[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 63 (Monday, May 18, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5019-S5022]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. KYL (for himself and Mr. McCain):
  S. 2087. A bill to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to convey 
certain works, facilities, and titles of the Gila Project, and 
designated lands within or adjacent to the Gila Project, to the 
Wellton-Mohawk Irrigation and Drainage District, and for other 
purposes; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.


               WELLTON-MOHAWK TITLE TRANSFER ACT OF 1998

 Mr. KYL. Mr. President, today I introduced a bill to transfer 
title to the Wellton-Mohawk Irrigation and Drainage District in Yuma, 
Arizona from the Federal Government to the project beneficiaries. The 
repayment obligation for construction costs was fully satisfied as of 
May 30, 1987. This bill is the product of intensive negotiations 
between the project beneficiaries and the Bureau of Reclamation and 
will be the subject of a hearing in the Water and Power Subcommittee on 
June 9. At

[[Page S5020]]

that time, I will hear from all interested parties about how to 
successfully complete this project transfer.
  As you may know, Mr. President, numerous project transfers have been 
proposed, both in this session of Congress and the 104th Session. Thus 
far, none have been completed. With this bill, we in Arizona hope to 
reverse that trend. In March of this year, I met with Patty Beneke, 
Assistant Secretary of the Interior for Water and Science, and Bob 
Johnson, Regional Director for the Bureau of Reclamation, and they 
assured me that the Wellton-Mohawk project was a perfect example of the 
kind of project that should transfer under the administration's 1995 
Framework for Transfer. I believe Bob Johnson referred to this project 
as ``low-hanging fruit.'' I assume by that, he meant that it could 
transfer quickly and easily. I hope this is the case.
  The Wellton-Mohawk project is located in Yuma County, Arizona and 
irrigates approximately 63,000 acres of prime agricultural lands. This 
irrigation district is a major contributor to the economy of Yuma 
County--the largest agriculturally developed county in Arizona--and 
posts approximately three-quarters of a billion dollars in annual 
agricultural sales. Transfer of title from the Federal Government will 
affect neither the productivity nor the efficiency of the irrigation 
district. I believe that transfer would only enhance the District's 
productivity.
  Both sides stand to benefit from this title transfer. The District 
looks forward to a reduction in Federal Government involvement; would 
benefit from better land-management opportunities; and would have the 
opportunity to assure increased protection of the environmental values 
of the Gila River riparian habitat. The Federal Government benefits, 
too. A successful title transfer would advance the administration's 
stated goal of reduction in government as well as eliminate the 
responsibility for managing the patchwork of lands that make up the 
District. The Bureau of Reclamation would be relieved of the 
administrative and financial burden of facilities oversight currently 
required due to Federal ownership.
  In negotiations, the Bureau of Reclamation has raised several issues 
that need to be addressed in order to effect a successful transfer. 
These issues include environmental mitigation, administrative costs, 
identification and valuation of lands, and agricultural return flows. 
One of the benefits of my legislation is that it provides a Memorandum 
of Agreement, to be negotiated between the Bureau and the District, 
that will address all of these concerns in an open and mutually 
beneficial process.
  I am pleased thus far by the cooperation of all stakeholders. I look 
forward to continuing the process at the Water and Power subcommittee 
hearing on June 9, 1998. I thank Senator McCain for his cosponsorship 
of this bill, and I look forward to his support, as well as that of the 
rest of my colleagues, on this measure.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 2087

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Wellton-Mohawk Title 
     Transfer Act of 1998''.

     SEC. 2. CONVEYANCE OF TITLE TO WORKS, FACILITIES AND LANDS.

