Congressional Record, Volume 147 Issue 31 (Friday, March 9, 2001)

[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 31 (Friday, March 9, 2001)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2117-S2135]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

By Mr. DeWINE (for himself, Mr. Hutchinson, Mr. Hatch, Mr.

[[Page S2118]]

Voinovich, Mr. Brownback, Mr. Ensign, Mr. Enzi, Mr. Hagel, Mr.
Helms, Mr. Inhofe, Mr. Nickles, and Mr. Santorum):
S. 480. A bill to amend titles 10 and 18, United States Code, to
protect unborn victims of violence to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of
the bill be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

S. 480

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 ``Unborn Victims of Violence
Act of 2001''.

SEC. 2. PROTECTION OF UNBORN CHILDREN.

(a) In General.--Title 18, United States Code, is amended
by inserting after chapter 90 the following:

``CHAPTER 90A--PROTECTION OF UNBORN CHILDREN

``Sec.
``1841. Causing death of or bodily injury to unborn child.

``Sec. 1841. Causing death of or bodily injury to unborn
child

``(a)(1) Any person who engages in conduct that violates
any of the provisions of law listed in subsection (b) and
thereby causes the death of, or bodily injury (as defined in
section 1365 of this title) to, a child, who is in utero at
the time the conduct takes place, is guilty of a separate
offense under this section.
``(2)(A) Except as otherwise provided in this paragraph,
the punishment for that separate offense is the same as the
punishment provided for that conduct under Federal law had
that injury or death occurred to the unborn child's mother.
``(B) An offense under this section does not require proof
that--
``(i) the person engaging in the conduct had knowledge or
should have had knowledge that the victim of the underlying
offense was pregnant; or
``(ii) the defendant intended to cause the death of, or
bodily injury to, the unborn child.
``(C) If the person engaging in the conduct thereby
intentionally kills or attempts to kill the unborn child,
that person shall be punished as provided under section 1111,
1112, or 1113 of this title, as applicable, for intentionally
killing or attempting to kill a human being, instead of the
penalties that would otherwise apply under subparagraph (A).
``(D) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the death
penalty shall not be imposed for an offense under this
section.
``(b) The provisions referred to in subsection (a) are the
following:
``(1) Sections 36, 37, 43, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 229,
242, 245, 247, 248, 351, 831, 844(d), 844(f), 844(h)(1),
844(i), 924(j), 930, 1111, 1112, 1113, 1114, 1116, 1118,
1119, 1120, 1121, 1153(a), 1201(a), 1203, 1365(a), 1501,
1503, 1505, 1512, 1513, 1751, 1864, 1951, 1952(a)(1)(B),
1952(a)(2)(B), 1952(a)(3)(B), 1958, 1959, 1992, 2113, 2114,
2116, 2118, 2119, 2191, 2231, 2241(a), 2245, 2261, 2261A,
2280, 2281, 2332, 2332a, 2332b, 2340A, and 2441 of this
title.
``(2) Section 408(e) of the Controlled Substances Act of
1970 (21 U.S.C. 848(e)).
``(3) Section 202 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42
U.S.C. 2283).
``(c) Subsection (a) does not permit prosecution--
``(1) for conduct relating to an abortion for which the
consent of the pregnant woman has been obtained or for which
such consent is implied by law in a medical emergency;
``(2) for conduct relating to any medical treatment of the
pregnant woman or her unborn child; or
``(3) of any woman with respect to her unborn child.
``(d) In this section--
``(1) the terms `child in utero' and `child, who is in
utero' mean a member of the species homo sapiens, at any
stage of development, who is carried in the womb; and
``(2) the term `unborn child' means a child in utero.''.
(b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of chapters for part I
of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting
after the item relating to chapter 90 the following:

``90A. Causing death of or bodily injury to unborn child....1841''.....

SEC. 3. MILITARY JUSTICE SYSTEM.

(a) Protection of Unborn Children.--Subchapter X of chapter
47 of title 10, United States Code (the Uniform Code of
Military Justice), is amended by inserting after section 919
(article 119) the following:

``Sec. 919a. Art. 119a. Causing death of or bodily injury to
unborn child

``(a)(1) Any person subject to this chapter who engages in
conduct that violates any of the provisions of law listed in
subsection (b) and thereby causes the death of, or bodily
injury (as defined in section 1365 of title 18) to, a child,
who is in utero at the time the conduct takes place, is
guilty of a separate offense under this section.
``(2)(A) Except as otherwise provided in this paragraph,
the punishment for that separate offense is the same as the
punishment for that conduct under this chapter had that
injury or death occurred to the unborn child's mother.
``(B) An offense under this section does not require proof
that--
``(i) the person engaging in the conduct had knowledge or
should have had knowledge that the victim of the underlying
offense was pregnant; or
``(ii) the defendant intended to cause the death of, or
bodily injury to, the unborn child.
``(C) If the person engaging in the conduct thereby
intentionally kills or attempts to kill the unborn child,
that person shall be punished as provided under section 918,
919, or 880 of this title (article 118, 119, or 80), as
applicable, for intentionally killing or attempting to kill a
human being, instead of the penalties that would otherwise
apply under subparagraph (A).
``(D) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the death
penalty shall not be imposed for an offense under this
section.
``(b) The provisions referred to in subsection (a) are
sections 918, 919(a), 919(b)(2), 920(a), 922, 924, 926, and
928 of this title (articles 111, 118, 119(a), 119(b)(2),
120(a), 122, 124, 126, and 128).
``(c) Subsection (a) does not permit prosecution--
``(1) for conduct relating to an abortion for which the
consent of the pregnant woman has been obtained or for which
such consent is implied by law in a medical emergency;
``(2) for conduct relating to any medical treatment of the
pregnant woman or her unborn child; or
``(3) of any woman with respect to her unborn child.
``(d) In this section--
``(1) the terms `child in utero' and `child, who is in
utero' mean a member of the species homo sapiens, at any
stage of development, who is carried in the womb; and
``(2) the term `unborn child' means a child in utero.''.
(b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the
beginning of such subchapter is amended by inserting after
the item relating to section 919 the following:

``919a. 119a. Causing death of or bodily injury to unborn child.''.
____

By Mr. CAMPBELL (for himself, Mr. Bingaman, and Mr. Inouye):
S. 502. A bill to provide for periodic Indian needs assessments, to
require Federal Indian program evaluations, and for other purposes; to
the Committee on Indian Affairs.
Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, today I am pleased to be joined by
Senator Bingaman and Senator Inouye in introducing the Indian Needs
Assessment, Program Evaluation and Policy Coordination Act of 2001 to
bring about needed reforms in the way Indian programs are designed and
funded.
As the annual funding debates over Indian programs show us year after
year, rational and equitable funding decisions are made more difficult
because of the lack of accurate and up-to-date information about the
needs of tribal governments and tribal members.
The ability of the Congress to target unmet needs and make available
adquate funds for tribes and tribal members is directly related to the
quantity and quality of information available about the type and degree
of demand for federal programs and services.
Within two years of the enactment of this act, and every 5 years
thereafter, each Federal agency or department is required to conduct an
``Indian Needs Assessment'', INA, aimed at determining the needs of
tribes and Indians eligible for programs and services administered by
such agency or department.
To facilitate information collection and analysis, the bill requires
the development of a uniform method, criteria and procedures for
determining, analyzing, and compiling the program and service needs of
tribes and Indians.
The resulting ``Indian Needs Assessments'' are to be filed with the
Committees on Appropriations and Indian Affairs of the Senate, and the
Committees on Appropriations and Resources of the House of
Representatives.
In addition to a Needs Assessment, the bill also requires that each
Federal agency or department responsible for providing services to
Indians file an ``Annual Indian Program Evaluation'', AIPE, with these
same committees. The AIPE will measure the performance and
effectiveness of the programs under the jurisdiction of that agency or
department, and include recommendations as to how such programs can be
improved.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the
Record and urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this measure.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:

[[Page S2119]]

S. 502

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 ``Indian Needs Assessment and
Program Evaluation Act of 2001''.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS, PURPOSES.

(a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
(1) the United States and the Indian tribes have a unique
legal and political government-to-government relationship;
(2) pursuant to the Constitution, treaties, statutes,
Executive orders, court decisions, and course of conduct, the
United States has a trust obligation to provide certain
services to Indian tribes and to Indians;
(3) Federal departments and agencies charged with
administering programs and providing services to, or for the
benefit of, Indians have not furnished Congress with adequate
information necessary to assess such programs on the needs of
Indians and Indian tribes;
(4) such lack of information has hampered the ability of
Congress to determine the nature, type, and magnitude of such
needs as well as its ability to respond to them; and
(5) Congress cannot properly fulfill its obligation to
Indian tribes and Indian people unless and until it has an
adequate store of information related to the needs of Indians
nationwide.
(b) Purposes.--The purposes of this Act are to--
(1) ensure that Indian needs for Federal programs and
services are known in a more certain and predictable fashion;
(2) require that Federal departments and agencies carefully
review and monitor the effectiveness of the programs and
services provided to Indians;
(3) provide for more efficient and effective cooperation
and coordination of, and accountability from, the Federal
departments and agencies providing programs and services,
including technical and business development assistance, to
Indians; and
(4) provide Congress with reliable information regarding
Indian needs and the evaluation of Federal programs and
services provided to Indians nationwide.

SEC. 3. INDIAN TRIBAL NEEDS ASSESSMENT.

