[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 36 (Thursday, March 26, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2587-S2601]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS FOR NATURAL DISASTERS AND OVERSEAS
PEACEKEEPING EFFORTS FOR FISCAL YEAR 1998
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the clerk will
report the supplemental appropriations bill.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
A bill (S. 1768) making emergency supplemental
appropriations for recovery from natural disasters, and for
overseas peacekeeping efforts, for the fiscal year ending
September 30, 1998, and for other purposes.
The Senate resumed consideration of the bill.
Pending:
McConnell modified amendment No. 2100, to provide
supplemental appropriations for the International Monetary
Fund for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1998.
Stevens (for Nickles) amendment No. 2120, to strike certain
funding for the Health Care Financing Administration.
Enzi amendment No. 2133, to prohibit the Secretary of the
Interior from promulgating certain regulations relating to
Indian gaming activities.
[[Page S2588]]
Bumpers amendment No. 2134, to express the sense of the
Senate that of the rescissions, if any, which Congress makes
to offset appropriations made for emergency items in the
Fiscal Year 1998 supplemental appropriations bill, defense
spending should be rescinded to offset increases in spending
for defense programs.
Robb amendment No. 2135, to reform agricultural credit
programs of the Department of Agriculture.
Amendment No. 2133
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the pending business
is amendment 2133, offered by the Senator from Wyoming, Mr. Enzi.
There are 50 minutes remaining for debate on the amendment; 15
minutes is under the control of the Senator from Wyoming, and 35
minutes under the control of the Senator from Hawaii, Mr. Inouye.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent I be allowed to
yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Colorado from the time of Senator
Inouye.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Colorado.
Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I rise to speak against the amendment
offered by my friend and colleague from Wyoming, Senator Enzi, related
to the procedures of the Secretary of the Interior in the Indian gaming
statute.
I oppose this amendment first and foremost because it will make
permanent changes to the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act without a single
hearing on the matter. Later today I intend to introduce a freestanding
bill to amend the Indian gaming statute. In fact, I was rather
surprised this amendment would come forward on a bill that is designed
to be an emergency supplemental for our troops in Bosnia and the gulf
and to address natural disasters.
Beginning this Wednesday, our committee will conduct the first of
several hearings this year dealing with difficult and complex issues
involving Indian gaming tribes and Indian gaming in itself. These
issues include: Should there be uniform standards governing Indian
gaming? What level of regulation of tribal gaming is needed? Is the
Federal Gaming Commission adequately funded? What remedies do tribes
have in the wake of the Supreme Court's Seminole decision?
That is the committee of jurisdiction, and that is the forum through
which the Senator from Wyoming should have addressed his concerns.
When Congress enacted the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, the States
were invited to play a significant role in the regulation of gaming
activities that take place on Indian lands. In fact, the statute
required tribes to have a gaming compact before the State commenced any
casino-style gaming within tribal lands. Though few have come to
understand how significant such a provision is, it was and is a major
concession by Indian tribes and one that has worked fairly well for the
last 8 years.
Congress also realized that tribes need a mechanism to encourage
States to negotiate these compacts and provided for tribal lawsuits
against reluctant States. Up until 1996, if a Federal court determined
that a State was negotiating in bad faith, or if the State decided not
to negotiate at all, the tribe had the option of filing a lawsuit to
bring about good-faith negotiations.
In 1996, the Supreme Court handed down the decision in Seminole Tribe
of Indians v. The State of Florida. This decision said that a State may
assert its 11th amendment immunity from lawsuits and preclude tribes
from suing it in order to conclude a gaming agreement. Just as I
believe we should respect each State's sovereign right, it seems to me
we should recognize those of tribes, too.
Next week at the committee hearing, one of the issues surely to arise
again will be the matter of whether, in the absence of a State-tribal
compact, the Secretary of the Interior can issue procedures to govern
casino gaming on Indian lands. Senator Enzi's amendment would preempt
the efforts of the committee to fully and fairly look at the issues
regarding Indian gaming.
I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a statement
from the administration that opposes this amendment.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Bureau: Bureau of Indian Affairs
item: proposed bill s. 1572, introduced by senators bryan, enzi, reid,
and sessions on january 27, 1998
S. 1572 amends the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA) and
precludes the Secretary of the Interior from promulgating
final regulations to deal with Indian gaming compact
negotiations between States and Tribes when Tribes have
exhausted federal judicial remedies.
Background: The Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA) was
enacted to allow Indian tribes the opportunity to pursue
gaming as a means of economic development on Indian lands.
Since 1988, Indian gaming, regulated under IGRA, has provided
benefits to over 150 tribes and to their surrounding
communities in over 24 states. As required by law, Indian
gaming revenues have been directed to programs and facilities
to improve the health, safety, educational opportunities and
quality of life for Indian people.
Under IGRA, Tribes are only authorized to conduct casino-
style gaming operations if such gaming is permitted by the
state. Further, the gaming is allowed in such states only
pursuant to a mutually agreed-upon Tribal-State compact; or
in the alternative, pursuant to procedures issued by the
Secretary if a state fails to consent to a compact arrived at
through the mediation process that follows a determination by
a United States District Court that the State has failed to
negotiate in good faith (25 U.S.C. Section
2710(d)(7)(B)(vii). IGRA only authorizes the Secretary to
issue ``procedures'' after sates have been provided with a
full opportunity to negotiate compact terms.
Under IGRA, Congress intended to give tribes the right to
file suits directly against states that failed to negotiate
in good faith with regard to Class III gaming. The right to
sue a state for failure to negotiate in good faith was seen
by Congress as the best way to ensure that states deal fairly
with tribes as sovereign governments. See Senate Report No.
446, 100th Congress, 2nd Session 14 (1988).
In Seminole Tribe v. State of Florida, the U.S. Supreme
Court held that Congress was without authority to waive the
States' immunity to suits in Federal courts ensured by the
Eleventh Amendment to the Constitution. As a result of this
decision, states can avoid entering into good faith
negotiations with Indian tribes without concern about being
subject to suit by tribes. Under these circumstances, the
Secretary's authority to promulgate regulations may be the
only avenue for meeting the Congressional policy of promoting
tribal economic development and self sufficiency.
Effect of Proposed Legislation: The legislation would
prohibit the adoption of a rule setting forth the process and
standards pursuant to which Class III procedures would be
adopted in specific situations where the state has asserted
its Eleventh Amendment immunity. If the legislation is
included as an amendment to a 1998 supplemental
appropriation, the language would remain in effect through FY
1998.
Departmental Position: The Department strongly objects to
any attempt to substantially interfere with its ability to
administer the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act or to thwart
Congress' declared policy in IGRA of promoting tribal
economic development, self sufficiency and strong tribal
government. The Secretary would recommend a veto of any
legislation extending beyond FY 1998 that prevents the
Secretary from attempting to work out a reasonable solution
for dealing with Indian gaming compact negotiations between
States and Tribes when Tribes have exhausted federal judicial
remedies.
The Secretary published proposed regulations on January 22,
1998 which would authorize the Secretary to approve Class III
gaming procedures in cases where the state has asserted an
Eleventh Amendment defense. The proposed rule is narrow in
scope. It will allow the Secretary to move forward only (1)
where a Tribe asserts that a State has not acted in good
faith in negotiating a Class III gaming compact and (2) when
the State asserts immunity from the lawsuit to resolve the
dispute. In the 9-year history of IGRA, these situations have
been very rare. Over 150 compacts have been successfully
negotiated and are being implemented in more than half the
states. Even where negotiations have been unsuccessful and
litigation has been filed, a number of States have chosen not
to assert immunity from suit. Based on experience to date,
relatively few situations will arise requiring Secretarial
decisions.
The publication of the proposed rule is followed by a 90-
day comment period, with formal public access to and review
of the proposed rule. The Department will attempt to maximize
State participation and comment during the comment period,
with final publication of the rule expected in FY 1998, after
careful review and analysis of public comments. In
particular, the Department will continue to meet with State
Governors to discuss the proposed rule and to work out
compromises. A provision in the FY 1998 Department of the
Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Act precludes
the implementation of a final rule this fiscal year.
State law would continue to be the appropriate reference
point for determining the ``scope of gaming'' permitted in
any procedures proposed by the Department to resolve Indian
gaming compact disputes. This policy is consistent with the
Department's position that it does not authorize classes or
forms of Indian gaming in any State where they are
affirmatively prohibited. See Brief of the
[[Page S2589]]
United States as amicus curiae in the Supreme Court in Rumsey
Indian Rancher of Wintun Indians v. Wilson, 64F.3d 1250 (9th
Cir. 1995), as modified on denial of petition for rehearing,
99F.3d 321 (9th Cir 1996), cert denied, sub nom. Sycuan Band
of Mission Indians v. Wilson, No. 96-1059, 65 U.S.L. W. 3855
(June 24, 1997).
The publication of the proposed rule follows an Advanced
Notice of Public Rulemaking published in the Federal Register
in May, 1996. In developing the proposed rule, the Department
carefully considered over 350 comments submitted by States,
Tribes, and others.
The Department opposes legislation which would in effect
provide States with a veto power over Class III Indian gaming
when state law permits the gaming at issue ``for any purpose
by an person, organization or entity.''
In addition, the Department of the Interior strongly
objects to using the appropriations process for policy
amendments to the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act. Including the
provision in the FY 1998 supplemental appropriations would
circumvent a fair legislative process with hearings involving
Indian tribes, state officials and the regulated community.
Through the hearing process, all parties involved in Indian
gaming are allowed to contribute testimony on how or whether
IGRA should be amended.
Mr. STEVENS. I urge Members who have colloquies that they wish to
enter into with myself or Senator Byrd to come over now, and we can get
those done. We have two significant--maybe three significant colloquies
pertaining to amendments that will not be necessary if the colloquies
are properly presented.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, as Chairman Campbell of the Committee on
Indian Affairs has observed, I believe it is very important that our
colleagues have a clear understanding of the context in which this
amendment is being offered. I say this because one might infer that the
Secretary of the Interior is pursuing a course of action that is either
unwarranted or one which the Congress would never sanction, and I
believe it is critically important that we understand that drawing such
inferences would be wrong.
As Senator Campbell has indicated, in 1988 the Indian Gaming
Regulatory Act was enacted into law. It followed a ruling by the
Supreme Court in 1987 in which the Court once again reaffirmed one of
the fundamental principles of Federal Indian law; namely, that the
civil regulatory laws of the State do not apply in Indian country. In
so ruling, the Court concluded that the State of California could not
regulate gaming on Indian lands.
As often happens, the Congress responded with the enactment of a law
that gave to the States that which they did not have after the Court's
decision--an ability to enter into a compact with a tribal government
under which State laws might apply if the parties so agreed.
That law has proven to work well.
In fact, twenty-three of the twenty-eight States in which Indian
reservations are located, have elected to enter into compacts with the
tribal governments in their respective States.
