclosure by others. We need to practice 
it too. If there are secrets relating to the presence of Nazi war 
criminals in the United States, or

[[Page S11775]]

if there is information that will be helpful in identifying assets of 
Holocaust victims, or even evidence of other governments collaborating 
with the Nazis, let's open these files and reveal these secrets before 
an entire generation of survivors is gone.
  This bill creates a presumption in favor of the public interest in 
learning all there is to learn about Nazi war crimes and requires a 
proactive searching of Government files for relevant documents. We have 
an obligation to find this information and to disseminate it. Although 
the Holocaust happened more than 50 years ago, we are now seeing 
countries and individuals caught up in the maelstrom of World War II 
grappling with this difficult past. Much of the debate on these issues 
has been triggered by recently released information from Government and 
other archives.
  For survivors, there is no legislation that can erase the suffering 
they endured at the hands of the Nazis. As we go about our day-to-day 
business, it is easy to forget the horrific details of what happened in 
Europe: the gruesome torture and deaths, the systematic extermination 
of people. However, for those of us who were directly touched by the 
Holocaust, history is very real. I grew up in the shadow of this 
tragedy. When I was a child, my family worried daily about family 
members left behind in Europe during the war. We constantly discussed 
what was or wasn't happening, and when the truth finally emerged, and 
all Americans realized the extent of the tragedy, it touched us even 
more.

  It is only natural for American survivors and their families to 
expect the American Government to be as forthcoming as possible. 
Although many survivors have gone on to live productive lives here in 
the United States, and around the world, they can never forget. Nor 
should we.
  Many emerging democracies are now facing their pasts--through truth 
commissions and the like. It is tempting to want to look forward and to 
forget events of long ago. But for these fragile democracies, reckoning 
with the past is the key to ensuring a secure future. We too must 
recognize that the openness prescribed by this legislation only makes 
our democracy stronger.
  This legislation maintains protections for individuals from the 
unwarranted invasion of their personal privacy, and it continues to 
provide exceptions for the most urgent national security and foreign 
policy interests. The difference between this bill and existing FOIA 
protections is that this bill firmly sets into law the public's right 
to know about Nazi war crimes and the disposition of Nazi assets, and 
if there is information that agencies insist on keeping secret, the 
relevant congressional committees must be informed. This will give us 
the opportunity to determine whether information dating so far back 
should remain classified. Finally, the bill provides that if an agency 
head exercises his or her authority to block the release of 
information, the decision is subject to judicial review.
  It is difficult to imagine what knowledge would be subject to these 
protections so many years after the fact. Yes, there may be information 
which makes us feel uncomfortable. There is already information about 
the extent to which the U.S. Government knew about what was going on 
during the war in the Nazi death camps. We must not be afraid of what 
we may learn. The only ones who need fear are the perpetrators of these 
vicious acts who have escaped scrutiny until now, for there are still 
Nazi war criminals at large in this country and abroad. Armed with new 
information, much like the information which may be available in our 
own files, courts around the world are compelling them to answer for 
their despicable acts.
  This legislation is targeted to information solely related to Nazi 
war crimes and to transactions involving Nazi victims, yet it sets an 
important precedent in codifying a more narrow set of privacy and 
national security exceptions for the release of Government information 
through the Freedom of Information Act. These exceptions are based on 
Executive Order 12958 which set the criteria for the release of 
information more than 25 years old. Unfortunately, we still have a long 
way to go in ensuring that this more open standard is uniformly applied 
to the release of Government information.
  I am pleased that Senator Moynihan is one of the lead sponsors of 
this bill because he has been such an eloquent spokesman against 
excessive secrecy. His work with the Commission on Protecting and 
Reducing Government Secrecy is truly commendable and I am pleased that 
this legislation is consistent with the findings of the Commission. 
Beyond shedding light on a difficult chapter in the history of 
humanity, this legislation can help foster a greater openness in the 
handling of Government information.
  If we succeed, we will have left a legacy of which we can all be 
proud.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. COATS (for himself, Mr. Lieberman, Mr. D'Amato, and Mr. 
        Kerrey):
  S. 1380. A bill to amend the Elementary and Secondary Education Act 
of 1965 regarding charter schools; to the Committee on Labor and Human 
Resources.