(a) Indian Tribal Needs Assessments.--
(1) Immediate assessment.--
(A) In general.--Not later than 180 days after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary of the Interior shall
contract with an appropriate entity, in consultation and
coordination with the Indian tribes, the Secretary of
Agriculture, the Secretary of Commerce, the Secretary of
Defense, the Secretary of Energy, the Secretary of Health and
Human Services, the Secretary of Housing and Urban
Development, the Secretary of Labor, the Secretary of the
Treasury, the Secretary of Transportation, the Secretary of
Veterans Affairs, the Attorney General, the Administrator of
the Environmental Protection Agency, and the heads of any
other relevant Federal departments or agencies, for the
development of a uniform method and criteria, and uniform
procedures for determining, analyzing, and compiling the
program and service assistance needs of Indian tribes and
Indians by each such department or agency. The needs
assessment shall address, but not be limited to, the
following:
(i) The location of the service area of each program.
(ii) The size of the service area of each program.
(iii) The total population of each tribe located in the
service area.
(iv) The total population of members of other tribes
located in the service area.
(v) The availability of similar programs within the
geographical area to tribes or tribal members.
(vi) The socio-economic conditions that exist within the
service area.
(B) Consultation.--The contractor shall consult with tribal
governments in establishing and conducting the needs
assessment required under subparagraph (A).
(2) Ongoing federal needs assessments.--
(A) In general.--Not later than 2 years after the date of
enactment of this Act, and every 5 years thereafter, each
Federal department or agency, in coordination with the
Secretary of the Interior, shall conduct an Indian Needs
Assessment (in this Act referred to as the ``INA'') aimed at
determining the actual needs of Indian tribes and Indians
eligible for programs and services administered by such
department or agency.
(B) Submission to congress.--Not later than February 1 of
any year in which an INA is required to be conducted under
subparagraph (A), a copy of the INA shall be submitted to the
Committee on Appropriations and the Committee on Resources of
the House of Representatives and the Committee on
Appropriations and the Committee on Indian Affairs of the
Senate.
(b) Federal Agency Indian Tribal Program Evaluation.--
(1) In general.--Not later than 180 days after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary of the Interior shall
develop a uniform method and criteria, and uniform procedures
for compiling, maintaining, keeping current, and reporting to
Congress all information concerning--
(A) the annual expenditures of the department or agency for
programs and services for which Indians are eligible, with
specific information regarding the names of tribes who are
currently participating in or receiving each service, the
names of tribes who have applied for and not received
programs or services, and the names of tribes whose services
or programs have been terminated within the last fiscal year;
(B) services or programs specifically for the benefit of
Indians, with specific information regarding the names of
tribes who are currently participating in or receiving each
service, the names of tribes who have applied for and not
received programs or services, and the names of tribes whose
services or programs have been terminated within the last
fiscal year; and
(C) the department or agency method of delivery of such
services and funding, including a detailed explanation of the
outreach efforts of each agency or department to Indian
tribes.
(2) Submission to Congress.--Not later than 2 years after
the date of enactment of this Act, and annually thereafter,
each Federal department or agency responsible for providing
services or programs to, or for the benefit of, Indian tribes
or Indians shall file an Annual Indian Program Evaluation (in
this Act referred to as the ``AIPE'') with the Committee on
Appropriations and the Committee on Resources of the House of
Representatives and the Committee on Appropriations and the
Committee on Indian Affairs of the Senate.
(c) Annual Listing of Tribal Eligible Programs.--Not later
than February 1 of each calendar year, each Federal
department or agency described in subsection (b)(2), shall
develop and publish in the Federal Register a list of all
programs and services offered by such department or agency
for which Indian tribes or their members are or may be
eligible, and shall provide a brief explanation of the
program or service.
(d) Confidentiality.--Any information received, collected,
or gathered from Indian tribes concerning program function,
operations, or need in order to conduct an INA or an AIPE
shall be used only for the purposes of this Act set forth in
section 2(b).

SEC. 4. REPORT TO CONGRESS.

(a) In General.--Not later than 2 years after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary of the Interior shall
develop and submit to the Committee on Appropriations and the
Committee on Resources of the House of Representatives and
the Committee on Appropriations and the Committee on Indian
Affairs of the Senate a report detailing the coordination of
Federal program and service assistance for which Indian
tribes and their members are eligible.
(b) Strategic Plan.--Not later than 30 months after the
date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of the Interior,
in consultation and coordination with the Indian tribes,
shall file a Strategic Plan for the Coordination of Federal
Assistance for Indians (in this Act referred to as the
``Strategic Plan'').
(c) Contents of Strategic Plan.--The Strategic Plan
required under subsection (b) shall contain the following:
(1) Identification of reforms necessary to the laws,
regulations, policies, procedures, practices, and systems of
the Federal departments or agencies involved.
(2) Proposals for implementing the reforms identified in
the Strategic Plan.
(3) Any other recommendations that are consistent with the
purposes of this Act set forth in section 2(b).