Thus, it is clear that the law is working.
However, in 1996, the Supreme Court ruled again.
The Court found that while the Congress intended to enable the
parties to go to a Federal court to resolve any outstanding questions
of law relative to gaming activities permitted within each State, or
relative to tribal-state compact negotiations, the Congress could not
waive the States' eleventh amendment immunity to suit.
The result was that if a State refused to negotiate a tribal-state
compact for the conduct of gaming, there is no Federal forum to which
the parties can go to secure the assistance of the courts in reaching a
resolution.
So the Secretary of the Department of the Interior--as the Federal
official to whom authority has been delegated to manage matters of
Indian affairs--took the next step and did what many believe was the
responsible thing to do.
In the fall of 1996, the Secretary invited comments from the public
as to how he should proceed.
He posed a question--``should the remaining tribal governments--those
that did not have compacts before the Supreme Court's ruling--be
precluded from conducting gaming on their lands if a State elects not
to enter into compact negotiations?''
Taken together, the responses, I assume were that the Supreme Court
and the Congress have recognized the right of tribal governments, as
sovereigns, to conduct gaming activities on their lands--and that if
the process set forth in the act was no longer workable, then another
process ought to be put in place.
And so the Secretary proceeded to issue an advance notice of proposed
rulemaking, once again inviting comments from the public.
Put another way, this whole process that the Secretary has pursued
has been conducted in the full light of day, with maximum input from
all interested parties. There was ample opportunity provided for
everyone to weigh in and have their voices heard. And, because we have
yet to enact a legislative remedy to the problem created by the Supreme
Court's ruling--it was a necessary and proper action for the Secretary
to take.
Nonetheless, my colleagues felt it necessary to propose an amendment
to the Interior appropriations bill, last fall, that would prevent the
Secretary from proceeding any further. I was opposed to that amendment,
because I believe that through our passage of the Indian Gaming
Regulatory Act, we have clearly sent a message to Indian country.
That message is that we recognize the right to Indian country to seek
a means--other than a reliance on Federal appropriations--to foster
economic growth in their communities--communities, which have
historically been plagued with poverty, the highest rates of
unemployment in the Nation, not to mention the sorry state of housing,
health care, and education.
My colleagues' amendment seeks to send a message to those tribes that
have yet to secure compacts--that if for one reason or another, you
don't have a compact with a State--you will never have any other way to
have gaming activities authorized on your lands. That you will be
permanently foreclosed from the one activity that has proven to hold
any potential for the economic well-being of Indian communities. That
if your tribal economy has been devastated--if there are no jobs to be
had on your reservation--that is just too bad.
Mr. President, I don't think we can--in all clear conscience--send
that message to Indian country.
It isn't as though Indian reservations are located on another planet.
The strength of tribal economies is every bit as important to our
national economy as those of the States and local governments.
If there are no jobs on the reservations, people will be, as they
have been forced to do in the past, become increasingly more dependent
on Federal programs. And this just flies in the face of all good sense
and sound judgment.
For the past 28 years, our national policy has been to support tribal
governments in their quest to become economically self-sufficient.
My friend, the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, could give
us chapter and verse as to the scarcity of Federal dollars when it
comes to meeting the needs in Indian country.
For 28 years, we have been saying to the tribes--``get on your feet
economically--we will do whatever we can to support you. Like you, we
want to see the day when you are self-determining people who no longer
need to have your lives dominated by the actions or inaction of the
Federal Government.''
The adoption of this amendment will send a decidedly different
message. That message is that--``we will cut off Your right, as
sovereigns, to determine whether gaming is something you want to employ
as an economic tool to lift your communities out of the economic
devastation and despair that has plagued Indian country for so long.''
Mr. President, my colleagues know that I am not one who supports
gaming. Hawaii is one of two States in the Union that criminally
prohibits all forms of gaming.
But I have seen what gaming has brought to Indian country and I
support gaming for Indian country because
[[Page S2590]]
I believe that it is one of their Rights as sovereigns within our
system of government to determine how to develop the economic base of
tribal communities.
So while I do not question the good intentions of my colleagues, I
would suggest to them and to my other colleagues, that this simply is
not a matter that has to be or should be addressed in an emergency
supplemental appropriations bill.
The better course of action, in my view, would be to address this
matter either in the authorizing committee or as part of the regulatory
process.
I am advised that the National Governor's Association has already
notified the Department that it will be requesting a 30-day extension
of the rulemaking procedure--which would take us into the end of May.
Finally, the administration has sent up a statement of administration
policy on this amendment which makes abundantly clear that the
Department of the Interior will recommend a veto of the emergency
supplemental appropriations bills, should this amendment be included in
the bill.
I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment. It does not involve an
emergency situation--there are other forums in which this matter is
more appropriately addressed. There is more than sufficient time to
take action, if it is necessary, before the rulemaking process is
complete.
Clearly, we would not be acting today if there were not victims who
are desperately in need of the emergency assistance that this bill will
make available.
I don't think we can responsibly tell them that the help that is so
critical to them will not be forthcoming because this bill was vetoed.
And we knew that it would be--simply because of an Indian gaming
amendment that so obviously did not need to be treated as if it were an
emergency and thereby addressed in this bill.
In conclusion, Mr. President, I would note that each of my colleagues
who spoke in support of this amendment yesterday, all made one and the
same assumption--the assumption that States have a right to consent to
the conduct of gaming on Indian lands. However, under the Supreme
Court's ruling in Cabazon, the States do not have such a right.
This is what the Court explicitly held.
It is the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act that carved out a role for the
States to play in Indian gaming.
In my view, if a State elects not to avail itself of this role--
either by refusing to negotiate for a compact or by asserting it's
eleventh amendment immunity to suit--then the State is knowingly opting
out of its prerogatives under the act.
In so doing, a State has voluntarily passed the responsibility back
to the Federal Government.
All that the Interior Secretary is doing here is fulfilling his role
as trustee by assuring that the action on the part of a State does not
abrogate the rights of the tribal governments.
When my colleagues suggest that the statute does not envision the
Secretary acting without the consent of a State--it is because the
statute is premised upon a simple assumption.
In 1988, the States aggressively pursued having a role to play in
Indian gaming. It was and is then natural to assume that they would act
in conformance with what they said they wanted.
If a State doesn't want this role, then I would suggest that a State
would be hard pressed to object to the Federal Government fulfilling
its responsibilities in lieu of the State. This is simple equity.
We can always repeal this law. But let us all be clear about what the
state of the law would be in the absence of this statute. Tribal
governments could conduct gaming on their lands without regard to State
law and without the consent of any State.
Mr. President, I don't think that is what my colleagues want.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I join with my colleagues, Senator
Campbell and Senator Inouye, in strong opposition to the amendment
sponsored by Senators Enzi, Reid and Bryan to S. 1768. I regret that I
was not able to participate more fully in the debate on this amendment.
However, I want to make it clear that I take strong exception to this
amendment, as I did last September when a similar amendment was before
the Senate. If I had been able to be on the floor, I would have fought
against and voted against this amendment.
The adoption of this amendment in any form disturbs the careful
balance of State, Tribal and Federal interests which is embodied in the
Indian Gaming law. The amendment was offered and debated without the
benefit of any hearings or the consideration of the committee of
jurisdiction, the Committee on Indian Affairs.
I recognize the Indian gaming law is not perfect. However, this is
not the time nor the proper manner for consideration of amendments to
the Act. The Committee on Indian Affairs has before it several
proposals to amend the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act. As all of my
colleagues know, I have proposed amendments to the Indian Gaming
Regulatory Act. My colleagues from Wyoming and Nevada should follow our
established procedures and introduce legislation which can be referred
to the Committee for hearings and proper consideration. Fairness and a
respect for our laws and the views of all concerned parties requires
such deliberation.
Mr. President, I am disappointed that this body approved such an ill-
advised policy which, in effect, interferes with and side-steps the on-
going work of the authorizing Committee. I urge the conferees who will
be appointed to finalize this supplemental appropriations bill to
eliminate this provision from the final conference agreement.
Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I rise today in opposition to the
amendment offered by Senators Enzi and Bryan with respect to
restrictions on the activities of the Secretary of the Interior. While
I appreciate the concerns of my colleagues on this issue, I do not
believe that this emergency supplemental bill is the appropriate
vehicle for this amendment and, I encourage my colleagues on the
appropriations conference committee to carefully consider the impact
that this amendment will have on the potential for progress between
Indian tribes and state governments in this area.
As written, this amendment would prohibit the Secretary of the
Interior from proceeding with proposed regulations to create procedures
to permit class III gaming, procedures which would basically facilitate
state-tribal negotiations when other avenues are exhausted. There has
been a stalemate in Indian gaming compact negotiations since the 1996
Supreme Court Seminole decision. In response, the Senate included
language in the FY1998 Interior Appropriations bill sending a strong
message to the Secretary that gaming compacts should not be entered
into without state involvement. I believe the Secretary has heeded that
Congressional directive through the rulemaking process, and that states
have been encouraged to participate in the comment period required in
the formation of federal regulations.
Proponents of this amendment believe they are acting in the best
interest of the states. However, eliminating the Secretary's ability to
gather commentary and issue procedures to help facilitate dialog on
Indian gaming goes against the states' interests.
We are fortunate in South Dakota to have a relatively productive
relationship between the state and the tribes on gaming issues.
However, this amendment, offered without committee consideration or
extensive debate, directly limits the federal role in maintaining the
balance of tribal, state and federal interests in the gaming
negotiation process and I must oppose this step.
Federal law requires tribal governments to use gaming revenue to fund
essential services such as education, law enforcement and economic
development. Without due protection of the rights of tribal governments
to negotiate gaming compacts, the entire foundation of tribal
sovereignty and government-to-government relations is jeopardized. The
uncertainty left by the Seminole case demands that the Department of
the Interior and the Congress revisit existing gaming regulations and
law. I will urge the Senate Indian Affairs Committee to continue moving
forward on legislation to revisit the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act
(IGRA).
Mr. President, I am opposed to the amendment offered by Senators Enzi
[[Page S2591]]
and Bryan and encourage my colleagues to closely examine any language
agreed to by the conferees to ensure that the interests of states,
tribes, and the federal government are maintained in the Indian gaming
regulatory process.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I rise today to express my concern about
the continuing efforts of some in Congress to undermine the rights of
the first Americans--the American Indian and Alaska Native people of
our country, their tribal governments, and their unique and historic
government-to-government relationship with the United States. In
America today, there are 557 federally recognized tribes. In hundreds
of treaties signed by the President and ratified by the Senate over the
years, Indian tribes have traded vast amounts of land for the right to
live on their reservations and govern themselves. An honorable country
keeps its promises, even those made many years ago. We must reaffirm
our commitment to self-determination for tribal governments.
