[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 7 (Thursday, February 5, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S451-S456]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
By Mr. LEAHY (for himself and Mr. Feingold):
S. 1612. A bill to provide for taxpayer recovery of costs, fees, and
expenses under section 504 of title 5, United States Code, and section
2412 of title 28, United States Code, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on the Judiciary.
the equal access to justice for taxpayers act of 1998
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I wish to introduce the Equal Access to
Justice for Taxpayers Act of 1998. I am pleased that the Senator from
Wisconsin, Senator Feingold, is joining me as an original sponsor of
this important legislation.
Like so many Americans, I was disgusted by the evidence that surfaced
of so many abuses of the IRS at recent hearings by the Senate Finance
Committee. I followed the hearings very closely, and I heard taxpayer
after taxpayer come before the Finance Committee recounting horror
stories and trying to fight against unjustified action by the IRS that
cost them thousands of dollars and countless hours of emotional
distress. These average taxpayers told of frustration and despair
caused by rogue IRS personnel who used the awesome resources of that
agency to punish them.
Probably the saddest part about what we heard was that these good
Americans, taxpayers, felt powerless to even question or fight back
against their own Government. I believe, as many of my colleagues from
both sides of the aisle do, that Congress needs to reform the IRS and
stop these abuses from ever happening again.
Unfortunately, current law hamstrings taxpayers who challenge the
IRS. Our legislation would change that by giving taxpayers, for the
first time ever, a cause of action under the existing Equal Access to
Justice Act (EAJA). Under our bill, taxpayers may exercise their rights
under the EAJA to win awards of legal fees, expert witness fees and
other costs against the IRS when that agency takes substantially
unjustified action against them. Thousands of citizens have won
vindication against unjust governmental action under the EAJA, and
taxpayers should be able to do the same thing.
Today, most taxpayers feel that if the IRS comes after them, even if
they think it is unjustified, they don't dare fight it because it will
cost more in lawyers, accountant fees, and so on. Under our act, if
they prove it was unjustified action, the Government pays them for
their lawyer fees and for their accountant's fees. This was done by
Congress to help individuals, partnerships, and corporations in other
administrative actions involving the Government. We should do the same
with the IRS.
In 1981, Congress enacted the EAJA to help individuals, partnerships
and corporations seek review of, or to defend against, unjustified
governmental action because of the expense involved in securing the
vindication of their rights in civil actions and in administrative
proceedings. The EAJA permits citizens who prevail in these actions in
proceedings against federal agencies to recover their costs when the
government acted unjustly. Its purpose is to deter abusive actions and
overreaching by the government and to enable individuals to vindicate
their rights, regardless of their economic circumstances.
But court decisions have interpreted the EAJA to exempt all civil
actions and administrative proceedings in connection with the Internal
Revenue Service (IRS) from its protections. Instead, taxpayers must
seek review of, or defend against, unjustified actions by the IRS under
provisions in the Internal Revenue Code. These Internal Revenue Code
provisions make it much harder for average taxpayers to recover against
unjust IRS actions.
The recent report of National Commission on Restructuring the
Internal Revenue Service agreed that the Internal Revenue Code fails to
provide taxpayers with adequate legal rights to recover attorney's fees
and other costs against unjust IRS actions. The Commission recently
proposed numerous reforms to make the IRS more effective and responsive
to taxpayers. I commend Senators Kerrey and Grassley, who served on
this bipartisan commission, for introducing legislation to implement
many of its recommendations. I am a cosponsor of the IRS reform bill
that they have introduced, and I hope the Senate's majority leadership
will allow this bill to come to a vote soon to put these taxpayer
protections in place as rapidly as possible.
The Commission's report found that: ``While the Taxpayer Bill of
Rights legislation made great strides to allow taxpayers to recover
damages for IRS malfeasance, current provisions do not provide adequate
relief. In addition, there are many cases in which taxpayers are not
able to obtain review of IRS actions.'' The Commission concluded that:
``Congress must provide taxpayers with adequate and reasonable
compensation for actual damages incurred for wrongful actions by the
IRS.''
What I am saying is this: If the IRS comes after a taxpayer, and if
they use draconian methods in an unjustified action, that not only is
the taxpayer going to win but the taxpayer is going to get their costs
of defending back. So that at least we are going to have the potential
of an equal playing field so that we will not have taxpayers who feel
that they are being attacked in an unjustified fashion. We will not
have them think, ``I will either pay the lawyers or I am going to pay
the IRS. I might as well surrender, even though I have done no wrong.''
Now they can defend their rights.
It is time for Congress to heed this advice and give taxpayers the
same rights that other citizens now have to seek review of, or to
defend against, unjust governmental action. The IRS should be treated
like every other federal agency under the law--no better and no worse.