                the charter school expansion act of 1997

  Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I am so pleased to join my good friend, 
Senator Lieberman, in introducing another bill which has as its primary 
aim the expansion of educational opportunities for children. Senator 
Lieberman has been a leader in promoting educational alternatives, and 
his efforts in the charter school movement have contributed to the 
tremendous growth in the number of charter schools since 1994. I 
commend him for his work in this area and am honored to join him in 
introducing the Charter School Expansion Act of 1997.
  This bill builds on the great success of the original charter school 
legislation which Senator Lieberman introduced in 1994. The Federal 
Charter School Grant Program provided seed money to charter school 
operators to help them cover the startup costs of beginning a charter 
school. In the last 3 years, the number of charter schools in operation 
around the country has tripled, with more than 700 charter schools now 
in 23 States.
  The purpose of this bill is to further encourage the growth of high-
quality charter schools around the country.
  This bill provides incentives to encourage States to increase the 
number of charter schools in their State. The bill also tightens the 
eligibility definitions to better direct funds to those States who are 
committed to developing strong charter schools.
  To ensure that charter schools have enough funding to continue once 
their doors are opened, this bill provides that charter schools get 
their fair share of Federal programs for which they are eligible, such 
as title 1 and IDEA.
  This bill also increases the financing options available to charter 
schools and allows them to utilize funds from the title VI block grant 
program for startup costs.
  And finally, the Secretary of Education and each State education 
agency is directed to inform every school district about the charter 
school option so that this educational alternative will be an option 
for any parent who is interested.


                       what are charter schools?

  Charter schools are independent public schools that have been freed 
from onerous bureaucratic and regulatory burdens and able to design and 
deliver educational programs tailored to meet the needs of their 
students and their communities.
  The individualized education available to students through charter 
schools makes this a very desirable educational alternative. Charter 
schools give families an opportunity to choose the educational setting 
that best meet their child's needs. For many low-income families in 
particular, charter schools provide their first opportunity to select 
educational setting which is best for their child.
  These innovative charter schools are having tremendous academic 
success serving the same population of students who are struggling in 
more traditional public school settings. Several recent studies have 
highlighted the success of charter schools around the country in 
serving at-risk students. A study conducted by the Hudson Institute 
found dramatic improvement for minority and low income students who had 
been failing in their previous school. These students are flourishing 
in the smaller, challenging environments found in charter schools.
  With results like these, it is no wonder that some of the strongest 
support

[[Page S11776]]

for charter legislation comes from low-income families. Low-income 
families not only have real educational choices, but are actually 
needed in the charter school environment for everything from 
volunteering, to coaching, for fundraising, and even teaching. This 
direct involvement of families is helping to build small communities 
centered around the school.
  Charter schools can be started by anyone interested in providing a 
quality education: Parents, teachers, school administrators, community 
groups, businesses, and colleges can all apply for a charter. And, 
importantly, if these schools fail to deliver a high-quality education, 
they will be closed--either through a district or State's 
accountability measures or due to lack of customers. Accountability is 
literally built in to the charter school process--a school's charter 
must be complied with and unhappy parents and students can leave if 
they are not satisfied.
  In addition to the positive impact on the charter's students and 
their families, the overall charter movement is serving as a catalyst 
for change in the public schools. A foundational principle of the 
charter concept is that fair competition can stimulate improvement. And 
improvement in public schools has been spurred around the country due 
to the rapid growth of charter schools.