In the first session of this Congress, numerous proposals were
introduced to limit the sovereign rights of tribal governments. One of
the most objectionable of the proposals would have required tribal
governments to waive all sovereign immunity against suit as a condition
of receiving federal funds. It would have authorized suits against
tribal governments to be heard in federal courts rather than tribal
courts.
Other legislation similar in scope contains extremely broad waivers
of tribal sovereign immunity, and would subject tribal governments to
virtually any type of suit in both federal and state courts. Any such
measure would make it nearly impossible for tribal governments to carry
out basic governmental functions and would jeopardize the resources and
the future of tribal governments.
Indian nations are forms of government recognized in the U.S.
Constitution and hundreds of treaties, court decisions and federal
laws. Tribal governments are analogous to state and local governments.
They carry out basic governmental functions such as law enforcement and
education on Indian lands throughout the country. Tribal governments
are modern, democratic, fair and as deserving of respect by Congress
just as Congress respects state and local governments.
Sovereign immunity is not an anachronism It is alive and well as
legal doctrine that protects the essential functions of government from
unreasonable litigation and damage claims. Like other forms of
government, tribal governments are not perfect, but any changes should
be based on a careful study of current needs and circumstances, and be
guided by the fundamental principle that it is the federal government's
role to protect tribal self-government.
In addition to challenges to their sovereign immunity, tribal
governments also face constant attempts to undermine their ability to
take land into trust, to impose taxes upon their revenues, and to
impose ``means testing'' on their federal funding.
As the Senate deals with these issues, I urge the Senate to act
responsibly. Broad generalizations and one-size-fits-all solutions may
seem tempting, but they will have disastrous effects when applied to
the diversity of Indian Nations in this country. A realistic review of
the variety of circumstances and specific issues is far more likely to
lead to workable solutions.
Many of the issues that are being raised today involve matters of
purely local concern that can be resolved at the local level by the
tribes and states. The role of the federal government in these cases
should be to encourage local cooperation, rather than to create new
legislation with broad, unintended consequences.
Above all, any solutions by Congress should be guided by the
principle that it is the federal government's role to protect tribal
self-government.
Tribal self-government serves the same purpose today that it has
always served. It enables Indian tribes to protect their cultures and
identities and provide for the needs of their people. By doing so,
tribal self-government enriches American life and provides economic
opportunities where few would otherwise exist.
A common misperception is the belief that most tribes are growing
wealthy from gaming proceeds. Nothing is further from the truth. Indian
reservations have a 31% poverty rate--the highest poverty rate in
America. Indian unemployment is six times the national average. Indian
health, education and income are the worst in the country. Only a very
small number of tribes have been fortunate enough to have successful
gaming operations.
Instead of undermining them, Congress should be doing more to help
tribes create jobs, raise incomes, and develop capital for new
businesses. We should also be doing more to invest in the health, the
education and the skills of American Indians and Alaska Natives, as we
do for all Americans, and I look forward to working with my colleagues
in the Senate and House to do so.
Mr. STEVENS. I ask unanimous consent that that time be charged
against the Senator's time on the time agreement.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BRYAN addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, if I may inquire, my understanding is that
Senator Enzi controls 15 minutes on the Enzi-Bryan amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
Mr. BRYAN. In the interest of accommodating the time of the
distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Committee--I note that
Senator Enzi joins us on the floor at this moment. If I might engage
him in a colloquy, the chairman of the Appropriations Committee has
indicated that it would be permissible for us to move forward. The
distinguished Senator from Hawaii has made a statement, all of which is
charged on our time. There are 15 minutes remaining. I would be happy
to yield to the primary sponsor of the amendment and then take my time,
if he prefers to go first.
Mr. ENZI. I will yield time to the Senator from Nevada.
Mr. BRYAN. Will the distinguished author of the amendment yield me 5
minutes?
Mr. ENZI. Yes; I yield 5 minutes.
Mr. BRYAN. It will be charged against the Senator's 15 minutes on
this bill.
Mr. ENZI. Yes. I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Nevada.
Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, what is at issue here is whether States,
through their elected Governors and State legislatures, will determine
what the scope of gaming is in a particular State, or whether that
decision should be made by the Secretary of the Interior. The Secretary
of the Interior has proceeded with regulations that are subject to
public comment and are currently being reviewed by the Office of
Management and Budget that, in effect, would constitute a preemptive
strike. That is, the Secretary of the Interior would determine the
scope of Indian gaming. We believe that is inappropriate.
This amendment seeks to reaffirm a policy which the Congress agreed
to last year; and that is that the Congress should retain the authority
to make any changes in the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act. The chairman
of the Committee on Indian Affairs has indicated that he intends to
move forward with the piece of legislation. I assured him that we will
work cooperatively with him about what the Secretary of the Interior
has done. Notwithstanding the actions taken by the Congress last year,
which would prevent the implementation of a regulation which would give
to him the ability to establish the scope of gambling activity in a
State contrary to what I believe is the clear intent of the Congress,
this amendment simply says he may not go forward at this point with the
processing of those regulations. So completely consistent with what we
agreed to last year, no compact that currently exists between any tribe
or any Governor is affected.
[[Page S2592]]
We in Nevada have five such compacts. Many other States have compacts
as well.
What is involved here is not a question of bad faith between a
Governor and a tribe. It is that several tribes, particularly in the
State of California and in the State of Florida, have been pressing
Governors to provide Indian tribes with the ability to conduct gaming
activities that are prohibited under State law. In the State of
Florida, for example, there have been three public referendums. And the
public in Florida has rejected open casino gaming, as my State of
Nevada has adopted. The tribes, nevertheless, pressed forward and
challenged the Governor of Florida, accusing him of bad faith in not
being willing to negotiate such gaming activity.
My view is that it is a province that ought to be left to the State
Governors and the elected State legislatures. In California, currently
20 tribes have 14,000 illegal slot machines, contrary to State law. The
Governor of California has recently negotiated a compact with the Pala
Band of Indian tribes that do not permit, as some tribes want, slot
machines in California. California's Governor and its State legislature
ought to make the determination.
So what this amendment does is to preempt the Secretary of the
Interior from making that decision and retains the authority and
jurisdiction in the Congress. If there are to be changes in the Indian
Gaming Regulatory Act, if there are perceived shortcomings, let us in a
deliberative fashion make those changes --not the Secretary of the
Interior.
As I have indicated, I look forward to working with my colleagues who
serve on that committee.
I yield the floor. I reserve the remainder of the time to be
allocated by the distinguished Senator from Wyoming on our side of the
issue.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. ENZI addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Snowe). The Senator from Wyoming.
Mr. ENZI. Madam President, I yield myself 4 minutes. I thank Senator
Bryan for his comments.
I am pleased that we have the opportunity to talk about this. I
thought we had talked about it last year. I thought that would give
enough direction to the Secretary of the Interior that we would not
have a problem.
I want to mention that this amendment is an emergency. That is why we
are attaching it to this bill. The comment period for the rules that he
has gone ahead and promulgated will run out before we have another
opportunity to debate this. I do not want the Department of the
Interior to be spending the money to do the process they are doing
which bypasses Congress, and it bypasses States rights.
I want to read a portion of a letter that I have from the National
Governors' Association.
This letter is to confirm Governors' support for the Indian
gaming-related amendment offered by Senators Michael B. Enzi,
Richard H. Bryan, and Harry Reid to the Senate supplemental
appropriations bill. This amendment prevents the secretary of
the U.S. Department of the Interior from promulgating a
regulation or implementing a procedure that could result in
tribal Class III gaming in the absence of a tribal-state
compact, as required by law.
The nation's Governors strongly believe that no statute or
court decision provides the secretary of the U.S. Department
of the Interior with authority to intervene in dispute over
compacts between Indian tribes and states about casino
gambling on Indian lands. Such action would constitute an
attempt by the Secretary of the Interior to preempt states'
authority under existing laws and recent court decisions and
would create an incentive for tribes to avoid negotiating
gambling compacts with states.
Further, the secretary's inherent authority includes a
responsibility to protect the interests of Indian tribes,
making it impossible for the secretary to avoid a conflict of
interest or exercise objective judgment in disputes between
states and tribes.
That is from the National Governors' Association.
I see that Senator Reid is on the floor. I yield 5 minutes to Senator
Reid.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
Mr. REID. Madam President, I appreciate very much the leadership of
the Senator from Wyoming on this issue. It is an important issue, and
it is bipartisan.
We hear a lot in this body about States rights. But where the
illustration is clearly defined is this in States rights. I was part of
the Indian Affairs Committee when we drew up legislation under the
Indian Control Act, and, of course, the purpose of that act was to
allow Indians to do anything in a State that non-Indians could do
relating to gaming.
For various reasons, the courts have interposed themselves, and now
there is controversy as to really what the act stands for. But one
thing we do know is that the clear intent of the Gaming Control Act was
that Indians could not do more in a State related to gaming than non-
Indians, and that is, in effect, what the Secretary is trying to do
with the proposed rule--to have him be the arbiter of what goes on
regarding gaming, no matter how the State might feel. It certainly
would be unfair, and it would be in derogation of the intent of the
original law.
It has already been explained here that clearly the Secretary has a
conflict of interest in this regard. He is someone who has as one of
his main obligations the obligation to look out for Indians in regard
to the trust responsibility. How can someone who has this obligation
also say that he is going to be the interpreter of whether or not the
State is dealing in a fair fashion in good faith? It is clear he
cannot, and that is the reason for this amendment.
Last year's Interior appropriations bill included language
prohibiting the Secretary from approving Class III gaming compacts
through September 30, 1998. This was done to address a problem created
as the result of the Supreme Court's decision in Seminole v. Florida.
Our concern was that after Seminole, tribes would immediately seek
assistance from the Secretary in those situations where the tribe
believed the state was not negotiating in good faith.
It is important to recognize that Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA)
does not permit secretarial intervention without a finding that a State
has negotiated with a tribe in bad faith. The Secretary now proposes
that he make that finding himself. There is nothing in IGRA that gives
the Secretary this broad authority. Indeed, this authority is vested in
the Federal courts.
I state clearly and without any qualification that I would be very
happy to work as closely and as quickly as possible with the chairman
of the Indian Affairs Committee, the senior Senator from Colorado, and
the ranking senior Senator from Hawaii, to come up with statutory
authority to work out this problem. But, the way the law now stands, it
is up to the courts to do this. Certainly, there would never be
legislation that would give the Secretary the authority to determine
whether or not the State was acting in good faith.
The consequences of permitting an appointed federal official to
permit gambling on Indian lands based on tribal allegations of a
State's bargaining position raises troubling federalism questions about
the sovereign prerogatives of a State.
By announcing a proposed Rulemaking on this issue in January, the
Secretary seeks to disregard what this body affirmatively stated last
year.
This proposal makes no sense.