I urge my colleagues to support this legislation to provide taxpayers
with the same rights as all other citizens who are subject to unjust
governmental action.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleague,
Senator Leahy, the distinguished Ranking Member of the Senate Judiciary
Committee, in introducing a bill today that gives American taxpayers
greater ability to recover attorneys fees and other costs against the
Internal Revenue Service (IRS) for unjustified civil actions and
administrative proceedings under the Equal Access To Justice Act
(EAJA).
Clearly, there is a need for such legislation in light of recent
hearing testimony that average taxpayers have lost thousands of dollars
in actual damages defending themselves against unjustified IRS actions.
As the National Commission on Restructuring the Internal Revenue
Service reported, current Internal Revenue Code provisions do not
provide adequate relief for unjust IRS
[[Page S452]]
actions, much less enable many taxpayers to obtain review of IRS
actions at all. I am pleased to join the Senator from Vermont in this
effort to help level the playing field and help the American taxpayer
recover when the IRS acts improperly.
Like other citizens who seek review of, or defend against,
unjustified governmental action by federal agencies, taxpayers who
successfully defend against the IRS should be able to recover attorneys
fees and other costs against when the situation warrants such an award.
By providing such relief to taxpayers under the EAJA, not only does
this bill help individuals recover the cost of their defense, but also
helps deter future abusive actions by the IRS. The Equal Access to
Justice Act has helped American citizens and small businesses recover
against other federal agencies and this bill makes the IRS accountable
under EAJA, just like the rest of the federal government.
My interest in the Equal Access To Justice Act predates my election
to this body, dating back to my tenure as a State Senator where I
worked on the Wisconsin version of EAJA. In addition to working on the
Wisconsin EAJA, I have introduced in a previous Congress, and will do
so again today, separate legislation to update and streamline the
existing federal EAJA--to make the process of recovery less cumbersome
and to help ensure that people are made whole when the government
cannot defend their actions.
The federal EAJA was originally enacted in 1980 and made permanent in
1985. The Act was intended to make taking on the federal government in
court less intimidating and I was specifically aimed at helping average
citizens and small businesses that prevail against unjustified
governmental actions. In my view, EAJA is an effective and valuable
check on the virtually limitless power of the federal government.
One would assume that the typical American taxpayer is protected by
the EAJA. However, this is not the case as the Act exempts all civil
actions and administrative proceedings in connection with the IRS from
its protections. In addition, court decisions have consistently
interpreted the tax code as providing the only relief for taxpayers
treated unjustly. The current system is inadequate and this legislation
will help to change that untenable situation.
I want to commend my friend and colleague from Vermont for his
leadership on this important issue. The legislation we are introducing
today is only one step in reforming the Internal Revenue Service and
making that agency more accountable to the American people. However, it
is an important and essential step in that process. The American people
should not have to squander their hard earned money defending against
unjustified actions by federal agencies--including the IRS. I look
forward to working with Senator Leahy and the other concerned Members
of this body as this legislation moves forward.
______
By Mr. FEINGOLD:
S. 1613. A bill to reform the regulatory process, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
EQUAL ACCESS TO JUSTICE AMENDMENTS OF 1998
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Equal
Access to Justice Reform Amendments of 1998. This legislation contains
necessary improvements to existing law, the Equal Access to Justice
Act, which will streamline and improve the current process of awarding
attorney's fees to private parties who prevail in litigation against
the government of the United States. I am introducing this legislation
for the second consecutive Congress because I believe the reforms
embodied in this legislation are important steps in reducing the
government generated burden under which many individuals and small
businesses currently operate.
Over the past few years, certainly since the elections of 1994, many
Members of the Senate have taken to the floor and spoken about the
importance of ``getting government off the backs of the American
people.'' We often hear about the need to reform government in very
fundamental ways that effect people all across this nation. I agree and
the legislation I propose here today deals directly with some aspects
of the concerns we have heard in this chamber, by assisting everyday
Americans who face legal battles with the federal government and
prevail.
At the outset, it is important to understand what the Equal Access to
Justice Act is, and why it exists. The premise is very simple, EAJA
places individuals and small businesses who face the United States
Government in litigation, on equal footing by establishing guidelines
for the award of attorney's fees when the individual or small business
prevails. Quite simply, EAJA acknowledges that the resources available
to the federal government in a legal dispute far outweigh those
available to everyday Americans. This disparity is resolved by
requiring the government, in certain instances, to pay the attorney's
fees of successful private parties. By giving successful parties the
right to seek attorney's fees from the United States, EAJA seeks to
prevent small business owners from having to risk their companies in
order to seek justice.