SEC. 5. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

There are authorized to be appropriated for fiscal year
2002 and each fiscal year thereafter, such sums as are
necessary to carry out this Act.
______

By Mr. REID (for himself and Mr. Ensign):
S. 503. A bill to amend the Safe Water Act to provide grants to small
public drinking water systems; to the Committee on Environment and
Public Works.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, we have spent a great deal of time, as we
should, focusing on President Bush's tax cut. There are some
differences that have been noted on numerous occasions. My point is,
there are many other issues about which we need to be engaged.
Yesterday in the Environment and Public Works Committee, we did some
very good work. We reported a bill out of that committee dealing with
brownfields. The Acting President pro tempore, who is presiding, was a
cosponsor of that legislation last year. It is very important
legislation. It will allow the cleanup of about 450,000 sites that now
are blighted sites, most of them in city centers--where there may have
been a dry cleaner there before, or there may have been some business--
and there may be some toxic substances in the ground.
This legislation will allow the cleanup to go forward. It will allow
these places to become productive.
We have already identified, for example, in Nevada, some 30 sites
that need to be cleaned up, producing hundreds of jobs and millions and
millions of dollars on the tax rolls. We did this. It shows that we can
do things on a bipartisan basis.
The subcommittee is run by Senators Boxer and Chafee. They work very

[[Page S2120]]

well together. There was bipartisan support for this legislation. I am
very proud of what the committee did.
I hope, with the schedule that we have, we can have this on the
floor, and we can pass this out of here, and send it to the House,
within the next month. It is good legislation.
Mr. President, communities in Nevada and nationwide are facing a
crisis in their ability to provide clean, affordable drinking water to
the public.
Dramatic population growth in some areas of the country has only
increased the demand for more drinking water.
At the same time, standards are being adopted by local, State, and
Federal governments to assure the safety of drinking water supplies.
Because of this, communities all across the country are facing the
need to install, upgrade, and replace their drinking water
infrastructure. That is why I and Senator Ensign are introducing the
Small Community Safe Drinking Water Funding Act.
However, the cost of putting this infrastructure in place is
staggeringly high. The Environmental Protection Agency has recently
estimated that to meet the Nation's needs, our communities' drinking
water infrastructure will require an investment of more than $150
billion over the next 20 years.
While communities of all sizes face the crisis in drinking water
infrastructure, the greatest burden is on small communities.
For example, the per-household cost for water infrastructure
improvements is almost four times higher for small systems than for
large ones.
One reason for this disproportionate impact is that small public
drinking water systems are so numerous--representing nearly 95 percent
of all systems. It is that way in Nevada and most western states.
In my home State of Nevada, the percentage is even greater. Upwards
of 98 percent of public drinking water systems in the Silver State are
small systems.
Also, because small communities lack the tax base and economies-of-
scale of larger communities, they typically incur much higher per-
household costs in upgrading their drinking water infrastructure
improvements.
In Nevada alone, small communities will need to invest hundreds of
millions of dollars over the next 20 years in drinking water
infrastructure.
The dilemma faced by small communities has been highlighted recently
by EPA's new drinking water standard for arsenic.
Arsenic is a naturally occurring contaminant that impacts drinking
water supplies in Nevada, and other States throughout the west and
northeast.
The public health threat posed by arsenic in drinking water is well-
established by scientists.
Despite the public health need, many small communities will find it
extremely difficult to finance improvements needed to meet the arsenic
standard.
This is because EPA estimates that compliance with this standard will
increase annual household water costs in communities of less than
10,000 people from between $38 to $327--an increase in water costs
roughly 10 times greater than for communities with more than 10,000
people.
In Nevada, we have very few communities of more than 10,000. We have
Las Vegas, Reno, Henderson, Sparks, Elko, Carson City. This has a
tremendous impact in Nevada.