By inviting the tribes to seek resolution with Secretary, the states,
and the Governors, are placed at a severe disadvantage.
We can not expect the Secretary of Interior to be able to arbitrate
these types of contentious disputes over Indian gaming.
I repeat, as I have said earlier. The Secretary has a fiduciary and
trust responsibility to the tribe and thus can not fairly arbitrate
these types of disagreements.
The Secretary's decision in January to propose regulations on this
issue circumvents the intent of what we sought to do on last year's
Interior Bill.
Essentially, the Secretary announced his intention to do everything
but promulgate a final rule on this issue.
My amendment is very simple.
It prevents the Secretary from promulgating as final regulations the
proposed regulations he published on January 22, 1998 (63 Fed. Reg.
3289).
Additionally, he cannot issue a proposed rulemaking, or promulgate,
any similar regulations to provide for procedures for gaming activities
under IGRA in any case in which a state asserts a defense of sovereign
immunity
[[Page S2593]]
to a lawsuit brought by an Indian tribe in Federal court to compel the
State to participate in compact negotaitions for Class III gaming.
I believe any effort by Interior on this issue would be opposed by
the states and the governors.
The Western Governors' Association has already weighed in in
opposition to this proposed rule.
This is an issue involving states rights.
The states and the governors should be able to negotiate with the
tribes without duress.
They should not be placed on an uneven playing field in these
negotiations.
How can they reasonably expect to get an impartial hearing from an
arbiter who has a fiduciary and trust obligation to the tribes?
With all of the problems we are now experiencing with Indian Gaming,
the Secretary should not be undertaking action that will promote its
expansion to the detriment of states rights.
I repeat. I would be very happy to work as a member of the Indian
Affairs Committee with the chairman and the ranking member to come up
with statutory authority to work up a way out of this so it doesn't
have to be determined in the courts. But the courts are a better place
to determine what is good or bad faith, and the Secretary is in
absolute conflict of interest.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, how much time remains on this
amendment?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming has 4 minutes 1
second. The Senator from Hawaii has 30 minutes.
Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, I have listened with great interest to
the comments on both sides and state to the authors of the bill, as
well as those who oppose it, that I would be prepared to accept this
amendment without a vote and to take it to conference to see if we can
work out something that might be acceptable and not have as much
controversy between those who have spoken on the amendment. So, if that
would be acceptable to all concerned, I would suggest that we have a
yielding back of time and adopt the amendment on a voice vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Do both Senators yield their time?
Mr. ENZI. Madam President, reserving the right to object, I want to
comment on that. I hope we could be a part of working that out. We see
this as only an extension of the work that was done last year, so we
have no problem in agreeing to continue to extend that work and hope
that would be done in a very cooperative spirit. I look forward to
working with the other people. But we do anticipate that the States
rights will be preserved, and that we will be a part of the process in
conference.
Mr. REID. Madam President, if the Senator will yield, I will say
there is no one in the body who is more concerned about States rights
than the Senator from Alaska. He will be the chairman or the cochairman
in conference, and I have every hope that we can work something out
that would be acceptable to everyone.
Mr. ENZI. I yield the remainder of our time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii.
Mr. INOUYE. Madam President, under those circumstances, I am pleased
to yield the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time is yielded.
Mr. INOUYE. Madam President, before I do, I ask unanimous consent to
have printed in the Record the policy of the administration on this
matter.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Bureau: Bureau of Indian Affairs
Item: Proposed bill s. 1572, introduced by Senators Bryan, Enzi, Reid,
and Sessions on january 27, 1998
S. 1572 amends the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA) and
precludes the Secretary of the Interior from promulgating
final regulations to deal with Indian gaming compact
negotiations between States and Tribes when Tribes have
exhausted federal judicial remedies.
Background: The Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA) was
enacted to allow Indian tribes the opportunity to pursue
gaming as a means of economic development on Indian lands.
Since 1988, Indian gaming, regulate under IGRA, has provided
benefits to over 150 tribes and to their surrounding
communities in over 24 states. As required by law, Indian
gaming revenues have been directed to programs and facilities
to improve the health, safety, educational opportunities and
quality of life for Indian people.
Under IGRA, Tribes are only authorized to conduct casino-
style gaming operations if such gaming is permitted by the
state. Further, the gaming is allowed in such states only
pursuant to a mutually agreed-upon Tribal-State compact; or
in the alternative, pursuant to procedures issued by the
Secretary if a state fails to consent to a compact arrived at
through the medication process that follows a determination
by a United States District Court that the State has failed
to negotiate in good faith (25 U.S.C. Section
2710(d)(7)(B)(vii). IGRA only authorizes the Secretary to
issue ``procedures'' after states have been provided with a
full opportunity to negotiate compact terms.
Under IGRA, Congress intended to give tribes the right to
file suits directly against states that failed to negotiate
in good faith with regard to Class III gaming. The right to
sue a state for failure to negotiate in good faith was seen
by Congress as the best way to ensure that states deal fairly
with tribes as sovereign governments. See Senate Report No.
446, 100th Congress, 2nd Session 14 (1988).
In Seminole Tribe v. State of Florida, the U.S. Supreme
Court held that Congress was without authority to waive the
States' immunity to suits in Federal courts ensured by the
Eleventh Amendment to the Constitution. As a result of this
decision, states can avoid entering into good faith
negotiations with Indian tribes without concern about being
subject to suit by tribes. Under these circumstances, the
Secretary's authority to promulgate regulations may be the
only avenue for meeting the Congressional policy of promoting
tribal economic development and self sufficiency.
Effect of Proposed Legislation: The legislation would
prohibit the adoption of a rule setting forth the process and
standards pursuant to which Class III procedures would be
adopted in specific situations where the state has asserted
its Eleventh Amendment immunity. If the legislation is
included as an amendment to a 1998 supplemental
appropriation, the language would remain in effect through FY
1998.
Departmental Position: The Department strongly objects to
any attempt to substantially interfere with its ability to
administer the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act or to thwart
Congress' declared policy in IGRA of promoting tribal
economic development, self sufficiency and strong tribal
governments. The Secretary would recommend a veto of any
legislation extending beyond FY 1998 that prevents the
Secretary from attempting to work out a reasonable solution
for dealing with Indian gaming compact negotiations between
states and Tribes when Tribes have exhausted federal judicial
remedies.
The Secretary published proposed regulation on January 22,
1998 which would authorize the Secretary to approve Class III
gaming procedures in cases where the state has asserted an
Eleventh Amendment defense. The proposed rule is narrow in
scope. It will allow the Secretary to move forward only 1)
where a Tribe asserts that a State has not acted in good
faith in negotiating a Class III gaming compact and 2) when
the State asserts immunity from the lawsuit to resolve the
dispute. In the 9-year history of IGRA, these situations have
been very rare. Over 150 compacts have been successfully
negotiated and are being implemented in more than half the
states. Even where negotiations have been unsuccessful and
litigation has been filed, a number of States have chosen not
to assert immunity from suit. Based on experience to date,
relatively few situations will arise requiring Secretarial
decisions.
The publication of the proposed rule is followed by a 90-
day comment period, with formal public access to and review
of the proposed rule. The Department will attempt to maximize
State participation and comment during the comment period,
with final publication of the rule expected in FY 1998, after
careful review and analysis of public comments. In
particular, the Department will continue to meet with State
Governors to discuss the proposed rule and to work out
compromises. A provision in the FY 1998 Department of the
Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Act precludes
the implementation of a final rule this fiscal year.
State law would continue to be the appropriate reference
point for determining the ``scope of gaming'' permitted in
any procedures proposed by the Department to resolve Indian
gaming compact disputes. This policy is consistent with the
Department's position that it does not authorize classes or
forms of Indian gaming in any State where they are
affirmatively prohibited. See Brief of the United States as
amicus curiae in the Supreme Court in Rumsey Indian Rancheria
of Wintun Indians v. Wilson, 64F.3d 1250 (9th Cir. 1995), as
modified on denial of petition for rehearing, 99F.3d 321 (9th
Cir 1996), cert. denied, sub nom. Sycuan Band of Mission
Indians v. Wilson, No. 96-1059, 65 U.S.L. W. 3855 (June 24,
1997).
The publication of the proposed rule follows an Advanced
Notice of Public Rulemaking, published in the Federal
Register in May, 1996. In developing the proposed rule, the
Department carefully considered over 350 comments submitted
by States, Tribes, and others.
The Department opposes legislation which would in effect
provide States with a veto
[[Page S2594]]
power over Class III Indian gaming when state law permits the
gaming at issue ``for any purpose by any person, organization
or entity.''
In addition, the Department of the Interior strongly
objects to using the appropriations process for policy
amendments to the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act. Including the
provision in the FY 1998 supplemental appropriations would
circumvent a fair legislative process with hearings involving
Indian tribes, state officials and the regulated community.
Through the hearing process, all parties involved in Indian
gaming are allowed to contribute testimony on how or whether
IGRA should be amended.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment
of the Senator from Wyoming.
The amendment (No. 2133) was agreed to.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which
the amendment was agreed to.
Mr. INOUYE. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, there are several amendments that are
on what we call the finite list here. My staff and I believe they are
amendments that we could accept, maybe with some change to make sure we
do not have budget problems. So I request the staffs of Senator Boxer,
Senator Cleland, Senator Gramm, Senator Hutchison, and Senator
Murkowski to see us as soon as possible concerning those amendments so
we might see what we might be able to work out.
I will state to the Senate that there are a series of amendments that
we have already worked out. We will offer them very quickly as the
managers' package. We still have pending before the Senate the Nickles
and McConnell amendments. In addition to that, 24 other amendments,
Madam President. I invite any Senator to come present his or her
amendment.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Amendments Nos. 2136 through 2151, En Bloc
Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, I am pleased to announce that the first
portion of the managers' package has been cleared. I would like to read
to the Senate what these are and then send this portion of the package
to the Chair so we can consider these amendments en bloc.