My interest in this issue predates my election to the Senate and
arises from my experience both as a private attorney and a Member of
the Senate in my home state of Wisconsin. While in private practice, I
became aware of how the ability to recoup attorney's fees is often the
initial inquiry which must be made when deciding whether or not to seek
redress in the courts. The significance of this factor should not be
underestimated. Upon entering the State Senate, I authored legislation
modeled on the federal law. Today, section 814.246 of the Wisconsin
statutes contains provisions similar to the federal EAJA statute.
It seemed to me then, as it does now, that we should do what we can
to help ease the burdens on parties who need to have their claims
reviewed and decided by impartial decision makers. To this end, I have
reviewed the existing federal statutes with an eye toward improving
them and making them work better. I believe that my legislation does
just that. The bill I am introducing today, does a number of things to
make EAJA more effective for individuals and small business men and
women all across this country.
One provision of my original bill that I introduced previously,
raising the hourly attorneys fee cap to $125 from $75, has already been
enacted as part of the Small Business Fair Treatment Act signed into
law during the 104th Congress. While I am pleased that significant
change was adopted, my legislation goes further by eliminating the
existing ``special factors'' language which allowed the fee cap to be
increased in certain circumstances. I believe the $125 level is
consistent with the going rate and obviates the need for ``special
factor'' language which often serves to slow the recovery process.
Further, my legislation explicitly establishes a formula for
calculating cost-of-living adjustments for awards and eliminates the
often time consuming evaluation that was previously required in the
absence of a specific standard. Both of these changes, coupled with the
fee increase will work to make EAJA more efficient and effective for
Americans.
Another significant factor of my legislation is the elimination of
the language which allows the government to escape paying attorneys'
fees even if it loses a suit but can provide a substantial
justification for its action. I believe that if an individual or small
business battles the federal government in an adversarial proceeding
and prevails, the government should pay the fees incurred. Imagine the
scenario of a person who spends countless time and money dueling with
the government and prevails, only to find out that they must now
undergo the additional step of litigating the justification of the
underlying governmental action. For the government, with its vast
resources, this additional step poses no difficulty, but for the
citizen it may simply not be financially feasible. A 1992 study
prepared by University of Virginia Professor Harold Krent on behalf of
the Administrative Conference of the United States found that only a
small percentage of EAJA awards were denied because of the substantial
justification defense and that while it is impossible to determine the
exact cost of litigating the issue of justification, it is his opinion,
based upon review of cases in 1989 and 1990, that while the substantial
justification defense may save some money awards, it
[[Page S453]]
was not enough to justify the cost of the additional litigation. In
short, eliminating this often burdensome second step is a cost
effective step which will streamline recovery under EAJA.
The final point in regard to streamlining and improving EAJA is
language designed to encourage settlement and avoid costly and
protracted litigation. Under the bill, the government is provided the
ability to make an offer of settlement up to 10 days prior to a hearing
on a fees claim. If the government's offer is rejected and the
prevailing party seeking recovery ultimately wins a smaller award, that
party is not entitled to attorneys' fees and costs they incurred after
the date of government's offer. Again, this will speed the process and
thereby reduce the time and expense of the litigation.
We all know that the American small business owner has a difficult
road to make ends meet and that unnecessary or overly burdensome
government regulation can be a formidable obstacle to doing business.
It can be the difference between success or failure. The Equal Access
to Justice Act was conceived and implemented to help overcome the
formidable power of the federal government. In this regard it has
helped many Americans do just that. The legislation I am offering today
will make EAJA more effective for more Americans while at the same time
deterring the government from acting in an indefensible and unwarranted
manner.
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. 1613
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. EQUAL ACCESS TO JUSTICE REFORM.
(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Equal
Access to Justice Reform Amendments of 1998''.
(b) Award of Costs and Fees.--
(1) Administrative proceedings.--Section 504(a)(2) of title
5, United States Code, is amended by inserting after ``(2)''
the following: ``At any time after the commencement of an
adversary adjudication covered by this section, the
adjudicative officer may ask a party to declare whether such
party intends to seek an award of fees and expenses against
the agency should such party prevail.''.
(2) Judicial proceedings.--Section 2412(d)(1)(B) of title
28, United States Code, is amended by inserting after ``(B)''
the following: ``At any time after the commencement of an
adversary adjudication covered by this section, the court may
ask a party to declare whether such party intends to seek an
award of fees and expenses against the agency should such
party prevail.''.
(c) Hourly Rate for Attorney Fees.--
(1) Administrative proceedings.--Section 504(b)(1)(A)(ii)
of title 5, United States Code, is amended by striking all
beginning with ``$125 per hour'' and inserting ``$125 per
hour unless the agency determines by regulation that an
increase in the cost-of-living based on the date of final
disposition justifies a higher fee);''.