  Recently, several studies have been released highlighting some of the 
success of charter schools around the country. In May, the Department 
of Education released its first formal report on its study of charter 
schools. Key first-year findings include:
  The two most common reasons for starting public charter schools are 
flexibility from bureaucratic laws and regulations and the chance to 
realize an educational vision.
  In most States, charter schools have a racial composition similar to 
statewide averages or have a higher proportion of minority students.
  Charter schools enroll roughly the same proportion of low income 
students, on average, as other public schools.
  Over the last 2 years, the Hudson Institute has undertaken its own 
study of charter schools, entitled ``Charter Schools in Action.'' Their 
research team traveled to 14 States, visited 60 schools, and surveyed 
thousands of parents, teachers, and students.
  Some of this study's key findings include:
  Three-fifths of charter school students report that their charter 
school teachers are better than their previous school's teacher.
  Over two-thirds of parents say their charter school is better than 
their child's previous schools with respect to class size, school size, 
and individual attention.
  Over 90 percent of teachers are satisfied with their charter school's 
educational philosophy, size, fellow teachers, and students.
  Among students who said they were failing at their previous school, 
more than half are now doing excellent or good work. These gains were 
dramatic for minority and low-income youngsters, and were confirmed by 
their parents.
  The example of these schools point to important ways to improve and 
reinvent public education as a whole. The implications from the success 
of charter schools indicate that successful public schools should be 
consumer-oriented, diverse, results-oriented, and professional places 
that also function as mediating institutions in their communities.
  The tremendous success of charter schools in the last 6 years gives 
me great hope for the success of overall education reform. The more 
than 700 charter schools in this country that have sprung up in such a 
short period of time provide solid evidence that parents are interested 
in improving their children's educational opportunities and they will 
do whatever it takes.
  With the introduction of this bill, the Charter School Expansion Act, 
Senator Lieberman and I hope to send a signal to parents all across 
this country that they are not alone in their struggle to improve 
education for their children. We hope to ease their struggle by 
enabling new charter schools to be developed. More charter schools will 
result in greater accountability, broader flexibility for classroom 
innovation, and ultimately more choice in public education. I urge my 
colleagues to support this bill and to increase educational 
opportunities for all children.
  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. 1380

       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 ``Charter School Expansion Act 
     of 1997''.

     SEC 2. INNOVATIVE CHARTER SCHOOLS.

       Title VI of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 
     1965 (20 U.S.C. 7301 et seq.) is amended--
       (1) in section 6201(a) (20 U.S.C. 7331(a))--
       (A) in paragraph (1)(C), by striking ``and'' after the 
     semicolon;
       (B) by redesignating paragraph (2) as paragraph (3); and
       (C) by inserting after paragraph (1) the following:
       ``(2) support for planning, designing, and initial 
     implementation of charter schools as described in part C of 
     title X; and''; and
       (2) in section 6301(b) (20 U.S.C. 7351(b))--
       (A) in paragraph (7), by striking ``and'' after the 
     semicolon;
       (B) by redesignating paragraph (8) as paragraph (9); and
       (C) by inserting after paragraph (7) the following:
       ``(8) planning, designing, and initial implementation of 
     charter schools as described in part C of title X; and''.

     SEC. 3. CHARTER SCHOOLS.

       (a) Purpose.--Section 10301(b) of the Elementary and 
     Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 8061(b)) is 
     amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1), by striking ``and'' after the 
     semicolon;
       (2) in paragraph (2), by striking the period and inserting 
     ``; and''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(3) expanding the number of high-quality charter schools 
     available to students across the Nation.''.
       (b) Criteria for Priority Treatment.--Section 10302 of such 
     Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 8062) is amended by adding at the end 
     the following:
       ``(e) Priority Treatment.--
       ``(1) In general.--
       ``(A) Fiscal years 1998, 1999, and 2000.--In awarding 
     grants under this part for any of the fiscal years 1998, 
     1999, and 2000 from funds appropriated under section 10311 
     that are in excess of $51,000,000 for the fiscal year, the 
     Secretary shall give priority to States to the extent that 
     the States meet 1 or more of the criteria described in 
     paragraph (2).
       ``(B) Succeeding fiscal years.--In awarding grants under 
     this part for fiscal year 2001 or any succeeding fiscal year 
     from any funds appropriated under section 10311, the 
     Secretary shall give priority to States to the extent that 
     the States meet 1 or more of the criteria described in 
     paragraph (2).
       ``(2) Priority criteria.--The criteria referred to in 
     paragraph (1) are as follows:
       ``(A) The State has demonstrated significant progress in 
     increasing the number of charter schools in the period prior 
     to the period for which a State educational agency or 
     eligible applicant applies for a grant under this part.
       ``(B) The State law regarding charter schools--
       ``(i) provides for at least 1 authorized public chartering 
     agency that is not a local educational agency for each 
     individual or entity seeking to operate a charter school 
     pursuant to such State law; or
       ``(ii) in the case of a State in which local educational 
     agencies are the only authorized public chartering agencies, 
     allows for an appeals process for the denial of an 
     application for a charter school.
       ``(C) The State law regarding charter schools provides for 
     the automatic waiver of most State and local education laws 
     and regulations, except those laws and regulations related to 
     health, safety, and civil rights.
       ``(D) The State law regarding charter schools provides for 
     periodic review and evaluation by the authorized public 
     chartering agency of each charter school to determine whether 
     the charter school is meeting or exceeding the academic 
     performance requirements and goals for charter schools as set 
     forth under State law or the school's charter.
       ``(f) Amount Criteria.--In determining the amount of a 
     grant to be awarded under this part to a State educational 
     agency, the Secretary shall take into consideration the 
     number of charter schools that will be created under this 
     part in the State.''.
       (c) Applications.--Section 10303(b) of such Act (20 U.S.C. 
     8063(b)) is amended--
       (1) by redesignating paragraph (2) as paragraph (3); and
       (2) by inserting after paragraph (1) the following:
       ``(2) describe how the State educational agency--
       ``(A) will inform each charter school in the State 
     regarding--
       ``(i) Federal funds that the charter school is eligible to 
     receive; and
       ``(ii) Federal programs in which the charter school may 
     participate;