The first amendment is on behalf of Senator McCain to clarify that
adult unmarried children of Vietnamese reeducation camp internees are
eligible for refugee status under the Orderly Departure Program. I
would like to have his statement printed in the Record before the
adoption of that amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. STEVENS. There is an amendment on behalf of Senator Murkowski,
which I have cosponsored, to make technical corrections to the Michigan
Indian Land Claims Settlement Act to provide certain health care
services for Alaska Natives;
an amendment on behalf of Senator Murkowski and myself to make
technical corrections to the fiscal year 1998 Department of Interior
appropriations bill;
an amendment on behalf of Senator Bond and myself to provide
emergency funds available for the purchase of certain F/A-18 aircraft;
an amendment on behalf of Senator Chafee to modify the Energy and
Water Development section of the bill. I am also sending a statement to
the desk on behalf of Senator Chafee and ask it be printed in the
Record.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. STEVENS. An amendment on behalf of Senator Wyden to eliminate
secrecy in international financial trade organizations;
an amendment on behalf of Senator Bond to make technical corrections
to the Economic Development Grant Program funded in 1992 as part of the
Empowerment Zone Act;
an amendment in behalf of Senator Craig to make technical corrections
to section 405 of the bill regarding the Forest Service transportation
system moratorium;
an amendment on behalf of Senators Cochran and Bumpers to make a
technical correction to the Livestock Disaster Assistance Program;
an amendment on behalf of Senators Wellstone, Conrad, and Dorgan
dealing with Farm Operating and Emergency Loans;
an amendment on behalf of Senators Jeffords and Leahy dealing with
the Mackville Dam in Hardwick, VT;
an amendment on behalf of Senator Lott making a technical correction
to the McConnell amendment, which is amendment No. 2100;
an amendment on behalf of Senator Daschle to provide funds for
humanitarian demining activity in Bosnia and Herzegovina;
an amendment on behalf of Senator Gregg to make a technical
correction to the Patent and Trademark section of the bill;
an amendment on behalf of Senator Levin to the McConnell amendment
numbered 2100 dealing with consultation by the Secretary of Treasury;
an amendment on behalf of Senator Grassley and myself regarding a
U.S. Customs Service P-3 aircraft hangar.
Madam President, I send those amendments to the desk and ask for
their consideration en bloc.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendments.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Alaska [Mr. Stevens] proposes amendments
numbered 2136 through 2151, en bloc.
The amendments are as follows:
amendment no. 2136
(Purpose: To clarify that unmarried adult children of Vietnamese
reeducation camp internees are eligible for refugee status under the
Orderly Departure Program)
At the appropriate place in Title II, insert the following:
SEC. __. 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 1998 and 1999''; 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 reeducation 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.''.
Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I offer an amendment 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
amendment I offer today, are designed to make humanitarian exceptions
for the unmarried adult children of former re-education camp detainees
seeking to emigrate to the United States under the Orderly Departure
Program. 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. This amendment was accepted as part of the State Department
Authorization bill for fiscal year 1998, which has not passed into law.
It is, therefore, necessary to include this language in the Emergency
Supplemental in order to permit the State Department to begin to
process the backlog of cases that accumulated since the program's
expiration last year.
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 sub-program of the Orderly Departure Program (ODP).
[[Page S2595]]
This policy changed in April 1995. My amendment to FY1997 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 U.S. under this
sub-program 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% of former
Vietnamese re-education camp prisoners resettled in the United States
who were processed as immigrants, at the convenience of the U.S.
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
FY1997 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 sub-program 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 sub-program, was processed as an immigrant had no
effect prior to April 1995, and their children were granted refugee
status. The intention of the 1996 legislation was to restore the status
quo ante, including for the unmarried adult children of former
prisoners eligible for and included in this sub-program but resettled
as migrants. This amendment will correct the problem once and for all,
and I urge its support.
amendment no. 2137
(Purpose: To make technical corrections to Sec. 203(a) of the Michigan
Indian Land Claims Settlement Act (Public Law 105-143, 111 Stat. 2666))
SEC. . PROVISION OF CERTAIN HEALTH CARE SERVICES FOR
ALASKA NATIVES.
Section 203(a) of the Michigan Indian Land Claims
Settlement Act (Public Law 105-143, 111 Stat. 2666) is
amended--
(1) by inserting ``other than community based alcohol
services,'' after ``Ketchikan Gateway Borough,''; and
(2) by inserting at the end the following new sentence:
``Notwithstanding any other provision of law, such contract
or compact shall provide services to all Indian Alaska Native
beneficiaries of the Indian Health Service in the Ketchikan
Gateway Borough without the need for resolutions of support
from any Indian tribe as defined in the Indian Self-
Determination and Education Assistance Act (25 U.S.C.
450b(e)).''.
____
amendment no. 2138
(Purpose: To make technical corrections to Sec. 326(a) of the Act
making Appropriations for the Department of the Interior and related
agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1998 and for other
purposes (Public Law 105-83, 111 Stat. 1543))
On page 38, following line 18, insert the following new
section:
Sec. . Section 326(a) of the Act making Appropriations
for the Department of the Interior and related agencies for
the fiscal year ending September 30, 1998 and for other
purposes (Public Law 105-83, 111 Stat. 1543) is amended by
striking ``with any Alaska Native village or Alaska Native
village corporation'' and inserting ``to any Indian tribe as
defined in the Indian Self-Determination and Education
Assistance Act (25 U.S.C. 450b(e))''.
____
amendment no. 2139
(Purpose: To provide contingent emergency funds for the purchase of F/
A-18 aircraft)
On page 15, after line 21, add the following:
Sec. 205. In addition to the amounts provided in Public Law
105-56, $272,500,000 is appropriated under the heading
``Aircraft Procurement, Navy'': Provided, That the additional
amount shall be made available only for the procurement of
eight F/A-18 aircraft for the United States Marine Corps:
Provided further, That the entire amount shall be available
only to the extent that an official budget request for
$272,500,000, that includes designation of the entire amount
of the request as an emergency requirement as defined in the
Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as
amended, is transmitted by the President to the Congress:
Provided further, That the entire amount is designated by the
Congress as an emergency requirement pursuant to section
251(b)(2)(A) of such Act.
____
amendment no. 2140
On page 17, beginning on line 10, strike ``to be conducted
at full Federal expense''.
____
amendment on. 2141
(Purpose: To eliminate secrecy in international financial trade
organizations)
At the appropriate place in the bill in Title II, insert
the following new section:
SEC. . ELIMINATION OF SECRECY IN INTERNATIONAL TRADE
ORGANIZATIONS.
The President shall instruct the United States
Representatives to the World Trade Organization to seek the
adoption of procedures that will ensure broader application
of the principles of transparency and openness in the
activities of the organization, including by urging the World
Trade Organization General Council to--
(1) permit appropriate meetings of the Council, the
Ministerial Conference, dispute settlement panels, and the
Appellate Body to be made open to the public; and
(2) provide for timely public summaries of the matters
discussed and decisions made in any closed meeting of the
Conference or Council.
____
amendment no. 2142
(Purpose: Technical Correction to Economic Development Grant funded in
1992 as part of Empowerment Zone)
On page 46, after line 25, Insert:
general provision
Sec. 1001. Section 206 of the Departments of Veterans
Affairs and Housing and Urban Development, and Independent
Agencies Appropriations Act, 1998 (Pub. L. 105-65; October
27, 1997) is amended by inserting the following before the
period: ``, and for loans and grants for economic development
in and around 18th and Vine''.
____
Amendment No. 2143
Beginning on line 10 on page 35, strike all through line 18
on page 38 and insert in lieu thereof the following new
section:
``SEC. 405. TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM MORATORIUM.
(a)(1) The Chief of the Forest Service, Department of
Agriculture, in his sole discretion, may offer any timber
sales that were previously scheduled to be offered in fiscal
year 1998 or fiscal year 1999 even if such sales would have
been delayed or halted as a result of, any moratorium on
construction of roads in roadless areas within the National
Forest System adopted as policy or by regulation that would
otherwise be applicable to such sales.
(2) Any sales authorized pursuant to subsection (a)(1)
shall--
(A) comply with all applicable laws and regulations and be
consistent with applicable land and resource management
plans. except any regulations or plan amendments which
establish or implement the moratorium referred to in
subsection (a)(1); and
(B) be subject to administrative appeals pursuant to Part
215 of title 36 of the Code of Federal Regulation and to
judicial review.
(b)(1) For any previously scheduled sales that are not
offered pursuant to, subsection (a)(1), the Chief may, to the
extent practicable, offer substitute sales within the same
state in fiscal year 1998 or fiscal year 1999. Such
substitute sales shall be subject to the requirements of
subsection (a)(2).
(2)(A) The Chief shall pay as soon as practicable after
fiscal year 1998 and fiscal year 1999 to any State in which
sales previously scheduled to be offered that are referred to
in, but not offered pursuant to, subsection (a)(1) would have
occurred, 25 percentum of any receipts from such sales that--
(i) were anticipated from fiscal year 1998 or fiscal year
1999 sales in the absence of any moratorium referred to in
subsection (b)(1).
(ii) are not offset by revenues received in such fiscal
years from substitute projects authorized pursuant to
subsection (b)(1).
(B) After reporting the amount of funds required to make
any payments required by subsection (b)(2)(A), and the source
from which such funds are to be derived, to the Committees on
Appropriations of the House of Representatives and the
Senate, the Chief shall make any payments required by
subsection (b)(2)(A) from--
(i) the $2,000,000 appropriated for the purposes of this
section in Chapter 4 of this Act; or
[[Page S2596]]
(ii) in the event that the amount referred to in subsection
(b)(2)(B)(i) is not sufficient to cover the payments required
under subsection (b)(2), from any funds appropriated to the
Forest Service in fiscal year 1998 or fiscal year 1999, as
the case may be, that are not specifically earmarked for
another purpose by the applicable appropriation act or a
committee or conference report thereon.
(C) Any State which receives payments required by
subsection (b)(2)(A) shall expend such funds only in the
manner, and for the purposes, prescribed in section 500 of
title 16 of the United States Code.
(c)(1) During the term of the moratorium referred to in
subsection (a)(1), the Chief shall prepare, and submit to the
Committees on Appropriations of the House of Representatives
and the Senate a report on, each of the following:
(A) a study of whether standards and guidelines in existing
land and resource management plans compel or encourage entry
into roadless areas within the National Forest System for the
purpose of constructing roads or undertaking any other
ground-disturbing activities;
(B) an inventory of all roads within the National Forest
System and the uses which they serve, in a format that will
inform and facilitate the development of a long-term Forest
Service transportation policy; and
(C) a comprehensive and detailed analysis of the economic
and social effects of the moratorium referred to in
subsection (a)(1) on county, State, and regional levels.
(2) The Chief shall fund the study, inventory and analysis
required by subsection (c)(1) in fiscal year 1998 from funds
appropriated for Forest Research in such fiscal year that are
not specifically earmarked for another purpose in the
applicable appropriation act or a committee or conference
report thereon.''
____
amendment no. 2144
(Purpose: To make a technical correction in the language of the
Livestock Disaster Assistant program)
On page 5, line 10, strike ``that had been produced but not
marketed''.
____
amendment no. 2145
(Purpose: To subsidize the cost of additional farm operating and
emergency loans)
On page 3, line 6, beginning with ``emer-'', strike all
down through and including ``insured,'' on line 7 and insert
``direct and guaranteed''.
On page 3, line 11, following ``disasters'' insert: ``as
follows: operating loans, $8,600,000, of which $5,400,000
shall be for subsidized guaranteed loans; emergency insured
loans''.
On page 3, line 14, strike ``$21,000,000'' and insert in
lieu thereof the following: ``$29,600,000''.