(2) Judicial proceedings.--Section 2412(d)(2)(A)(ii) of
title 28, United States Code, is amended by striking all
beginning with ``$125 per hour'' and inserting ``$125 per
hour unless the court determines that an increase in the
cost-of-living based on the date of final disposition
justifies a higher fee);''.
(d) Payment From Agency Appropriations.--
(1) Administrative proceedings.--Section 504(d) of title 5,
United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the
following: ``Fees and expenses awarded under this subsection
may not be paid from the claims and judgments account of the
Treasury from funds appropriated pursuant to section 1304 of
title 31.''.
(2) Judicial proceedings.--Section 2412(d)(4) of title 28,
United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the
following: ``Fees and expenses awarded under this subsection
may not be paid from the claims and judgments account of the
Treasury from funds appropriated pursuant to section 1304 of
title 31.''.
(e) Offers of Settlement.--
(1) Administrative proceedings.--Section 504 of title 5,
United States Code, is amended--
(A) by redesignating subsections (e) and (f) as subsections
(f) and (g), respectively; and
(B) by inserting after subsection (d) the following new
subsection:
``(e)(1) At any time after the filing of an application for
fees and other expenses under this section, an agency from
which a fee award is sought may serve upon the applicant an
offer of settlement of the claims made in the application. If
within 10 days after service of the offer the applicant
serves written notice that the offer is accepted, either
party may then file the offer and notice of acceptance
together with proof of service thereof.
``(2) An offer not accepted shall be deemed withdrawn. The
fact that an offer is made but not accepted shall not
preclude a subsequent offer. If any award of fees and
expenses for the merits of the proceeding finally obtained by
the applicant is not more favorable than the offer, the
applicant shall not be entitled to receive an award for
attorneys' fees or other expenses incurred in relation to the
application for fees and expenses after the date of the
offer.''.
(2) Judicial proceedings.--Section 2412 of title 28, United
States Code, is amended--
(A) by redesignating subsections (e) and (f) as subsections
(f) and (g), respectively; and
(B) by inserting after subsection (d) the following new
subsection:
``(e)(1) At any time after the filing of an application for
fees and other expenses under this section, an agency of the
United States from which a fee award is sought may serve upon
the applicant an offer of settlement of the claims made in
the application. If within 10 days after service of the offer
the applicant serves written notice that the offer is
accepted, either party may then file the offer and notice of
acceptance together with proof of service thereof.
``(2) An offer not accepted shall be deemed withdrawn. The
fact that an offer is made but not accepted shall not
preclude a subsequent offer. If any award of fees and
expenses for the merits of the proceeding finally obtained by
the applicant is not more favorable than the offer, the
applicant shall not be entitled to receive an award for
attorneys' fees or other expenses incurred in relation to the
application for fees and expenses after the date of the
offer.''.
(f) Elimination of Substantial Justification Standard.--
(1) Administrative proceedings.--Section 504 of title 5,
United States Code, is amended--
(A) in subsection (a)(1), by striking all beginning with
``, unless the adjudicative officer'' through ``expenses are
sought''; and
(B) in subsection (a)(2), by striking ``The party shall
also allege that the position of the agency was not
substantially justified.''.
(2) Judicial proceedings.--Section 2412(d) of title 28,
United States Code, is amended--
(A) in paragraph (1)(A), by striking ``, unless the court
finds that the position of the United States was
substantially justified or that special circumstances make an
award unjust'';
(B) in paragraph (1)(B), by striking ``The party shall also
allege that the position of the United States was not
substantially justified. Whether or not the position of the
United States was substantially justified shall be determined
on the basis of the record (including the record with respect
to the action or failure to act by the agency upon which the
civil action is based) which is made in the civil action for
which fees and other expenses are sought.''; and
(C) in paragraph (3), by striking ``, unless the court
finds that during such adversary adjudication the position of
the United States was substantially justified, or that
special circumstances make an award unjust''.
(g) Reports to Congress.--
(1) Administrative proceedings.--No later than 180 days
after the date of the enactment of this Act, the
Administrative Conference of the United States shall submit a
report to Congress--
(A) providing an analysis of the variations in the
frequency of fee awards paid by specific Federal agencies
under the provisions of section 504 of title 5, United States
Code; and
(B) including recommendations for extending the application
of such sections to other Federal agencies and administrative
proceedings.
(2) Judicial proceedings.--No later than 180 days after the
date of the enactment of this Act, the Department of Justice
shall submit a report to Congress--
(A) providing an analysis of the variations in the
frequency of fee awards paid by specific Federal districts
under the provisions of section 2412 of title 28, United
States Code; and
(B) including recommendations for extending the application
of such sections to other Federal judicial proceedings.
(h) Effective Date.--The provisions of this Act and the
amendments made by this Act shall take effect 30 days after
the date of the enactment of this Act and shall apply only to
an administrative complaint filed with a Federal agency or a
civil action filed in a United States court on or after such
date.