       (a) Definitions.--
       (1) Memorandum of agreement.--The term ``Memorandum of 
     Agreement'' means the agreement between the Secretary and 
     Wellton-Mohawk, relating to the transfer, dated on or before 
     July 1, 1998.
       (2) Reclamation.--The term ``Reclamation'' means the 
     Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation.
       (3) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
     of the Interior.
       (4) Wellton-Mohawk.--The term ``Wellton-Mohawk'' means the 
     Wellton-Mohawk Irrigation and Drainage District, an 
     irrigation and drainage district created, organized, and 
     existing under and by virtue of the Laws of the State of 
     Arizona.
       (5) Western.--The term ``Western'' means the Department of 
     Energy, Western Area Power Administration.
       (b) Implementation. The Secretary shall carry out the 
     provisions of the Memorandum of Agreement. If transfer has 
     not occurred by the date set forth in the Memorandum of 
     Agreement, but review under the National Environmental Policy 
     Act has been completed and fair market value has been 
     established, then upon tender of fair market value to the 
     Secretary by Wellton-Mohawk, all right, title, and interest 
     of the United States in and to the works, facilities, and 
     lands described in the Memorandum of Agreement shall transfer 
     to and vest in Wellton-Mohawk by operation of Law. The 
     Secretary shall provide such evidence of title as may be 
     requested by Wellton-Mohawk. In the event that no Memorandum 
     of Agreement is agreed to by July 1, 1998, this Act shall be 
     considered null and void.
       (c) Water and power delivery.--Notwithstanding the transfer 
     of title to works, facilities, and lands, the Secretary is 
     authorized and shall continue to deliver water to Wellton-
     Mohawk in accordance with the terms of the Amendatory and 
     Supplemental Consolidated Contract with Wellton-Mohawk 
     Irrigation and Drainage District for Delivery of Water, 
     Construction of Works, Repayment, and Project Power Supply 
     (Reclamation's Contract Number 1-07-30-W0021 Amendment No. 1) 
     including any renewals, amendments, supplements, or 
     extensions thereof. Notwithstanding the transfer of title to 
     works, facilities, and lands, the Secretary and Western are 
     authorized and shall continue to provide Wellton-Mohawk with 
     project reserved power from the Parker Reclamation Power 
     Plant and Davis Reclamation Power Plant, in accordance with 
     the terms of the Consolidated Contract and the Power 
     Management Agreement (Reclamation's and Western's contract 
     Numbers 6-CU-30-P1136, 6-CU-30-P1137 and 6-CU-30-P1138) 
     including any renewals, amendments, supplements, or 
     extensions thereof.
       (d) Liability.--Effective on the date of conveyance of the 
     project works, facilities and lands, the United States shall 
     not be held liable by any court for damages of any kind 
     arising out of any act, omission, or occurrence relating to 
     the conveyed works, facilities, and lands, except for damages 
     caused by acts of negligence committed by the United States 
     or by its employees, agents, or contractors as provided in 
     the Federal Tort Claims Act (28 U.S.C. 2671 et seq.).
       (e) Agricultural Return Flows.--As a condition of transfer, 
     Wellton-Mohawk shall agree that: (1) the volume of 
     agricultural return flows from Wellton-Mohawk delivered to 
     Reclamation's Main Outlet Drain at Station 0+00 shall comply 
     with applicable law and contracts and shall not exceed 
     175,000 annual acre feet; and (2) Wellton-Mohawk and 
     Reclamation shall work cooperatively to attempt to limit 
     return flows to the design capacity of the Yuma 
     Desalinization Plant.
       (f) Report.--The Secretary shall provide a report to the 
     Committee on Resources of the United States House of 
     Representatives and to the Committee on Energy and Natural 
     Resources of the United States Senate within eighteen months 
     from the date of enactment of this Act on the status of the 
     transfer, any obstacles to completion of the transfer as 
     provided in this Act, and the anticipated date for such 
     transfer.
       (g) Authorization.--There are authorized to be appropriated 
     such sums as necessary for the purposes of this Act.

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I rise today in support of legislation to 
authorize the Secretary of the Interior to transfer certain works, 
facilities, and titles of the Gila Project, and designated lands to the 
Wellton-Mohawk Irrigation and Drainage District. This legislation will 
allow the Bureau of Reclamation to carry out a transfer under the terms 
and conditions of a cooperative agreement between the Bureau and the 
District.
  I am pleased that my colleague from Arizona, Senator Jon Kyl, has 
taken the lead in crafting this important proposal. It will enable the 
Bureau of Reclamation to divest its responsibility for the operation, 
maintenance, management, and regulation of Wellton-Mohawk. The Wellton-
Mohawk project includes 375 miles of irrigation/drainage canals and 
laterals, and three major pumping plants, all of which support 63,000 
acres of prime agricultural lands. This transfer will eliminate Federal 
government oversight of Wellton-Mohawk and will empower the District 
management to take over the title.
  Mr. President, the Wellton-Mohawk District is a major contributor to 
the economy of Yuma County, which is the most agriculturally developed 
county in Arizona. The farms in the region provide an estimated 
economic impact of three-quarters of a billion dollars every year. 
Conveyance of the project to the local management would help to sustain 
the economic viability of area agricultural interests.
  The cooperation by the administration and the district over the last 
few years, especially at the regional level, has spurred this 
privatization initiative. This legislation anticipates an aggressive 
time line for the Bureau of Reclamation and the District to lay out the 
terms and conditions of the conveyance under a Memorandum of

[[Page S5021]]