[[Page S11777]]

       ``(B) will ensure that each charter school in the State 
     receives the charter school's commensurate share of Federal 
     education funds that are allocated by formula; and
       ``(C) will disseminate best or promising practices of 
     charter schools to each local educational agency in the 
     State; and''.
       (d) National Activities.--Section 10305 of such Act (20 
     U.S.C. 8065) is amended to read as follows:

     ``SEC. 10305. NATIONAL ACTIVITIES.

       ``The Secretary shall reserve for each fiscal year the 
     lesser of 5 percent of the amount appropriated to carry out 
     this part for the fiscal year or $5,000,000, to carry out the 
     following activities:
       ``(1) To provide charter schools, either directly or 
     through State educational agencies, with--
       ``(A) information regarding--
       ``(i) Federal funds that charter schools are eligible to 
     receive; and
       ``(ii) other Federal programs in which charter schools may 
     participate; and
       ``(B) assistance in applying for Federal education funds 
     that are allocated by formula, including assistance with 
     filing deadlines and submission of applications.
       ``(2) To provide for the completion of the 4-year national 
     study (which began in 1995) of charter schools.
       ``(3) To provide--
       ``(A) information to applicants for assistance under this 
     part;
       ``(B) assistance to applicants for assistance under this 
     part with the preparation of applications under section 
     10303;
       ``(C) assistance in the planning and startup of charter 
     schools;
       ``(D) training and technical assistance to existing charter 
     schools;
       ``(E) information to applicants and charter schools 
     regarding gaining access to private capital to support 
     charter schools; and
       ``(F) for the dissemination of best or promising practices 
     in charter schools to other public schools.''.
       (e) Commensurate Treatment; Records Transfer; Paperwork 
     Reduction.--Part C of title X of such Act (20 U.S.C. 8061 et 
     seq.) is amended--
       (1) by redesignating sections 10306 and 10307 as sections 
     10310 and 10311, respectively; and
       (2) by inserting after section 10305 the following:

     ``SEC. 10306. FEDERAL FORMULA ALLOCATION DURING FIRST YEAR 
                   AND FOR SUCCESSIVE ENROLLMENT EXPANSIONS.

       ``For purposes of the allocation to schools by the States 
     or their agencies of funds under part A of title I, and any 
     other Federal funds which the Secretary allocates to States 
     on a formula basis, the Secretary and each State educational 
     agency shall take such measures not later than 6 months after 
     the date of enactment of the Charter School Expansion Act of 
     1997 as are necessary to ensure that every charter school 
     receives the Federal funding for which the charter school is 
     eligible not later than 5 months after the charter school 
     first opens, notwithstanding the fact that the identity and 
     characteristics of the students enrolling in that charter 
     school are not fully and completely determined until that 
     charter school actually opens. The measures similarly shall 
     ensure that every charter school expanding its enrollment in 
     any subsequent year of operation receives the Federal funding 
     for which the charter school is eligible not later than 5 
     months after such expansion.