______
By Mr. CAMPBELL:
S. 1614. A bill to require a permit for the making of motion picture,
television program, or other form of commercial visual depiction in a
unit of the National Park System or National Wildlife Refuge System; to
the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
THE NATIONAL PARK SERVICE IMAGE PERMIT FEE ACT
Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, today I introduce a bill that gives our
National Park Service the authority to require fee-based permits for
the use of the parks in the making of motion pictures, television
programs, advertisements or other commercial purposes.
Our national parks are among our nation's most valuable resources. My
``National Park Service Image Fee Permit Act'' would help us to protect
[[Page S454]]
them and ensure that future generations will be able to enjoy their
beauty by making sure the parks are reimbursed for their commercial
use.
The Bureau of Land Management and the Forest Service already have a
similar permit and fee system for commercial filming on public lands.
Rocky Mountain National Park in my home state of Colorado has had
twenty-five commercial filming operations take place between 1996-1997.
According to park supervisors many individuals in the entertainment
business are shocked at the fact that they are not currently charged
for the use of our great national parks.
It makes no sense that our national parks' lands, that have been
deemed to be even more precious by their designation, should be used
commercially for free. This is especially important now when taxpayers
are facing increased fees to enter the national parks and more and more
people are enjoying our natural wonders every year in record numbers.
As the Vice-Chairman of the Parks, Historic Preservation and
Recreation Subcommittee of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources
Committee, I am concerned about the maintenance backlog that exists in
most of our national parks. It is also no secret that the amount of
federal tax dollars available for that maintenance has been dwindling
for some time now.
I offer this bill as a funding vehicle for our parks to reimburse
them for the administrative costs they incur by allowing the images of
our precious national parks to be used in commercial ventures. This
bill will not provide all of the funds needed to address the
maintenance backlog in our parks, nor do I intend it to, but it will
defray the real costs associated with making our parks available for
commercial enterprises such as the motion picture industry.
We can all understand why Hollywood or book publishers want to use
the spectacular beauty of our national parks as backdrops for their
productions. My bill simply allows the National Park Service to recover
the real costs of allowing such use and devoting those fees to the
parks for their preservation. Common sense directs us to do this, and I
believe this bill is fair for the commercial users of our parks and
more importantly, for the American taxpayers.
This bill is similar to legislation introduced in the House of
Representatives by my friend and colleague from Colorado, Congressman
Hefley.
Mr. President, I have a letter from the National Parks and
Conservation Association that has reviewed and endorsed this
legislation. I look forward to working with the Association, other
interested parties and, of course, the Committee, to deal with the
maintenance backlog at our national parks.
I ask unanimous consent that the National Parks and Conservation
Association letter of support and my bill be inserted in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
S. 1614
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. PERMITS FOR MAKING COMMERCIAL VISUAL DEPICTIONS IN
UNITS OF THE NATIONAL PARK SYSTEM AND NATIONAL
WILDLIFE REFUGE SYSTEM.
(a) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) Commercial visual depiction.--
(A) In general.--The term ``commercial visual depiction''
means a visual depiction that a person produces with the
intention that the depiction (or reproductions of the
depiction) will be disseminated to the public in connection
with a for-profit enterprise.
(B) Exclusions.--The term ``commercial visual depiction''
does not include--
(i) a visual depiction produced for dissemination to the
public as news; or
(ii) a visual depiction produced by an individual in a
limited number and intended to be sold by the individual as a
work of art.
(2) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of the Interior.
(3) Visual depiction.--The term ``visual depiction'' means
a motion picture, television program, videotape, photograph,
or other form of visual depiction or any part of such a
depiction.
(b) Permit Requirement.--A person shall not produce a
commercial visual depiction in a unit of the National Park
System or National Wildlife Refuge System without first
obtaining a permit from the Secretary and paying a permit
fee.
(c) Regulation.--The Secretary shall by regulation
establish criteria and a procedure for determining the
conditions under which a person shall be permitted to produce
a commercial visual depiction in a unit of the National Park
System or National Wildlife Refuge System and the amount of a
permit fee.
(d) Fee Amounts.--
(1) Basis of imposition.--A permit fee may be imposed--
(A) in a single amount for use of any part of a unit of the
National Park System and National Wildlife Refuge System or
in different amounts for use of different areas within a
unit;
(B) in different amounts for different forms of visual
depiction; or
(C) in a set amount applicable in all cases or in a
negotiated amount applicable in a particular case.
(2) Amount.--
(A) Minimum amount.--The amount of a permit fee shall be
not less than an amount that is sufficient to compensate the
Secretary for all direct and indirect costs to the Secretary
in accommodating the production of a commercial visual
depiction (including costs of ensuring compliance with any
conditions on the use of the area for production of the
commercial visual depiction and costs of cleanup and
restoration).