Agreement (MOA), During a hearing before the House Subcommittee on 
Water and Power Resources, the Commissioner of the Bureau of 
Reclamation called the Wellton-Mohawk project a ``good candidate for 
transfer'' and furthermore stated that the administration would endorse 
legislation that allows the District and the Secretary to negotiate the 
terms of a transfer pursuant to a Memorandum of Agreement.
  Under the terms of the legislation, the parties will establish a 
process by which the fair market value of the transfer will be 
assessed. The Memorandum will also lay out a plan for an environmental 
impact analysis in compliance with the National Environmental Policy 
Act (NEPA). The Secretary of the Inferior is expected to carry out the 
transfer if the terms are decided upon in the Memorandum of Agreement 
by a set date, However, the conveyance may not go forward if the 
appraisal or the NEPA process have not been completed.
  I want to make clear that this legislation is not a directed 
transfer, but simply implements the MOA as decided upon between the 
Administration and the District. If consensus cannot be reached in the 
form of an MOA, this legislation to privatize Wellton-Mohawk will have 
no effect and will not require the government to transfer total or 
otherwise divest itself of any assets.
  Mr. President, I laud the considerable efforts of the Wellton Mohawk 
District in forgoing this agreement. I look forward to working with 
Senator Kyl to see this initiative through to smooth and expedient 
completion.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. MURKOWSKI:
  S. 2088. A bill to require the Secretary of Agriculture to grant an 
easement to Chugach Alaska Corporation, and for other purposes; to the 
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.


        Chugach Alaska Corporation Settlement implementation act

 Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, this morning I introduce 
legislation to implement a settlement agreement between the Chugach 
Alaska Corporation (CAC) and the United States Forest Service.
  Pursuant to section 1430 of the Alaska National Interest Lands 
Conservation Act (ANILCA), the Secretary of the Interior, the Secretary 
of Agriculture, the State of Alaska, and the Chugach Alaska 
Corporation, were directed to study land ownership in and around the 
Chugach Region in Alaska. The purpose of this study was two-fold. 
First, was to provide for a fair and just settlement of the Chugach 
people and realizing the intent, purpose, and promise of the Alaska 
Native Claims Settlement Act by Chugach Alaska Corporation. Second, was 
to identify lands that, to the maximum extent possible, are of the 
like, kind, and character of those traditionally used and occupied by 
the Chugach people, and, to the maximum extent possible, are coastal 
accessible and economically viable.
  On September 17, 1982, the parties entered into an agreement now 
known as the 1982 Chugach Natives, Inc. Settlement Agreement in order 
to set forth a fair and just settlement for the Chugach people pursuant 
to the study directed by Congress. Among the many provisions of this 
agreement the United States was required to convey to Chugach Alaska 
Corporation not more than 73,308 acres of land in the vicinity of 
Carbon Mountain. The land eventually conveyed contained significant 
amounts of natural resources; however, they were inaccessible by road. 
Therefore, a second major provision of the Settlement Agreement granted 
Chugach Alaska Corporation rights-of-way across Chugach National Forest 
to their land and required the United States to also grant an easement 
for the purpose of constructing and using roads and other facilities 
necessary for development of that tract of land on terms and conditions 
to be determined in accordance with the Settlement Agreement. It is 
obvious that without such an easement the land conveyed to CAC could 
not be utilized or developed in a manner consistent with the intent of 
Congress as expressed in ANILCA and ANCSA.
  More than fifteen years after the Settlement Agreement was signed the 
much needed easement has still not been granted and the CAC remains 
unable to make economic use of their lands. It seems absurd to me that 
Congress passed a Settlement Act for the Benefit of Alaska Natives; 
then the federal government entered into a Settlement Agreement to 
implement that Act where the CAC was concerned; and today, we find 
ourselves once again in a position of having to force the government to 
comply with these agreements.
  I have spoken directly to the Regional Forester about this issue and 
to the Chief of the Forest Service. While they assure me the issue is 
being addressed and, in fact, have signed an MOU to keep it moving 
forward, they cannot give me any assurance that it will conclude. 
Therefore, I find it necessary to once again have Congress rectify 
inaction on behalf of the Forest Service.
  The legislation is simple and straightforward. It directs the 
Secretary of Agriculture to grant an easement to the CAC by December 
11, of this year. It does not prevent the current process from going 
forward, it simply assures that there will be an end to it.
  It is my intent to hold a hearing on this issue in the Energy and 
Natural Resources Committee as soon as possible.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. CONRAD (for himself and Mrs. Feinstein):
  S. 2089. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow 
employers a credit against income tax for information technology 
training expenses paid or incurred by the employer, and for other 
purposes; to the Committee on Finance.