Due to these costs to small communities, some have called for the
standard to be rolled back. In fact, the Bush administration has held
up the implementation of the regulation, and is currently considering
whether or not to nullify it.
A roll-back of the new arsenic drinking water standard would be a
serious mistake.
The old drinking water standard for arsenic had not been revised in
over 55 years.
In 1999, the National Academy of Sciences reviewed the scientific
data on arsenic and urged EPA to implement a lower, more protective
standard as quickly as possible.
The new EPA arsenic standard--the one currently under review by the
Bush Administration--was set at the very level as the standard adopted
by the World Health Organization almost a decade ago.
Undoing EPA's new arsenic standard would deny millions of American
families access to safe drinking water.
Rolling back this standard is simply the wrong way to ensure clean,
reliable, and affordable water to all Americans.
The right way to address the new arsenic standard, as well as the
crisis this country faces with its drinking water infrastructure, is
for the Federal Government to provide a helping hand to communities to
meet their drinking water needs.
Take my home State of Nevada for example. The city of Fallon, a
small, rural community in the northwest part of the State, has been
wrestling with high levels of naturally-occurring arsenic in its public
water supply for decades. When I served in the State legislature in the
1960s, this was a problem. It still is.
Despite the difficulties involved in solving its arsenic problem, the
city is not asking for a roll-back of EPA's new arsenic standard.
On the contrary, the city very much wants to meet the new standard so
that it can provide safe drinking water to its citizens.
What the city needs, in order to accomplish this, is our financial
help. It is a national problem, and we should help.
I should add, even though there is naturally occurring arsenic in the
water in Fallon, it may have been exacerbated by a Federal project, the
first Bureau of Reclamation project in the history of the country, in
1902, when it sent water from the Truckee River into Churchill County.
It may have raised the arsenic level higher than it would have been
otherwise.
Currently, the primary source of Federal assistance for local
drinking water projects is the EPA's Drinking Water State Revolving
Loan Fund.
This fund--which I, along with others on the Senate Environment and
Public Works Committee, helped add to the Safe Drinking Water Act when
it was amended in 1996--has been an overwhelming success.
Since its inception, the Fund has allowed States to provide more than
1,200 low-interest loans totaling over $2.3 billion for upgrading and
installing drinking water systems.
However, many small and disadvantaged communities are left out of the
State revolving fund program.
Many of these communities do not attempt to participate in the
program because they lack the financial resources to meet the terms of
loans.
Although we added a provision to the act in 1996 allowing loans to be
subsidized for disadvantaged communities, a significant number of
States have not taken advantage of it.
Therefore, many small, cash-strapped communities receive little or no
financial assistance form the Federal Government, at a time when they
are faced with costly improvements to systems like that of Fallon, NV.
Today, I and Senator Ensign introduce a bill to address the needs of
communities that face the greatest difficulties in ensuring clean
drinking water for their residents.
It will ensure that our Nation's small, disadvantaged communities
have access to the financial help they need to provide safe, reliable,
and affordable drinking water.
This bill, the Small Community Safe Drinking Water Funding Act,
accomplishes this goal by establishing a program to provide almost $750
million annually to Indian tribes and States, so they can make grants
to public water systems that serve small communities.
I would like to highlight several key aspects of the bill:
First, the Small Community Safe Drinking Water Act provides
substantial flexibility to States.
Each State choosing to participate in the grant program will receive
an allocation of money from EPA, based on the drinking water
infrastructure needs of that State.
The State can then distribute this money as grants according to the
State's own prioritization of communities' needs.
Second, the act streamlines the workload associated with a new grant
program by taking advantage of procedures already in place through the
Drinking Water State Revolving Fund program.
The identification of communities in most need of grant support is
coordinated with the annual ``Intended Use Plans'' already required of
States by the State revolving fund.