____
amendment no. 2146
(Purpose: To appropriate funds for emergency construction to repair the
Machville Dam in Hardwick, Vermont)
On page 18, between lines 5 and 6, insert the following:
An additional amount for emergency construction to repair
the Machville Dam in Hardwick, Vermont: $500,000, to remain
available until expended: Provided, That the Secretary of the
Army may obligate and expend the funds appropriated for
repair of the Mackville Dam if the Secretary of the Army
certifies that the repair is necessary to provide flood
control benefits: Provided further, That the Corps of
Engineers shall not be responsible for the future costs of
operation, repair, replacement, or rehabilitation of the
project: Provided further, That the entire amount shall be
available only to the extent that an official budget request
of $500,000 that includes designation of the entire amount of
the request as an emergency requirement pursuant to section
251(b)(2)(A) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit
Control Act of 1985 (2 U.S.C. 901(b)(2)(A)) is transmitted by
the President to Congress: Provided further, That the entire
amount is designated by Congress as an emergency requirement
pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A) of that Act.
____
Amendment No. 2147 to Amendment No. 2100
On page 8 line 14 and 18 of amendment 2100 after the word
``automobile,'' insert the following ``shipbuilding.''.
____
Amendment No. 2148
(Purpose: To provide $35,000,000 for humanitarian demining activities
in Bosnia and Herzegovina)
At the appropriate place in Title II, insert the following:
Sec. In addition to the amounts provided in Public Law 105-
56, $35,000,000 is appropriated and shall be available for
deposit in the International Trust Fund of the Republic of
Solvenia for Demining, Minc Clearance, and Assistance to Mine
Victims in Bosnia and Herzegovina: Provided, That such amount
may be deposited in that Fund only if the President
determines that such amount could be used effectively and for
objectives consistent with on-going multilateral efforts to
remove landmines in Bosnia and Herzegovina: Provided further,
That such amount may be deposited in that Fund only to the
extent of deposits of matching amounts in that Fund by other
government, entities, or persons: Provided further, That the
amount of such amount deposited by the United States in that
Fund may be expended by the Republic of Slovenia only in
consultation with the United States Government: Provided
further, That the entire amount shall be available only to
the extent an official budget request, for a specific dollar
amount, that includes a designation of the entire amount as
an emergency requirement as defined in the Balanced Budget
and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 is transmitted to
Congress by the President: Provided further, That the entire
amount is designated by Congress as an emergency requirement
pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A) of such Act.
____
Amendment No. 2149
On page 51, line 8, strike the word ``design,'' and on line
13, strike the words ``federal construction,''.
____
Amendment No. 2150 to Amendment 2100
At the appropriate place in the IMF title of the bill,
insert the following:
Sec. . The Secretary of the Treasury shall consult with
the office of the United States Trade Representative
regarding prospective IMF borrower countries, including their
status with respect to title III of the Trade Act of 1974 or
any executive order issued pursuant to the aforementioned
title, and shall take these consultations into account before
instructing the United States Executive Director of the IMF
on the United States position regarding loans or credits to
such borrowing countries.
In the section of the bill entitled ``SEC. .REPORTS.''
after the first word ``account,'' insert the following:
``(i) of outcomes related to the requirements of section
(described above); and (ii).''
____
Amendment No. 2151
On page 46, after line 16, insert:
United States Customs Service
customs facilities, construction, improvements
In addition to the amounts made available for the United
States Customs Service in Public Law 105-61, $5,512,000, to
remain available until September 30, 2000: Provided, That
this amount may be made available for construction of a P3-
AEW hangar in Corpus Christi, Texas: Provided further, That
the funds appropriated under this heading may only be
obligated 30 days after the Commissioner of the Customs
Service certifies to the House and Senate Committees on
Appropriations that the construction of this facility is
necessary for the operation of the P-3 aircraft for the
counternarcotics mission.
On page 50, after line 14, insert:
customs facilities, construction, improvements
(rescission)
Of the funds made available under this heading in Public
Law 102-393, $4,470,000 and Public Law 103-123, $1,041,754
are rescinded.
Mr. STEVENS. I ask for the adoption of the amendments en bloc.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendments.
The amendments (Nos. 2136 through 2151) were agreed to.
Mr. STEVENS. I ask unanimous consent to reconsider that action and to
lay my motion on the table, en bloc.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
amendment no. 2140
Mr. CHAFEE. Madam President, I want to comment very briefly on an
amendment of mine that has been accepted by the managers. My amendment
deals with cost-sharing for a levee and waterway project included in
the Supplemental Appropriations bill for Elba and Geneva, Alabama.
Specifically, the amendment strikes the phrase, ``to be conducted at
full Federal expense'' as found on page 17, lines 10 and 11 of the
bill.
By striking this phrase, the appropriate, lawful cost-sharing ratio
would be applied. It would be my strong preference, Mr. President, that
we not include any authorization for this or other water projects in
the Supplemental bill. These are matters more appropriately dealt with
in the Water Resources Development Act, which we plan to take up this
summer.
However, recognizing the urgency of the situation in these Alabama
communities, I am willing to go forward with the expedited process
provided here; as long as the cost-sharing is consistent with current
water resources law. My amendment ensures that the levee repair and
associated work in Elba and Geneva will be cost-shared. I want to thank
Senator Shelby and the bill's managers for working with me today to
favorably resolve this matter.
amendment no. 2145
Mr. WELLSTONE. Madam President, I thank the managers of the bill, as
well as the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Agriculture
Appropriations Subcommittee, for accepting my amendment. I offered it
on behalf of
[[Page S2597]]
myself and Senators Conrad, Dorgan and Daschle to address a shortfall
in funding during the current fiscal year of USDA farm credit programs
in our states and across the country as a result of disastrous weather
and economic conditions.
The amendment is simple. It adds $8.6 million in appropriation to
this emergency supplemental spending bill for Farm Service Agency
operating loans, both guaranteed and direct. The amendment adds $3.2
million in appropriation for direct farm operating loans, which allows
lending authority of $52 million nationwide. This is in addition to the
$3.1 million of appropriation and approximately $48 million in lending
authority that already was in the bill, bringing the total amount of
lending authority for FSA direct operating loans in the bill to
approximately $100 million. The amendment also adds $5.4 million in
appropriation for guaranteed subsidized interest loans, allowing
lending authority of approximately $56 million for that existing FSA
program. Previously there was no money in the bill for this type of
credit.
I will include in the Record a letter from my state's Farm Service
Agency office, signed by the state director and FSA state committee
members from Minnesota. The letter not only documents the dire need for
additional funding in this bill for these two important programs, but
explains what has become a farm crisis in parts of Minnesota. I don't
use the word crisis lightly. It causes me some pain to observe that it
is an accurate word. I attended a meeting in Crookston, Minnesota a
number of weekends ago, called for the purpose of addressing the
increasingly disturbing economic conditions, especially in the
Northwestern part of the state, as well as in North Dakota. There was a
sign on the building that announced, ``Farm crisis meeting.'' I
attended far too many farm crisis meetings in Minnesota during the
1980s, and it was with some dismay that I read that sign as I entered
the meeting in Crookston. But I must note that from what farmers and
bankers in these communities are telling me, from what I saw and heard
in Crookston, we have a grave situation.
I will also include in the Record an article from the Star Tribune,
Minnesota's largest-circulation newspaper, titled, ``Red River Valley
farmers tell of sorrow that is fallout of 5 hard years.'' I am sure
that colleagues will recall pictures and descriptions of hardship and
travail in the Red River Valley following last year's calamitous
floods. But I am hearing disturbing news that farmers elsewhere in the
state also are struggling, in many cases due to low prices.
Madam President, my Dakota colleagues and I do not imagine that the
additional farm credit that we are including in this emergency bill
will solve the very difficult economic problems in portions of our
states' farm economy. It will, however, allow a number of farmers to
stay in business this year, to keep operating and, hopefully, to get
past immediate difficulty in a way that allows them to maintain an
operation that is viable into the future. Each of us also supports
legislative proposals aimed at improving federal farm policy. I believe
current policy is on a wrong track, that the so-called Freedom to Farm
legislation enacted in 1996 was a mistake, and that we should act to
raise loan rates for a targeted amount of production on each farm. I
also believe that the repayment period for marketing loans should be
extended and that crop insurance should be repaired so that affordable
coverage can do a better job of covering losses. Further, I intend to
push very hard this year for an increase in research to find a means to
eradicate a very damaging disease known as scab which is affecting
wheat in our region.
Still, without the additional loan money we are including, serious
need for credit would go unmet in our states. In the letter I have
included in the Record, Minnesota FSA officials note that the shortfall
this year in funds for these two types of operating loans will be $24
million.
The letter from the state FSA officials points out that some experts
believe that as many as one in five farm families in Northwestern
Minnesota may be on the brink of failure. It correctly observes that
for much of Minnesota agriculture 1997 was a year ``wrought with
disaster.'' I appreciate the help of my colleagues in including this
urgently needed assistance. I am very pleased that if we can hold this
amount in the bill's conference, we will be coming through for farm
families in Minnesota and around the country.
Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the letter and article
be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
USDA Farm Service Agency,
Minnesota State Office,
St. Paul, MN, March 18, 1998.
Hon. Paul D. Wellstone,
Hart Senate Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Wellstone: The purpose of this letter is to
provide an update to concerns previously expressed to you in
regard to the utilization of Farm Service Agency Loan
Programs to meet the needs of Minnesota farmers this coming
year. An update on additional funding needs is also included.
As you are aware, the 1997 year in Minnesota was wrought
with disaster. The winter brought record snows and livestock
deaths. The spring brought record flooding, property damage
and slow drying fields. The summer brought late planting and
prime conditions for scab in the wheat as well as midge in
the sunflowers. The fall brought a harvest of diminished
yields and low prices.
The severest economic problems are being experienced in a
nine county area in northwestern Minnesota. While financial/
economic problems plague all parts of Minnesota, the
northwest part of the State has experienced the most severe
devastation due to the disasters noted above.
Contacts with producers, lenders and employees (including
County Committee members) leads us to believe that the
financial/economic conditions has deteriorated to the lowest
levels since the mid-1980's. Some experts believe that as
many as one in five farmers are on the brink of failure in
northwest Minnesota and will be unable to continue their
framing operations.
Two public forums were held on Saturday, March 7, 1998 in
Crookston, MN and Hallock, MN to discuss the economic plight
of rural businesses and farms. Approximately 400 people
attended each of these forums including members of the
Minnesota congressional delegation and State legislators.
During FY 97 Minnesota Farm Service Agency extended
$126,000,000 in loan funds to approximately 1350 farm
families. The supplemental appropriations bill passed last
spring enabled us to meet the needs of many farm families.
Minnesota received approximately $26,000,000 from this
supplemental appropriation.