     ``SEC. 10307. SOLICITATION OF INPUT FROM CHARTER SCHOOL 
                   OPERATORS.

       ``To the extent practicable, the Secretary shall ensure 
     that administrators, teachers, and other individuals directly 
     involved in the operation of charter schools are consulted in 
     the development of any rules or regulations required to 
     implement this part, as well as in the development of any 
     rules or regulations relevant to charter schools that are 
     required to implement part A of title I of the Elementary and 
     Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6311 et seq.), the 
     Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (20 U.S.C. 1400 
     et seq.), or any other program administered by the Secretary 
     that provides education funds to charter schools or regulates 
     the activities of charter schools.

     ``SEC. 10308. RECORDS TRANSFER.

       ``State educational agencies and local educational 
     agencies, to the extent practicable, shall ensure that a 
     student's records and, if applicable, a student's 
     individualized education program as defined in section 
     602(11) of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act 
     (20 U.S.C. 1401(11)), are transferred to a charter school 
     upon the transfer of the student to the charter school, in 
     accordance with applicable State law.

     ``SEC. 10309. PAPERWORK REDUCTION.

       ``To the extent practicable, the Secretary and each 
     authorized public chartering agency shall ensure that 
     implementation of this part results in a minimum of paperwork 
     for any eligible applicant or charter school.''.
       (f) Part C Definitions.--Section 10310(1) of such Act (as 
     redesignated by subsection (e)(1)) (20 U.S.C. 8066(1)) is 
     amended--
       (1) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``an enabling 
     statute'' and inserting ``a specific State statute 
     authorizing the granting of charters to schools'';
       (2) in subparagraph (H), by inserting ``is a school to 
     which parents choose to send their children, and that'' 
     before ``admits'';
       (3) in subparagraph (J), by striking ``and'' after the 
     semicolon;
       (4) in subparagraph (K), by striking the period and 
     inserting ``; and''; and
       (5) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(L) has a written performance contract with the 
     authorized public chartering agency in the State.''.
       (g) Authorization of Appropriations.--Section 10311 of such 
     Act (as redesignated by subsection (e)(1)) (20 U.S.C. 8067) 
     is amended by striking ``$15,000,000 for fiscal year 1995'' 
     and inserting ``$100,000,000 for fiscal year 1998''.
       (h) Title XIV Definitions.--Section 14101 of such Act (20 
     U.S.C. 8801) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (14), by inserting ``, including a public 
     elementary charter school,'' after ``residential school''; 
     and
       (2) in paragraph (25), by inserting ``, including a public 
     secondary charter school,'' after ``residential school''.
       (i) Conforming Amendment.--The matter preceding paragraph 
     (1) of section 10304(e) of such Act (20 U.S.C. 8064(e)) is 
     amended by striking ``10306(1)'' and inserting ``10310(1)''.