(B) Other considerations.--In establishing the amount of a
permit fee, the Secretary shall take into consideration--
(i) the extent of any inconvenience to the public that
production of the commercial visual depiction may cause; and
(ii) an estimate of the amount that an owner of private
property would charge for use of property that is comparable
to the area in which the commercial visual depiction is to be
produced.
(e) Civil Penalty.--A person that produces a commercial
visual depiction in a unit of the National Park System or
National Wildlife Refuge System without first obtaining a
permit and paying a permit fee or that fails to comply with
any condition stated in a permit shall be subject to
imposition by the Secretary, after notice and opportunity for
a hearing on the record, of a civil penalty in an amount not
exceeding 200 percent of the amount of the permit fee.
(f) Use of Proceeds.--Each amount collected by the
Secretary as a permit fee or civil penalty under this section
shall be retained by the Secretary and shall be available,
without further Act of appropriation, for capital improvement
and restoration activities in the unit in which the
commercial visual depiction was produced.
____
National Parks
and Conservation Association,
February 3, 1998.
Hon. Ben Nighthorse Campbell,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Campbell: I am writing to applaud your efforts
to resolve a small but nettlesome issue affecting both the
national parks and the American taxpayer.
For years, Hollywood and Madison Avenue production
companies have been able to avail themselves of the unique
resources of the national parks at well below market prices.
In fact, film production companies have been required to
cover only the physical cost of monitoring their activities
and any remediation necessary after they leave the site. In
many cases, this amount has totaled in the hundreds of
dollars, compared with production budgets that total in the
tens of millions of dollars and more.
At a time when the Congress has directed the National Park
Service to do more in collecting entrance and recreation fees
from park visitors, the current requirements for film
production fees are patently unfair and must be changed. Your
legislation represents a step forward in this regard and will
contribute substantially to this issue as it is debated in
this congress.
Again, I want to thank you for your efforts. With your
help, the parks will finally enjoy a more balanced financial
relationship with private film production companies.
Sincerely,
Thomas C. Kiernan,
President.
______
By Mr. CLELAND (for himself, Mr. Coverdell, Mr. Helms, and Mr.
Glenn):
S. 1615. A bill to present a gold medal to Len ``Roy Rogers'' Slye
and Octavia ``Dale Evans'' Smith; to the Committee on Banking, Housing,
and Urban Affairs.
CONGRESSIONAL GOLD MEDAL LEGISLATION
Mr. CLELAND. Mr. President, today we are introducing
legislation which would authorize presentation of a Congressional Gold
Medal to Len ``Roy Rogers'' Slye and Octavia ``Dale Evans'' Smith.
``Heroes are made every little while,'' Will Rogers once said, ``but
only one in a million conduct themselves afterwards so that it makes us
proud that we honored them at the time.'' The gold medal we propose
would honor two American heroes for the wholesome entertainment they
have given the world for six decades and for the shining example they
have set as role models for America's youth. I am pleased to be joined
by the distinguished cosponsors, Senators Coverdell, Helms, and Glenn.
For generations of Americans, Roy Rogers has been the symbol of the
Western hero--a man who combines
[[Page S455]]
courage with honesty and impeccable integrity--who always righted wrong
through straight talk and square-dealing. When asked about the roles he
played on-screen, Roy once answered that he did ``what I was supposed
to do. I played myself. * * * When I talk about my image, there isn't
anything that isn't really me. I always try to be the best that I can
be.'' In all that we have seen or heard or read about Roy Rogers, on
screen or off, the persona and the man are indeed one and the same--and
in Roy Rogers we see what is best about America.
Dale Evans counts among her highest honors the Cardinal Terrence Cook
Humanities Award and the California Mother of the Year. Both are
tributes to two of her greatest gifts--her generosity of spirit and her
strong family values. Together she and Roy have raised nine children,
and they have sixteen grandchildren and 30 great-grandchildren. And the
fact that most of them live near Roy and Dale's ranch outside of
Victorville, California, is a testament to their devotion and strong
family ties. Dale is the author of 25 books. Her most famous, ``Angel
Unaware'', chronicles the life and death of Dale and Roy's daughter,
Robin, who died from complications of Down's syndrome. The book is
about loss, but it is also about the capacity to love--a quality which
both Dale and Roy have in abundant measure.
Roy and Dale are an American institution--and their fans span the
globe. Together they have achieved the pinnacle of success in the
entertainment industry. Their movies were No. 1 at the box office.