                   investment tax credit legislation

 Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, today we are considering 
legislation, S. 1723, to respond to the difficulties that many American 
companies are experiencing in recruiting skilled workers to fill key 
positions in the information technology (IT) field. I commend my 
distinguished colleague from Michigan for focusing attention on this 
critical IT worker shortage issue.
  Last September, the Department of Commerce released an important 
study, ``America's New Deficit: The Shortage of Information Technology 
Workers'', alerting us to the severe shortage of information technology 
workers. Shortly after the Commerce report was released, the 
Information Technology Association of America (ITAA) released a study 
by Virginia Tech--``Help Wanted 1998: A Call For Collaborative Action 
For the New Millennium:--which estimated that there are more than 
340,000 highly skilled positions in the information technology field 
that are not filled. Moreover, the Department of Labor projected that 
our economy will require more than 130,000 information technology jobs 
in three fields--computer scientists and engineers, systems analysts, 
and computer programmers--every year for the next ten years.
  Mr. President, according to the Department of Commerce, information 
technologies are the most important enabling technologies in the 
economy today. They affect every sector and industry in the United 
States, in terms of digitally-based products, services, production and 
work processes. Thus, severe shortages of information technology 
workers could undermine U.S. innovation, productivity and 
competitiveness in world markets.
  Concern over this IT worker shortage was expressed very clearly in 
recent testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee by Michael 
Murray, Vice President for Human Resources and Administration at 
Microsoft. Mr. Murray commented, ``As a leader in the American IT 
industry, we are deeply concerned that the current skills shortage will 
threaten our competitiveness in global markets, thereby jeopardizing 
the $1 trillion this industry contributes to the U.S. economy''. 
According to the Commerce Department, the problem is compounded by the 
fact that there is also a global shortage of skilled IT workers, in 
part the result of many developing countries like Malaysia pursuing IT-
based economic development growth plans.
  Mr. President, today we are considering legislation to amend the 
Immigration and Nationality Act to help American firms remain 
competitive in the global information technology market. Specifically, 
we are debating whether to increase the number of H1B visas that are 
available for highly skilled

[[Page S5022]]

workers to fill IT positions in the U.S. S. 1723 would increase the 
current cap on H1B visas for skilled workers from 65,000 per year to 
95,000 for the remainder of the year, and to 115,000 by fiscal year 
2000.
  From my discussions with information technology leaders, and on the 
basis the reports from the Commerce Department and ITAA regarding the 
IT worker shortage, there are compelling reasons to raise the cap on 
H1B visas. In many instances, American IT companies need the experience 
and language abilities of foreign workers to effectively compete in 
local markets. Additionally, with the IT industry's heavy reliance on 
research and development, there are times when the unique skills of a 
foreign worker contribute significantly in the development of critical 
information technology.
  Mr. President, while it may be necessary to increase the number of 
H1B visas that are available for skilled IT workers, there are 
education and training initiatives that we must also encourage the IT 
industry to undertake to make certain that opportunities are available 
for U.S. workers who want to enter the information technology field. We 
must especially focus on retraining unemployed and older displaced 
workers, and encourage new partnerships between the IT industry and 
education institutions--both at the secondary and higher education 
level--to meet this IT worker shortage challenge.
  I have been impressed, Mr. President, with the many education and 
training initiatives that the IT industry has undertaken in response to 
this shortage. I know that the IT industry is investing millions of 
dollars in education and training programs for American workers, 
especially to inform young people about the opportunities in the IT 
field. Several weeks ago, I had the privilege of visiting students in 
the Red River High School in Grand Forks, ND, who are participating in 
an excellent computer network training program sponsored by the CISCO 
Corporation. Very shortly, these young people will be able to enter the 
job market with skills that will be invaluable.
  I am also aware of several excellent partnerships that Microsoft has 
initiated with Green Thumb for older workers, and the American 
Association of Community Colleges to train students at technical and 
community colleges. There are, of course, many other excellent examples 
of ongoing partnerships in the IT industry.
  Mr. President, while these efforts are Herculean in many respects, we 
need to encourage more education initiatives to train American students 
and workers to fill IT jobs that will be so critical to maintain our 
leadership in the 21st century. For this reason, I introduced an 
amendment to S. 1133 on March 17, 1998, to increase the number of 
partnerships between the IT industry, and education institutions and 
job training programs by providing a tax credit for employers who offer 
information technology training for individuals.
  The credit would be an amount equal to 20 percent of information 
technology training program expenses, however, not to exceed $6,000 in 
a taxable year. The value of the credit would increase by 5 percentage 
points if the IT training program is operated in an empowerment zone or 
enterprise community, in a school district in which at least 50 percent 
of the students in the district participate in the school lunch 
program, or in an area designated as a disaster zone by the President 
or Secretary of Agriculture. I am very pleased that this initiative has 
been endorsed by the Information Technology Association of America.
  Mr. President, although S. 1723 may not be the appropriate measure to 
offer IT training tax credit legislation, I believe it is important to 
call attention to this legislation to emphasize the need for more 
education and training opportunities for American workers in the IT 
field. Therefore, I am today introducing my IT training tax credit 
legislation, and I hope that my colleagues who are supporting an 
increase in the H1B visa cap for foreign workers, will also support 
this provision to train and educate American workers for IT positions. 
We have an obligation to make certain that opportunities in this 
exciting field are available to American workers and students. I 
welcome cosponsors of this legislation, and I ask unanimous consent Mr. 
President, that the text of this legislation be included in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 2089