  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to join my good friend and 
partner Senator Coats in introducing legislation that would speed the 
progress of what is arguably the most promising engine of education 
reform in America today, the charter school movement.
  Before discussing the legislation itself, I think it's important to 
talk first about the context in which it is being introduced and the 
ongoing debates here in Congress over how best to improve our public 
schools and expand educational opportunities for all students. In 
listening to much of the back and forth recently, particularly about 
efforts to promote a limited school choice program, it seems that too 
often these battles are being waged, in the words of the great John 
Gardner, between uncritical lovers and unloving critics, those who 
would defend the status quo in public education at all costs and those 
who would attack it at the drop of a hat, with neither side doing much 
listening.
  Making matters worse, the uncritical lovers have helped reduce this 
challenging, vitally important discussion to a simplistic either-or 
equation. Either you are for public education, which means you 
subscribe to a certain orthodoxy and dare not depart from it, or you 
are against it. Either you subscribe to a small set of educationally 
correct methods of reform or you are subverting public education as we 
know it.
  In my view, this shortsightedness is shortchanging our children. 
Given how many students are being served poorly by the status quo, 
particularly those living in urban areas who are trapped in deadening 
and in some cases deadly public schools, and given the crucial role 
that education will play in determining whether the American dream can 
be made real for those kids in the information age, we have an 
obligation to leave no policy stone unturned or untested and judge 
ideas by the simple, unalloyed standard of what works. We must be open 
to trying any plan or program that offers the hope of better education 
for our children.
  That is why Senator Coats and I have been advocating for some time 
that we experiment with private school choice, sponsoring a series of 
bills to set up pilot programs in our cities to see if giving low-
income students the chance to attend a private or faith-based school 
will enhance their learning and force those failing public schools to 
improve.
  And that is why today we want to take this opportunity to express our 
support for the growing public charter school movement and to outline 
our plans to help make these innovative, independent programs the norm 
rather than a novelty in this country.
  I have been a long-time advocate of the charter approach, which 
grants educators freedom from top-heavy bureaucracies and their redtape 
in exchange for a commitment to meet high academic standards. After 
visiting, this week, with a group of passionate charter school 
operators and teachers at a national conference here in town, I am all 
the more convinced that charter schools represent what may be the 
future of public education. These folks are driving a grassroots 
revolution that is seeking to reinvent the public school and take it 
back to the future, reconnecting public education to some of our 
oldest, most basic values--ingenuity, responsibility, accountability--
and refocusing its mission on doing what's best for the child instead 
of what's best for the system.

  The results speak for themselves. Over the past 3 years, the number 
of public charter schools have more than

[[Page S11778]]

tripled, with more than 700 of them operating in 23 different States 
and the District of Columbia, and parents in turn have given these 
programs overwhelmingly high marks for their responsiveness to them as 
consumers. Broad-based studies done by the Hudson Institute and the 
Education Department show that charters are effectively serving diverse 
populations, particularly many of the disadvantaged and at-risk 
children that traditional public schools have struggled to educate. And 
while it's too soon to determine what impact charter schools are having 
on overall academic performance, the early returns in places like 
Massachusetts suggest that charters are succeeding where it matters 
most, in the classroom.
  Perhaps most heartening of all, a recent survey done by the National 
School Board Association found that the charter movement is already 
having a ripple effect that is being felt in many local school 
districts. The NSBA report cites evidence that traditional schools are 
working harder to please local families so they won't abandon them to 
competing charter schools, and that central administrators often see 
charters as a powerful tool to develop new ideas and programs without 
fearing regulatory roadblocks.
  The most remarkable aspect of this movement may be that it has 
managed to bring together educators, parents, community activists, 
business leaders, and politicians from across the political spectrum on 
common ground in support of a common goal to better educate our 
children through more choice, more flexibility, and more accountability 
in our public schools. In these grassroots may lie the roots of a 
consensus for renewing the promise of public education.
  We want to build on this agreement and the successes of charter 
schools and do what we can at the Federal level to encourage the growth 
of this movement. So today we will be introducing bipartisan 
legislation that will strengthen the Federal investment in charter 
schools and help remove some of the hurdles preventing charters from 
flourishing in every State.
  Our bill, the Charter School Expansion Act, would revamp the Federal 
Charter School Grant Program to make it more focused on helping States 
and local groups create new schools and meet the President's goal of 
creating 3,000 charters by the year 2000. We want to increase funding 
for grants to new schools, which help charter operators meet the high 
costs of starting a school from scratch, and better target that aid to 
the States that are serious about expanding their charter program. Our 
hope is that these changes will give States that have been slow to 
embrace the charter movement an incentive to get on board.
  In the near term, we feel this bill can be a starting point for 
overcoming our partisan and ideological differences and reaching a 
consensus on how to improve our schools and safeguard the hopes of our 
children. This proposal has already generated bipartisan interest both 
here in the Senate and the House, the administration has expressed its 
support, and we are optimistic it will be passed next year 
overwhelmingly.
  In closing, I would like to thank Senator Kerry and Senator D'Amato 
for joining Senator Coats and myself as original cosponsors of this 
bill. I would urge the rest of our colleagues, if they have not yet 
already done so, to take a close look at some of the truly innovative 
charter school programs being run in your home States and around the 
country. And I would ask you to join us in supporting this legislation 
to build on all the great work that's being done at the State and local 
level and help us chart a new course in education reform in America.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. NICKLES:
  S. 1381. A bill to direct the Secretary of the Army to convey lands 
acquired for the Candy Lake project, Osage County, OK; to the Committee 
on Environment and Public Works.