Their television series was the highest rated of its time. The episodes
have been translated into every major language, and they can still be
seen here in America and in markets abroad. Between the two of them
they have set appearance records in every major arena in the world,
including Madison Square Garden, the Los Angeles Coliseum, the Chicago
Stadium, the Harringay Arena in London, and Toronto's Canadian National
Exhibition. Roy once sold out Madison Square Garden 29 straight nights,
and he still holds the record for the largest crowd ever to see an
indoor rodeo.
It has been said that we make a living by what we get, but we make a
life by what we give. Both Roy and Dale's careers have been an
unqualified success, as their world-wide appeal attests. But this tells
only half the story. Their appeal--which reaches to all four corners of
the globe--is also the result of the values, the ethics, and the
uncompromising principles by which they have lived their lives. It is
our hope that we honor their worthy contributions with the
Congressional Gold Medal. Should we do so, we will have honored in
their time true American heroes, and our choice--to use Will Rogers'
yardstick--will be validated by the ages to come.
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. 1615
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. CONGRESSIONAL GOLD MEDAL.
(a) Presentation Authorized.--The President is authorized
to present, on behalf of the Congress, a gold medal of
appropriate design to Len ``Roy Rogers'' Slye and Octavia
``Dale Evans'' Smith in recognition of their accomplishments
as entertainers and humanitarians, which include--
(1) careers in the entertainment industry that spanned 6
decades and covered such industries as music, film,
television, writing, sports, and radio;
(2) acting in and producing more than 100 films, as well as
their popular 10-year television show ``The Roy Rogers
Show'', which is still seen in American and foreign markets;
(3) setting appearance records in virtually every major
arena in the world, including Madison Square Garden in New
York City, the Houston Fat Stock Show, the Los Angeles
Coliseum, the Chicago Stadium, the Harringay Arena in London,
Toronto's Canadian National Exhibition, and many State fairs
and rodeos;
(4) on the part of Len Slye, once selling out Madison
Square Garden 29 straight nights, holding the record for the
largest crowd to ever see an indoor rodeo, and twice
attracting more than 100,000 people to rodeos in the Los
Angeles Coliseum;
(5) selfless service as role models through their strong
faith in Christianity as well as their devotion to their 9
children (5 by adoption and 4 by birth), 16 grandchildren,
and 30 great-grandchildren;
(6) Octavia Smith's classic book ``Angel Unaware'', which
dealt with the death from complications associated with
Down's syndrome of Robin, the one child Len Slye and Octavia
Smith had together; and
(7) creating the Roy Rogers-Dale Evans Museum in
Victorville, California, that vividly chronicles their lives
and the values and ethics that represent the basis of their
worldwide appeal.
(b) Design and Striking.--For the purpose of the
presentation referred to in subsection (a), the Secretary of
the Treasury (hereafter in this Act referred to as the
``Secretary'') shall strike a gold medal with suitable
emblems, devices, and inscriptions, to be determined by the
Secretary.
SEC. 2. DUPLICATE MEDALS.
The Secretary may strike and sell duplicates in bronze of
the gold medal struck pursuant to section 1 under such
regulations as the Secretary may prescribe, and at a price
sufficient to cover the costs of the medals, including labor,
materials, dies, use of machinery, and overhead expenses.
SEC. 3. NATIONAL MEDALS.
The medals struck pursuant to this Act are national medals
for purposes of chapter 51 of title 31, United States Code.
SEC. 4. FUNDING AND PROCEEDS OF SALE.
(a) Authorization.--There is hereby authorized to be
charged against the United States Mint Public Enterprise Fund
an amount not to exceed $30,000 to pay for the cost of the
medals authorized by this Act.
(b) Proceeds of Sale.--Amounts received from the sale of
duplicate bronze medals under section 3 shall be deposited in
the United States Mint Public Enterprise Fund.
______
By Mr. BAUCUS:
S. 1616. A bill to authorize the exchange of existing Federal oil and
gas leases in the State of Montana, located in the Lewis and Clark
National Forest and the Flathead National Forest, for credits in future
Federal oil and gas lease sales in the Gulf of Mexico, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
exchange legislation
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I am pleased today to introduce a Bill
that would provide the Secretary of the Interior with the authority to
exchange oil and gas leases in the Badger Two-Medicine area, in the
State of Montana, for credits that could be applied toward bidding or
royalty payments in Montana and the Gulf of Mexico.
The area involved in this legislation is located along the Rocky
Mountain Front, an area whose rich natural beauty I care deeply about.
It lies south of one of the ``Crown Jewels'' of the National Park
system, Glacier National Park. Also adjoining this area is the
Blackfeet Indian Reservation and the uniquely wild and pristine Bob
Marshall Wilderness Area. The Badger Two-Medicine area is undeveloped
wilderness and contains many sites sacred to the Blackfeet Nation. The
location of this area, its cultural value, and its undeveloped natural
condition has been the focus of the decade-long debate over whether or
not the oil and gas resources of the area should be developed. I myself
believe that we should protect this special place for our children and
grandchildren, and I have fought to do just that.