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

     SECTION 1. CREDIT FOR INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY TRAINING PROGRAM 
                   EXPENSES.

       (a) In General.--Subpart D of part IV of subchapter A of 
     chapter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to 
     business-related credits) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following new section:

     ``SEC. 45D. INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY TRAINING PROGRAM EXPENSES.

       ``(a) General Rule.--For purposes of section 38, in the 
     case of an employer, the information technology training 
     program credit determined under this section is an amount 
     equal to 20 percent of information technology training 
     program expenses paid or incurred by the taxpayer during the 
     taxable year.
       ``(b) Additional Credit Percentage for Certain Programs.--
     The percentage under subsection (a) shall be increased by 5 
     percentage points for information technology training program 
     expenses paid or incurred by the taxpayer with respect to a 
     program operated in--
       ``(1) an empowerment zone or enterprise community 
     designated under part I of subchapter U,
       ``(2) a school district in which a least 50 percent of the 
     students attending schools in such district are eligible for 
     free or reduced-cost lunches under the school lunch program 
     established under the National School Lunch Act, or
       ``(3) an area designated as a disaster area by the 
     Secretary of Agriculture or by the President under the 
     Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act in the taxable 
     year or the 4 preceding taxable years.
       ``(c) Limitation.--The amount of information technology 
     training program expenses with respect to an employee which 
     may be taken into account under subsection (a) for the 
     taxable year shall not exceed $6,000.
       ``(d) Information Technology Training Program Expenses.--
     For purposes of this section--
       ``(1) In general.--The term `information technology 
     training program expenses' means expenses paid or incurred by 
     reason of the participation of the employer in any 
     information technology training program.
       ``(2) Information technology training program.--The term 
     `information technology training program' means a program--
       ``(A) for the training of computer programmers, systems 
     analysts, and computer scientists or engineers (as such 
     occupations are defined by the Bureau of Labor Statistics),
       ``(B) involving a partnership of--
       ``(i) employers, and
       ``(ii) State training programs, school districts, or 
     university systems, and
       ``(C) at least 50 percent of the costs of which is paid or 
     incurred by the employers.
       ``(e) Denial of Double Benefit.--No deduction or credit 
     under any other provision of this chapter shall be allowed 
     with respect to information technology training program 
     expenses (determined without regard to the limitation under 
     subsection (c)).
       ``(f) Allocations.--For purposes of this section, rules 
     similar to the rules of section 41(f)(2) shall apply.''
       (b) Credit To Be Part of General Business Credit.--Section 
     38(b) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to 
     current year business credit) is amended by striking ``plus'' 
     at the end of paragraph (11), by striking the period at the 
     end of paragraph (12) and inserting ``, plus'', and by adding 
     at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(13) the information technology training program credit 
     determined under section 45D.''
       (c) No Carrybacks.--Subsection (d) of section 39 of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to carryback and 
     carryforward of unused credits) is amended by adding at the 
     end the following new paragraph:
       ``(9) No carryback of section 45D credit before effective 
     date.--No portion of the unused business credit for any 
     taxable year which is attributable to the information 
     technology training program credit determined under section 
     45D may be carried back to a taxable year ending before the 
     date of the enactment of section 45D.''
       (d) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections for subpart 
     D of part IV of subchapter A of chapter 1 of the Internal 
     Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by adding at the end the 
     following new item:

``Sec. 45D. Information technology training program expenses.''
       (e) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to amounts paid or incurred after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act in taxable years ending after such 
     date.

                          ____________________