We cannot stress enough the importance of the federal
government providing sufficient assistance in a timely manner
to avoid an economic collapse. We believe the government has
a responsibility to do everything possible to help these farm
families that so desperately need assistance due to events
that are beyond their control.
We have estimated the shortfall in State loan allocations
for Farm Loan Programs as follows:
Direct Operating
During FY 97, Minnesota obligated approximately $30,000,000
in loan funds. Our FY 98 allocation is $26,400,000. We will
likely exhaust our State allocation by mid-April.
An additional $12,000,000 would assist in meeting
anticipated demand to meet the needs of Minnesota farm
families.
Guaranteed Operating Loans with Interest Assistance
During FY 97, Minnesota obligated approximately $27,200,000
in loan funds. Our FY 98 allocation is $17,300,000. We will
likely exhaust our State allocation by the first part of
April.
An additional $12,000,000 would assist in meeting
anticipated demand to meet the needs of Minnesota farm
families.
Guaranteed Farm Ownership
During FY 97, Minnesota obligated approximately $22,700,000
in loan funds. Our FY 98 allocation is $15,400,000. We will
likely exhaust our allocation by the middle of May. (Usage of
guaranteed farm ownership funds usually trails other programs
by a couple of months as lenders focus on farm operating
needs ahead of real estate needs.)
An additional $10,000,000 would assist in meeting
anticipated demand to meet the needs of Minnesota farm
families.
Any additional loan funding assistance that can be obtained
would be greatly appreciated.
The attached news articles portray the severity of the
problems people are facing and accurately provide insight
into the human side of the dire straits that families are
experiencing.
Please do no hesitate to contract us if you have any
questions or suggestions on what more we can do to provide
additional help or games support for additional assistance.
Your continued support and interest in the Farm Service
Agency Farm Loan Programs is greatly appreciated.
Sincerely,
Wally Sparby,
State Executive Director.
Kent Kanten,
State Committee Member.
Harlan Beaulieu,
[[Page S2598]]
State Committee Member, Minority Advisory.
Clarence Bertram,
State Committee Members.
David Haugo,
Chairman, State Committee.
Mary Donkers,
State Committee Member.
Carl Johnson,
State Committee Member.
[From the Star Tribune, Mar. 8, 1998]
Red River Valley farmers tell of sorrow that is fallout of 5 hard years
(By Chuck Haga)
Crookston, Minn.--After meeting Saturday with hundreds of
northwestern Minnesota farmers humbled by five years of
adverse weather, crop diseases and low crop prices,
legislative leaders promised they'd get right to work on a
relief program.
But there's a limit to what the state can do, they warned
the farmers, many of whom indicated they're close to failing.
``We'll have a bill in Monday morning to make a
difference,'' said Rep. Steve Wenzel, DFL-Little Falls,
chairman of the Minnesota House Agriculture Committee.
Wenzel said he'll seek to have some of the state's current
budget surplus earmarked for special tax relief. The state
also could shore up federal crop insurance programs, which
many farmers said don't come close to covering their losses.
``We've got some other things we can reach back and dust
off from the old farm crisis [of the 1980s],'' Wenzel said.
Sen. Paul Wellstone, D-Minn., who helped organize farm
protests in the 1980s, winced when he saw a sign that read
``Farm crisis meeting'' outside the auditorium at the
University of Minnesota at Crookston.
``I didn't want to see another sign like that,'' he said.
``But you can see it in people's faces here: This is not
good.''
Saturday's meetings in Crookston and Hallock, Minn., were
organized by U.S. Rep. Collin Peterson, D-Minn., and state
Rep. Jim Tunheim, DFL-Kennedy, to call attention to ``a
silent crisis'' that threatens family farming in the upper
Red River Valley.
``We are a little pocket of the country,'' Peterson said.
``The rest of the country doesn't notice, because the rest of
the country is doing pretty well.''
Others attending included state Attorney General Hubert
Humphrey III; Senate Majority Leader Roger Moe, DFL-Erskine;
House Speaker Phil Carruthers, DFL-Brooklyn Center, and
Senate Tax Chairman Doug Johnson, DFL-Tower.
``Some of the ideas the farmers shared are kind of
interesting,'' Moe said, such as a state funding pool for
credit backup and supplements for crop insurance.
``We'll look at some changes in the property tax,'' he
said. ``We'll probably put some additional money into
research, but that's a longer-term solution.''
Bob Bergland, a retired farmer from Roseau, Minn., who
represented northwestern Minnesota in Congress and was
President Jimmy Carter's secretary of agriculture, said state
researchers are working to find wheat and barley varieties
resistant to scab, a fungus that thrives in wet years and
cuts grain yields and quality.
``So far, we've found no miracle solution,'' he said.
a silent sorrow
Larry Smith, superintendent of the Northwest Experiment
Station at Crookston, held up a regional farm publication
with seven pages of farm auctions.
``These are farmers I grew up with in northwestern
Minnesota,'' he said. ``The most prosperous business in
northwestern Minnesota now is the auction business.''
Tim Dufault, president of the Minnesota Wheat Growers
Association, said scab has cost Minnesota farmers $1.5
billion and North Dakota farmers $1 billion since the current
wet cycle started five years ago. And those losses are
sending farmers packing.
Rod Nelson, president of First American Bank in Crookston,
said that 20 of the farmers financed by his bank are quitting
or significantly downsizing this year, ``and many more are
thinking about next year or the year after.''
And the bank has main-street business customers drowning in
accounts receivable that can't be collected, he said.
``That's just our bank,'' Nelson said, ``and that's just
the start of what's going to happen if we don't get relief.''
The Rev. Greg Isaacson, pastor at Grace Lutheran Church in
Ada, Minn., noted similarities between last spring's flood
disaster and the regional farm crisis. In both cases, people
felt that they had lost control, he said.
``But in this silent crisis, there are no groups coming in
to help like during the flood,'' he said. ``There isn't the
media coverage. Our people have not felt the compassion and
understanding coming their way.
``They have a sense of failure, and that changes the way a
community lives and operates. It changes not only the
economy, but also the character of the community.''
one farmer's story
When the politicians and other featured speakers finished,
people from the audience spoke.
Don Fredrickson started telling his story slowly, softly,
as if he were talking with a few friends at a coffee shop,
not addressing 350 fellow farmers, a dozen legislators, two
members of Congress and the attorney general.
By the time he finished, he had gone through many emotions
and seemed close to tears. So did more than a few of the
people listening.
``I started farming when I was 4, milking cows,'' said the
79-year-old potato farmer from Bagley, Minn. ``At 5, I
remember my dad putting me on the binder with four horses.''
When he was 10, his grandfather lost the family farm. It
was the Depression. A few years later, with Franklin
Roosevelt's help, ``we got it back,'' he said.
He was married at 21; his wife was 17. After their
honeymoon, they returned to the farm. They had $5 and a
dream, he said, and through the next decades, the dream came
true as they built a large, profitable farming operation.
``It's been a great life,'' Fredrickson said. ``But now,
after working hard all my life, I daresay that if I sold out
today, I wouldn't have $5 in my pocket.''
``Our 1996 crop was the best crop we've ever had,'' he
said. ``But there was no price. We gave it away.''
Last year, he lost his crop when 15 inches of rain fell
from late June to mid-July. ``We are not going to be able to
farm this year because we lost that crop,'' he said.
``I've got two sons who should be farming. How am I going
to tell them, `You take over this debt'? I can't sleep nights
thinking about it.
``I'm tired. I'm depressed. I'm crabby. You spend all your
life raising food that's essential, and . . .''
His voice trailed off. He smiled at the politicians and
thanked them for listening, and he sat down.
Everybody else stood, and sent him to his seat with a
thundering ovation because he had said what they were
feeling.
modification to amendment no. 2062
Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent, on behalf of
Senator Byrd, to make technical modifications to amendment 2062, which
was agreed to yesterday. That has been cleared by both sides.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The modification is as follows:
On page 15, line 11 shall read as follows:
``The Administrator of the General Services Administration
shall''.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. If there be no further debate, the question is
on agreeing to the amendment.
The amendment (No. 2062), as modified, was agreed to.
Mr. STEVENS. I ask unanimous consent to reconsider that action and to
lay my motion on the table.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. STEVENS. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Amendments Nos. 2152, 2153, and 2154 en bloc
Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, I do report success on some of the
matters I earlier mentioned. I send to the desk an amendment offered by
Senator Hutchison which deals with damage repairs, an amendment offered
by Senator Boxer which deals with issues in the Department of the
Interior section of the bill, and an amendment offered by Senator
Dorgan which pertains to Indian reservations. They have been cleared on
both sides. I ask unanimous consent that they be considered en bloc.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk
will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Alaska [Mr. Stevens] proposes amendments
numbered 2152, 2153 and 2154 en bloc.
The amendments are as follows:
Amendment No. 2152
On page 26, after line 11, insert the following:
For an additional amount for ``Wildland and Fire
Management'' for wildland and fire management operations to
be carried out to rectify damages caused by the windstorms in
Texas on February 10, 1998, $2,000,000, to remain available
until expended: Provided, that the entire amount shall be
available only at the discretion of the Chief of the National
Forest: Provided further, That the entire amount shall be
available only to the extent that an official budget request
for $2,000,000 that includes designation of the entire amount
of the request as an emergency requirement as defined in the
Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985,
[[Page S2599]]
as amended, is transmitted by the President to the Congress:
Provided further, That the entire amount is designated by the
Congress as an emergency requirement pursuant to section
251(b)(2)(A) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit
Control Act of 1985, as amended.
____
Amendment No. 2153
On page 21, line 20, delete the number ``$28,938,000'' and
insert in lieu thereof ``32,818,000''.
On page 21, line 23, delete the number ``$28,938,000'' and
insert in lieu thereof ``32,818,000''.
On page 22, line 11, delete the number ``$8,500,000'' and
insert in lieu thereof ``9,506,000''.
On page 22, line 13, delete the number ``$8,500,000'' and
insert in lieu thereof ``9,506,000''.
On page 22, line 25, delete the number ``$1,000,000'' and
insert in lieu thereof ``1,198,000''.
On page 23, line 3, delete the number ``$1,000,000'' and
insert in lieu thereof ``1,198,000''.
On page 24, insert a new section:
Bureau of Land Management
construction
For an additional amount for `Construction', $1,837,000, to
remain available until expended, to repair damage caused by
floods and other natural disasters: Provided, That the entire
amount shall be available only to the extent that an official
budget request for $1,837,000, that includes designation of
the entire amount of the request as an emergency requirement
as defined in the Balanced Budget And Emergency Deficit
Control Act of 1985 as amended, is transmitted by the
President to the Congress: Provided further, That the entire
amount is designated by the Congress as an emergency
requirement pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A) of the Balanced
Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended.