[[Page S2121]]

States can also administer grants through the same agencies that
currently administer State revolving fund loans.
Third, the drinking water treatment needs of Indian tribes and
Alaskan native villages are addressed through a $22.5 million EPA-
administered grants program modeled after the one established for
States.
This money will be targeted, in the form of grants, to those small
communities determined to be in most need of drinking water system
improvements.
Finally, the act ensures that small, disadvantaged communities
receiving grants have access to technical assistance through non-profit
organizations.
These organizations have established relationships with small
communities, as well as a solid track record in helping these
communities to solve their drinking water problems.
These organizations will be able to assist small communities to plan,
implement, and maintain the drinking water projects funded through
grants.
Nevada's small communities are facing a drinking water infrastructure
crisis.
These communities, and other small communities nationwide, confront
increasing demand for clean, reliable, and affordable drinking water.
But it is simply too costly for small communities, alone, to address
this water infrastructure crisis.
They need a financial helping hand from the Federal Government.
The bill I and Senator Ensign are introducing today will provide this
much-needed Federal helping hand.
I urge my colleagues to cosponsor this important legislation and work
with us to see that it is swiftly enacted.
______

By Mr. CAMPBELL (for himself, Mr. Inouye, and Mr. Bingaman):
S. 504. A bill for administrative procedures to extend Federal
recognition to certain Indian groups, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on Indian Affairs.
Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined by Senators
Inouye and Bingaman in introducing the Indian Tribal Federal
Recognition Administrative Procedures Act of 2001. From the first days
of the republic, the Congress has acted to recognize the unique legal
and political relationship the United States has with the Indian
tribes. Reforming the process of Federal recognition is the purpose of
the legislation I am introducing today.
Federal recognition is critical to tribal groups because it triggers
eligibility for services and benefits provided by the United States
because of their status as members of federally recognized Indian
tribes.
I want to be clear, I am not advocating for the approval of every
petition for recognition, and I am not proposing that the petitions
receive a limited or cursory review. I am concerned with the viability
of the current recognition process and am interested in seeing
fairness, promptness, and finality brought into that process while
providing basic assurances to already-recognized tribes regarding their
inherent rights.
Federal recognition may be accomplished in two ways: through the
enactment of federal legislation; or through the administrative process
that occurs, or more accurately does not occur, within the Branch of
Acknowledgement and Research, BAR.
Over the years, the length of time the Bureau has taken to process
certain petitions and the process for which applications for
recognition are considered has increased. At a hearing on similar
legislation in 2000, one group testified that its petition has been
pending since 1970!
The process in the Department of the Interior is time consuming and
costly, although it has improved from its original state. It has
frequently been hindered by a lack of staff and resources which are
needed to fairly and promptly review all petitions.
The cases on active consideration, including those with proposed
findings, have been in the process for anywhere from 2 to 9 years.
As with any decision-making body, fairness and timeliness are the
keys to maintaining a credible system which holds the confidence of
affected parties. I believe that it is in the interests of all parties
to have a clear deadline for the completion of the recognition process.
In 1978, the Department of the Interior promulgated regulations to
establish criteria and procedures for the recognition of Indian tribes
by the Secretary of Interior.
Since that time tribal groups have filed 250 letters of intent and
petitions for review and consideration. Of those, 51 have been
resolved, 34 by the BAR.
The remainder are in various stages of consideration by the
Department either ready for active status or are already placed on
active status.
In the last twenty years, the Committee on Indian Affairs has held
several oversight hearings on the Federal recognition process. At those
hearings the record clearly showed that the process does not work. At a
Committee on Indian Affairs hearing in 1995, the Bureau testified that
at the current rate of review and consideration, it would take several
decades to eliminate the entire backlog of tribal petitions. The record
from numerous previous hearings reveals a clear need for the Congress
to address the problems affecting the recognition process.
The bill I am introducing today will go a long way toward resolving
the problems which have plagued both the Department of the Interior
and tribal petitioners over the years.

This bill, the Indian Tribal Federal Recognition Administrative
Procedures Act of 2001, provides the required clarification and changes
that will help tribal petitioners and the United States in providing
fair and orderly administrative procedures to extend Federal
recognition to eligible Indian groups. The principal purpose is to
remove the Federal acknowledgment process from the BAR and transfer the
responsibility for the process to a temporary and independent
Commission on Indian Tribal Recognition.
This bill provides that the Commission will be an independent agency,
composed of three members appointed by the President, and authorized to
hold hearings, take testimony, and reach final determinations on
petitions for recognition.
The bill provides strict but realistic time-lines to guide the
Commission in the review and decision-making process. Under the
existing process, some petitioners have waited ten years or more for
even a cursory review of their petition.
This bill will allow for a cost-effective process for the BIA and the
petitioners, it will provide definite time-lines for the administrative
recognition process, and sunsets the Commission in 12 years.
To ensure fairness, the bill provides for appeals of adverse
decisions to the federal district court here in the District of
Columbia.
To ensure that the views and comments of all affected parties are
considered, the bills directs the Commission to consider evidence and
materials submitted by states, local communities, and State attorneys
general.
To ensure promptness, the bill authorizes adequate funding for the
costs of processing petitions through the Commission.
The bill also provides finality for both the petitioners and the
Department by requiring all interested tribal groups to file their
petitions with 8 years after the date of enactment and requiring the
Commission to complete to work within 12 years from enactment.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be
printed in the Record, and urge my colleagues to join me in enacting
this much-needed reform legislation.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:

S. 504

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 ``Indian Tribal Federal
Recognition Administrative Procedures Act of 2001''.

SEC. 2. PURPOSES.

The purposes of this Act are as follows:
(1) To remove the Federal acknowledgment process from the
Bureau of Indian Affairs and transfer the responsibility for
the process to an independent Commission on Indian Tribal
Recognition.
(2) To establish a Commission on Indian Tribal Recognition
to review and act upon documented petitions submitted by
Indian groups that apply for Federal recognition.

[[Page S2122]]

(3) To establish an administrative procedure under which
petitions for Federal recognition filed by Indian groups will
be considered.
(4) To provide clear and consistent standards of
administrative review of documented petitions for Federal
acknowledgment.
(5) To clarify evidentiary standards and expedite the
administrative review process by providing adequate resources
to process documented petitions.
(6) To ensure that when the Federal Government extends
acknowledgment to an Indian tribe, the Federal Government
does so with a consistent legal, factual, and historical
basis.
(7) To extend to Indian groups that are determined to be
Indian tribes the protection, services, and benefits
available from the Federal Government pursuant to the Federal
trust responsibility with respect to Indian tribes.
(8) To extend to Indian groups that are determined to be
Indian tribes the immunities and privileges available to
other federally acknowledged Indian tribes by virtue of their
status as Indian tribes with a government-to-government
relationship with the United States.

SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

In this Act:
(1) Acknowledgment.--The term ``acknowledgment'' means a
determination by the Commission on Indian Tribal Recognition
that an Indian group constitutes an Indian tribe with a
government-to-government relationship with the United States.
(2) Autonomous.--
(A) In general.--The term ``autonomous'' means the exercise
of political influence or authority independent of the
control of any other Indian governing entity.
(B) Context of term.--With respect to a petitioner, the
term shall be understood in the context of the history,
geography, culture, and social organization of the
petitioner.
(3) Bureau.--The term ``Bureau'' means the Bureau of Indian
Affairs of the Department.
(4) Commission.--The term ``Commission'' means the
Commission on Indian Tribal Recognition established under
section 4.
(5) Community.--
(A) In general.--The term ``community'' means any group of
people, living within a reasonable territory, that is able to
demonstrate that--
(i) consistent interactions and significant social
relationships exist within the membership; and
(ii) the members of that group are differentiated from and
identified as distinct from nonmembers.
(B) Context of term.--The term shall be understood in the
context of the history, culture, and social organization of
the group, taking into account the geography of the region in
which the group resides.
(6) Continuous or continuously.--With respect to a period
of history of a group, the term ``continuous'' or
``continuously'' means extending from 1900 throughout the
history of the group to the present substantially without
interruption.
(7) Department.--The term ``Department'' means the
Department of the Interior.
(8) Documented petition.--The term ``documented petition''
means the detailed, factual exposition and arguments,
including all documentary evidence, necessary to demonstrate
that those arguments specifically address the mandatory
criteria established in section 5.
(9) Historically, historical, history.--The terms
``historically'', ``historical'', and ``history'' refer to
the period dating from 1900.
(10) Indian group.--The term ``Indian group'' means any
Indian band, pueblo, village, or community that is not
acknowledged to be an Indian tribe.
(11) Interested parties.--The term ``interested parties''
means any person, organization, or other entity who can
establish a legal, factual, or property interest in an
acknowledgement determination and who requests an opportunity
to submit comments or evidence or to be kept informed of
Federal actions regarding a specific petitioner. The term
includes the government and attorney general of the State in
which a petitioner is located, and may include, but is not
limited to, local governmental units, and any recognized
Indian tribes and unrecognized Indian groups that might be
affected by an acknowledgement determination.
(12) Letter of intent.--The term ``letter of intent'' means
an undocumented letter or resolution that--
(A) is dated and signed by the governing body of an Indian
group;
(B) is submitted to the Commission; and
(C) indicates the intent of the Indian group to submit a
documented petition for Federal acknowledgment.
(13) Petitioner.--The term ``petitioner'' means any group
that submits a letter of intent to the Commission requesting
acknowledgment.
(14) Political influence or authority.--
(A) In general.--The term ``political influence or
authority'' means a tribal council, leadership, internal
process, or other mechanism that a group has used as a means
of--
(i) influencing or controlling the behavior of its members
in a significant manner;
(ii) making decisions for the group which substantially
affect its members; or
(iii) representing the group in dealing with nonmembers in
matters of consequence to the group.
(B) Context of term.--The term shall be understood in the
context of the history, culture, and social organization of
the group.
(15) Restoration.--The term ``restoration'' means the
reextension of acknowledgment to any previously acknowledged
tribe with respect to which the acknowledged status may have
been abrogated or diminished by reason of administrative
action by the Executive Branch or legislation enacted by
Congress expressly terminating that status.
(16) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of the Interior.
(17) Treaty.--The term ``treaty'' means any treaty--
(A) negotiated and ratified by the United States on or
before March 3, 1871, with, or on behalf of, any Indian group
or tribe;
(B) made by any government with, or on behalf of, any
Indian group or tribe, from which the Federal Government or
the colonial government which was the predecessor to the
United States Government subsequently acquired territory by
purchase, conquest, annexation, or cession; or
(C) negotiated by the United States with, or on behalf of,
any Indian group in California, whether or not the treaty was
subsequently ratified.
(18) Tribal roll.--The term ``tribal roll'' means a list
exclusively of those individuals who--
(A)(i) have been determined by the tribe to meet the
membership requirements of the tribe, as set forth in the
governing document of the tribe; or
(ii) in the absence of a governing document that sets forth
those requirements, have been recognized as members by the
governing body of the tribe; and
(B) have affirmatively demonstrated consent to being listed
as members of the tribe.

SEC. 4. COMMISSION ON INDIAN TRIBAL RECOGNITION.