We are no closer today to resolving the question of development of
the resources of this area than we were a decade ago and it is time to
resolve these conflicts. During this time the ten leaseholders in the
area have made investments in anticipation of being able to exercise
the option of developing wells under their leases. The time has come to
break this stalemate that only costs the leaseholders, the citizens
concerned with protecting the area, and the government time and money
without resolution. The bill that I am introducing today is fair for
the landowners, the citizens of Montana and the Nation, and fair for
the leaseholders.
Chevron, the largest leaseholder in the area, stated ``While we would
have liked to have developed our well in the Badger Two-Medicine area,
we understand that the public had concerns about our proposal. Senator
Baucus' bill breaks the deadlock and allows everyone to get on with
their business''.
Today I am introducing this legislation, a common sense solution to a
long-standing controversy, to allow all the parties to leave this
dispute as winners. The Secretary of the Interior would work with
leaseholders, who have made investments over the years, to determine
credits for their expenses. These credits, allowing for reinvestment in
Montana, can be applied to lease bids or royalty payments in other
locations where they already have active wells or where development is
[[Page S456]]
more likely to occur. The citizens who are concerned about the cultural
and resource effects of development would see the integrity of this
area maintained. The government would be able to refocus the use of its
limited financial resources on management activities that have a more
direct positive result than continuation of the current disputes.
This bill focuses on resolving Montana problems while looking out for
the economic and natural resource interests of this State. Creating and
maintaining jobs in Montana is very important to me. This bill helps
save jobs. As Richard Jackson, owner of an outfitting business in the
Badger Two-Medicine recently said, ``This bill isn't just about saving
some of our most precious wildlands; it's about saving our wildlands
and Montana jobs''. Montana has a unique recreational industry that has
sustainable jobs that are dependent on wild untamed lands. We need to
care for this wildness. I look forward to continuing work with the
Governor and the Montana Delegation on innovative ideas to stimulate
appropriate development of the State's rich mineral heritage while
protecting its wildness and uncomparable natural beauty.
I encourage my esteemed colleagues to support this bill and look
forward to working with them in their consideration.
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. 1616
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. EXCHANGE OF OIL AND GAS LEASES IN THE LEWIS AND
CLARK NATIONAL FOREST AND THE FLATHEAD NATIONAL
FOREST, STATE OF MONTANA.
(a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
law, the Secretary of the Interior may exchange Federal oil
and gas leases that are in existence and in good standing as
of the date of enactment of this Act and are located in the
exchange area described in subsection (b) for credits that
may be used--
(1) for bids in Federal oil and gas lease sales or for
royalty and rentals due under Federal leases in the central
and western planning areas of the Gulf of Mexico for leases
outside the zone defined and governed by section 8(g)(2) of
the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (43 U.S.C. 1337(g)(2));
or
(2) for bid, royalty, or rental payments due under Federal
oil and gas leases on Federal land within the State of
Montana.
(b) Exchange Area.--The exchange area referred to in
subsection (a) consists of--
(1) the portions of the Lewis and Clark National Forest and
the Flathead National Forest in Flathead County, Glacier
County, and Pondera County, Montana (including the area known
as the ``Badger-Two Medicine''), as delineated on the map
entitled ``Exchange Area Map'' and located in T. 27 N., R. 11
W., T. 28 N., R. 10-14 W., T. 29 N., R. 10-16 W., T. 30 N.,
R. 11-13 W., and T. 31 N., R. 12-13 W.; and
(2) the area covered by Federal oil and gas lease no. MTM-
53314, in Teton County, Montana.
(c) Amount.--The amount of the credits shall be based on
investments made in the acquisition and development of the
leases before the date of enactment of this Act and agreed to
by the Secretary of the Interior and the leaseholder.
(d) Withdrawal From Mineral Laws.--Subject to valid
existing rights not relinquished, the exchange area described
in subsection (b)(1) is withdrawn from location and entry
under the mining laws and from leasing under the mineral
leasing laws.
(e) Effect of Use of Credits.--If a person that receives a
credit under subsection (a) uses the credit to pay any rental
or royalty due under any Federal oil and gas lease on Federal
land within the State of Montana, the Secretary of the
Interior shall pay the State of Montana, from amounts
received from oil and gas leases on Federal land that, but
for this subsection, would be deposited in the Treasury of
the United States under section 35 of the Act of February 25,
1920 (commonly known as the ``Mineral Lands Leasing Act'')
(41 Stat. 450, chapter 85; 30 U.S.C. 191), the amount that
the State would have received under applicable law if the
amount of the royalty or rental had been paid in cash.
____________________