               THE CANDY LAKE LAND CONVEYANCE ACT OF 1997

  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, today, I am introducing the Candy Lake 
Land Conveyance Act of 1997. The purpose of this legislation is to 
direct the Secretary of the Army to convey lands acquired for the Candy 
Lake project in Osage County, OK, back to the original landowners.
  Briefly, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers acquired 3,657.45 acres of 
land in Osage County from 21 landowners for the purpose of constructing 
Candy Lake. The project was not constructed, and in December 1996, the 
Corps of Engineers declared the Candy Lake property excess to the needs 
of the Federal Government.
  My legislation will give each of the 21 landowners the option to 
purchase their original property from the Federal Government at fair 
market value. If a landowner, or their descendant, opts not to purchase 
their former property, that land will be disposed of in accordance with 
the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949 (40 U.S.C. 
471 et seq.).
  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. 1381

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

     SECTION. 1. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act:
       (1) Fair market value.--The term ``fair market value'' 
     means the amount for which a willing buyer would purchase and 
     a willing seller would sell a parcel of land, as determined 
     by a qualified, independent land appraiser.
       (2) Previous owner of land.--The term ``previous owner of 
     land'' means a person (including a corporation) that 
     conveyed, or a descendant of an individual who conveyed, land 
     to the Army Corps of Engineers for use in the Candy Lake 
     project in Osage County, Oklahoma.
       (3) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
     of the Army.

     SEC. 2. LAND CONVEYANCES.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary, acting through the Real 
     Estate Division of the Tulsa District, Army Corps of 
     Engineers, shall convey, in accordance with this section, all 
     right, title, and interest of the United States in and to the 
     land acquired by the United States for the Candy Lake project 
     in Osage County, Oklahoma.
       (b) Previous Owners of Land.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary shall give a previous owner 
     of land first option to purchase the land described in 
     subsection (a) that was owned by the previous owner of land 
     or by the individual from whom the previous owner of land is 
     descended.
       (2) Application.--
       (A) In general.--A previous owner of land that desires to 
     purchase the land described in subsection (a) that was owned 
     by the previous owner of land, or by the individual from whom 
     the previous owner of land is descended, shall file an 
     application to purchase the land with the Secretary not later 
     than 180 days after the official date of notice to the 
     previous owner of land under section 3.
       (B) First to file has first option.--If more than 1 
     application is filed for a parcel of land described in 
     subsection (a), first options to purchase the parcel of land 
     shall be allotted in the order in which applications for the 
     parcel of land were filed.
       (3) Identification of previous owners of land.--As soon as 
     practicable after the date of enactment of this Act, the 
     Secretary shall, to the extent practicable, identify each 
     previous owner of land.
       (4) Consideration.--Consideration for land conveyed under 
     this subsection shall be the fair market value of the land.
       (c) Disposal.--Any land described in subsection (a) for 
     which an application has not been filed under subsection 
     (b)(2) within the applicable time period shall be disposed of 
     in accordance with the Federal Property and Administrative 
     Services Act of 1949 (40 U.S.C. 471 et seq.).
       (d) Extinguishment of Easements.--All flowage easements 
     acquired by the United States for use in the Candy Lake 
     project in Osage County, Oklahoma, are extinguished.

     SEC. 3. NOTICE.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary shall notify--
       (1) each person identified as a previous owner of land 
     under section 2(b)(3), not later than 30 days after 
     identification, by United States mail; and
       (2) the general public, not later than 30 days after the 
     date of enactment of this Act, by publication in the Federal 
     Register.
       (b) Contents of Notice.--Notice under this section shall 
     include--
       (1) a copy of this Act;
       (2) information sufficient to separately identify each 
     parcel of land subject to this Act; and
       (3) specification of the fair market value of each parcel 
     of land subject to this Act.
       (c) Official Date of Notice.--The official date of notice 
     under this section shall be the later of--
       (1) the date on which actual notice is mailed; or
       (2) the date of publication of the notice in the Federal 
     Register.

                          ____________________