On page 24, insert a new section:
Bureau of Indian Affairs
construction
For an additional amount for `Construction', $700,000, to
remain available until expended, to repair damage caused by
floods and other natural disasters: Provided, That the entire
amount shall be available only to the extent that an official
budget request for $700,000, that includes designation of the
entire amount of the request as an emergency requirement as
defined in the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control
Act of 1985, as amended, is transmitted by the President to
the Congress: Provided further, That the entire amount is
designated by the Congress as an emergency requirement
pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A) of the Balanced Budget and
Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended.
____
amendment no. 2154
(Purpose: To fund emergency PCB remediation in schools and other
facilities at the Standing Rock Sioux Reservation)
On page 24, after line 17, insert the following:
construction
For an additional amount for ``Construction, Bureau of
Indian Affairs,'' $365,000 to remain available until
expended, for replacement of fixtures and testing for and
remediation of Polylchlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) in BIA
schools and administrative facilities, Provided that the
entire amount shall be available only to the extent that an
official budget request for $365,000 that includes
designation of the entire amount of the request as an
emergency requirement as defined in the Balanced Budget and
Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended, is
transmitted by the President to the Congress: Provided
further, That the entire amount is designated by the Congress
as an emergency requirement pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A)
of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of
1985, as amended.
Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, I ask for their adoption en bloc.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendments are agreed
to en bloc.
The amendments (Nos. 2152, 2153, and 2154) were agreed to en bloc.
Mr. STEVENS. I move to reconsider the vote by which the amendments
were agreed to, and I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
amendment no. 2154
Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, I am pleased that the committee included
my amendment, numbered 2154, to provide $365,000 for replacement of
electrical fixtures and testing for and remediation of Polychlorinated
biphenyls (PCBs) at schools and Bureau of Indian Affairs facilities
located at the Standing Rock Sioux Reservation in North Dakota. These
funds will remain available until expended.
The amendment provides direct funding to the Bureau of Indian Affairs
so that the agency may replenish funds depleted by past activities
related to the PCB emergency and provides for future remediation and
testing activities and replacement of electric fixtures.
Students at two Standing Rock Sioux schools and employees at a Bureau
of Indian Affairs administrative building in my State have been exposed
to leaking fixtures containing dangerous PCBs. In an effort to protect
students and Federal employees from contamination, parts of three
buildings have been evacuated, disrupting classes and vital agency
functions. While testing, remediation activities and fixture
replacement are already underway, further work by the Bureau of Indian
Affairs and its contractors remains unfinished. I commend the committee
for providing the funds to insure the safety of those who work and
study on the Standing Rock Reservation.
Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, if the Chair will address the list we
prepared last evening, I will indicate that the Boxer amendment is now
off the list, the Daschle amendment is now off the list--the first
Daschle amendment--the Dorgan amendment is now off the list, the
Feingold amendment is off the list, the Hatch amendment is off the
list, the Hutchison amendment is off the list, the Levin IMF amendment
is off the list, a portion of the managers' package is off the list,
and the Wyden amendment is off the list.
I urge Senators, again, to come work with me and my staff to
determine if we can handle some of these matters.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Amendment No. 2150
Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, I thank the managers of the bill for
accepting my amendment which requires the Secretary of the Treasury to
consult with the Office of the Trade Representative regarding
prospective IMF borrowing countries, including their status with
respect to our trade laws, and to take these consultations with our
Trade Representative into account before the U.S. Executive Director of
the IMF is given instructions on the U.S. position regarding approving
loans to those countries.
I have had some difficulty supporting IMF reauthorization in the
absence of requiring countries who are benefiting from an IMF funding
bailout to remove restrictive trade practices and barriers that
discriminate against American goods and American services. This
amendment would put our trading partners on notice that the United
States is going to take into consideration a country's discriminatory
trade barriers to American goods and services as part of the process of
determining American support for IMF loans.
Title III of the Trade Act of 1974 includes both section 301 and
super 301 trade laws. These are some of our strongest trade tools in
the arsenal to fight unfair and discriminatory trade practices.
If a foreign country is identified under these trade laws, it means
that some of the most egregious discriminatory trade barriers are being
kept in place to keep out American goods and services, and we have to
use our trade laws to try to knock down barriers to our goods. We face
discriminatory trade barriers too often. Trade is too often a one-way
street, and where that is true with countries that are being considered
for IMF loans, we should have the U.S. Executive Director of the IMF
take into account those barriers and try to negotiate them away before
approving the loan.
That is the point of this amendment--to make sure that those
discussions and considerations take place before IMF loans are
approved. Countries that discriminate against our goods and our
services should not benefit from these loans until they have taken
steps to remove the barriers. I hope that this provision will send a
strong message to any country in question that has these barriers and
is seeking IMF loans; that it must take significant steps to remove
trade barriers if it wants to be assured of U.S. approval of those IMF
loans.
Again, I thank the managers for accepting this amendment. I very much
appreciate it. Those of us representing States that have industries and
services that face these barriers in countries that are being
considered for IMF
[[Page S2600]]
loans very much want this kind of action to be taken. They want our
trade laws to be enforced, and want any discriminatory barriers that
continue to exist that are maintained by these countries to be removed,
to be negotiated away before we decide what to do on the request for
the IMF loan.
I thank the Chair. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a
quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Unanimous-Consent Agreement--Amendment No. 2100
Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, this has been cleared on both sides. I
ask unanimous consent that amendment No. 2100, which has been held at
the desk, be placed before the Senate for a vote at 11:45 a.m.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. STEVENS. I ask unanimous consent that it be in order for me to
order the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is
so ordered. The yeas and nays were already ordered.
Mr. STEVENS. I ask unanimous consent that no further amendments to
amendment 2100 be in order.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. STEVENS. I am authorized to state to the Chair that Senator
Hollings has agreed to remove his proposed amendment from the list. I
do not think it is at the desk. I state that it has been removed from
the list.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, I wish to make a statement to the
Senate. We have a finite list now, and we are going to go through it
today until we finish. I think it is very advisable for Senators to
come over here and raise their amendments or work them out with us. It
will be a lot better than doing it tonight at midnight.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. BUMPERS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Hutchison). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. BUMPERS. What is the parliamentary situation? Let me rephrase
that. Is an amendment pending?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is no amendment pending.
Amendment No. 2134
Mr. BUMPERS. Madam President, I have an amendment at the desk, but I
think the chairman of the Appropriations Committee and I have a pretty
good understanding about the amendment and its intent. And I am not
saying that he agrees with every jot and tittle of it, but I think that
he feels pretty much the way I do about it.
Let me just say for the Record that here is what I am trying to
accomplish with the amendment. As you know, an emergency appropriation
does not require an offset. An appropriation in this bill which is not
an emergency does require an offset. And under the Budget Act, spending
that is not an emergency and nondefense discretionary spending must be
offset with nondefense discretionary spending and defense spending that
is not an emergency must be offset by defense spending cuts--offsets.
And the House has done something--the thing that really sort of got
me interested in this--the House has done something which is really
very strange and, frankly, I consider to be a violation of the Budget
Act. What they have said is, we are declaring these items--for example,
assistance to Bosnia and the Iraqi operation--as emergencies. And, as I
said, under the law they do not require offsets if they are
emergencies, but the House has chosen to offset them anyway. And they
have offset them totally from nondefense discretionary spending, such
as housing, AmeriCorps, and other things that may not be popular to
some people but they are fairly popular with me.
So what I want to do is emphasize that the Senate is proceeding
exactly the way we should and in accordance with the Budget Act. We
have declared these things emergencies. The ones that have not been
declared emergencies we have offsets for. And when we go to conference
with the House, we are going to be in a strange position. They are
going to be saying this is an emergency, but we are going to offset it
anyway.
I think that the chairman agrees with me that if the conference does,
in fact, have any offsets--and particularly offsets of emergency
matters--that we will comply with the requirement of the Budget Act;
and that is, defense spending increases for emergency purposes will be
offset by defense funds, and the same way with nondefense discretionary
spending.
And I would like, if I could, to get the chairman of the committee to
comment on what I have just said.
Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, as the Senator from Arkansas is aware,
the bill now before the Senate does contain emergency appropriations
for both defense and domestic emergencies. As such, those
appropriations have not been offset. I agree with the Senator's
understanding that when offsets are required, the defense accounts must
pay for defense appropriations, the nondefense must pay for nondefense
appropriations. And that would comply with the so-called walls that
exist between defense and nondefense spending.
As I understand the situation, should we bring back a bill that has
defense appropriations which are offset with reductions in nondefense
accounts, the Budget Act would treat the defense funds to be over the
cap that exists for 1998 and would not allow the treatment of the
nondefense offsets to reduce that amount down below the cap.
I call attention to the fact that our committee is the only committee
that is subject to the point of order under the Budget Act. The House
can propose whatever it wants to propose, but should we bring such a
bill back to the Senate floor, it would be subject to a point of order,
and it would certainly not be my intention to do that.
Furthermore, as the Senator knows, it has already been indicated that
the budget, the account for defense, has already been rescored and is
$22 million over the cap now, which we will have to deal with later.
But this bill is not over the cap. The defense account is over the cap
before this bill. And we have a real problem with dealing with any
funds that might attempt to be appropriated for defense on a
nonemergency basis because they would automatically be subject to a
point of order.
So the Senator's amendment No. 2134, as I stated to him yesterday, in
this Senator's opinion--and I checked with Senator Byrd yesterday--we
believe that the Senator's amendment states the interpretation of the
Budget Act as it applies to the Senate now and therefore is
unnecessary.
Mr. BUMPERS. Madam President, I just want to thank the chairman for
his remarks. And with that understanding, my amendment was a sense-of-
the-Senate resolution, and, quite frankly, I would rather have the
chairman's word.
Mr. STEVENS. I stand corrected by the staff director. It is the total
spending that is over the caps. The defense right now is under the cap,
although before the year is over it will be right up to the cap.
Mr. BUMPERS. Fine. As I was saying, Madam President, the Senator from
Alaska will be presiding as chairman on the Senate side in the
conference committee. He and I have a deep reverence for the law as we
understand it. And, as I say, I think I would rather have his word on
this than to have my amendment adopted. So with that, I withdraw the
amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is withdrawn.
The amendment (No. 2134) was withdrawn.
Mr. BUMPERS addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas is recognized.
Mr. BUMPERS. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
[[Page S2601]]
Mr. STEVENS. Will the Senator withhold that request?
Mr. BUMPERS. Yes.
Mr. STEVENS. There is some question as to amendment 2100, Madam
President. It is the IMF amendment. It is Senator McConnell's
amendment, which now has been amended by two amendments which were
adopted this morning. No further amendments are in order. But I was
informed that some Senators do wish to speak on the McConnell amendment
before it is voted on. And it will be voted on at 11:45.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, I announce that Senator Graham will not
offer his amendment.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. BUMPERS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BUMPERS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that I be
permitted to speak for 2 minutes as if in morning business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________