[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.
____________________