(a) Establishment.--There is established the Commission on
Indian Tribal Recognition. The Commission shall be an
independent establishment, as defined in section 104 of title
5, United States Code.
(b) Membership.--
(1) In general.--
(A) Members.--The Commission shall consist of 3 members
appointed by the President, by and with the advice and
consent of the Senate.
(B) Individuals to be considered for membership.--In making
appointments to the Commission, the President shall give
careful consideration to--
(i) recommendations received from Indian groups and Indian
tribes; and
(ii) individuals who have a background or who have
demonstrated expertise and experience in Indian law or
policy, anthropology, genealogy, or Native American history.
(C) Background information.--No individual shall be
eligible for any appointment to, or continue service on the
Commission, who--
(i) has been convicted of a felony; or
(ii) has any financial interest in, or management
responsibility for, any Indian group.
(2) Political affiliation.--Not more than 2 members of the
Commission may be members of the same political party.
(3) Terms.--Each member of the Commission shall be
appointed for a term of 6 years.
(4) Vacancies.--Any vacancy in the Commission shall not
affect the powers of the Commission, but shall be filled in
the same manner in which the original appointment was made.
Any member appointed to fill a vacancy occurring before the
expiration of the term for which the predecessor of the
member was appointed shall be appointed only for the
remainder of that term. A member may serve after the
expiration of the term of that member until a successor has
taken office.
(5) Compensation.--
(A) In general.--Each member of the Commission shall
receive compensation at a rate equal to the daily equivalent
of the annual rate of basic pay prescribed for level V of the
Executive Schedule under section 5316 of title 5, United
States Code, for each day, including traveltime, that the
member is engaged in the actual performance of duties
authorized by the Commission.
(B) Travel.--All members of the Commission shall be
reimbursed for travel and per diem in lieu of subsistence
expenses during the performance of duties of the Commission
while away from their homes or regular places of business, in
accordance with subchapter I of chapter 57 of title 5, United
States Code.
(6) Full-time employment.--Each member of the Commission
shall serve on the Commission as a full-time employee of the
Federal Government. No member of the Commission may, while
serving on the Commission, be otherwise employed as an
officer or employee of the Federal Government. Service by a
member who is an employee of the Federal Government at the
time of nomination as a member shall be without interruption
or loss of civil service status or privilege.
(7) Chairperson.--At the time appointments are made under
paragraph (1), the President shall designate a Chairperson of
the Commission (referred to in this section as the
``Chairperson'') from among the appointees.
(c) Meetings and Procedures.--
(1) In general.--The Commission shall hold its first
meeting not later than 30 days after the date on which all
members of the

[[Page S2123]]

Commission have been appointed and confirmed by the Senate.
(2) Quorum.--Two members of the Commission shall constitute
a quorum for the transaction of business.
(3) Rules.--The Commission may adopt such rules (consistent
with the provisions of this Act) as may be necessary to
establish the procedures of the Commission and to govern the
manner of operations, organization, and personnel of the
Commission.
(4) Principal office.--The principal office of the
Commission shall be in the District of Columbia.
(d) Duties.--The Commission shall carry out the duties
assigned to the Commission by this Act, and shall meet the
requirements imposed on the Commission by this Act.
(e) Powers and Authorities.--
(1) Powers and authorities of chairperson.--Subject to such
rules and regulations as may be adopted by the Commission,
the Chairperson may--
(A) appoint, terminate, and fix the compensation (without
regard to the provisions of title 5, United States Code,
governing appointments in the competitive service, and
without regard to the provisions of chapter 51 and subchapter
III of chapter 53 of that title, or of any other provision of
law, relating to the number, classification, and General
Schedule rates) of an Executive Director of the Commission
and of such other personnel as the Chairperson considers
advisable to assist in the performance of the duties of the
Commission, at a rate not to exceed a rate equal to the daily
equivalent of the annual rate of basic pay prescribed for
level V of the Executive Schedule under section 5316 of title
5, United States Code; and
(B) procure, as authorized by section 3109(b) of title 5,
United States Code, temporary and intermittent services to
the same extent as is authorized by law for agencies in the
executive branch, but at rates not to exceed the daily
equivalent of the annual rate of basic pay prescribed for
level V of the Executive Schedule under section 5316 of that
title.
(2) General powers and authorities of commission.--
(A) In general.--The Commission may hold such hearings and
sit and act at such times as the Commission considers to be
appropriate.
(B) Other authorities.--As the Commission may consider
advisable, the Commission may--
(i) take testimony;
(ii) have printing and binding done;
(iii) enter into contracts and other arrangements, subject
to the availability of funds;
(iv) make expenditures; and
(v) take other actions.
(C) Oaths and affirmations.--Any member of the Commission
may administer oaths or affirmations to witnesses appearing
before the Commission.
(3) Information.--
(A) In general.--The Commission may secure directly from
any officer, department, agency, establishment, or
instrumentality of the Federal Government such information as
the Commission may require to carry out this Act. Each such
officer, department, agency, establishment, or
instrumentality shall furnish, to the extent permitted by
law, such information, suggestions, estimates, and statistics
directly to the Commission, upon the request of the
Chairperson.
(B) Facilities, services, and details.--Upon the request of
the Chairperson, to assist the Commission in carrying out the
duties of the Commission under this section, the head of any
Federal department, agency, or instrumentality may--
(i) make any of the facilities and services of that
department, agency, or instrumentality available to the
Commission; and
(ii) detail any of the personnel of that department,
agency, or instrumentality to the Commission, on a
nonreimbursable basis.
(C) Mails.--The Commission may use the United States mails
in the same manner and under the same conditions as other
departments and agencies of the United States.
(f) Federal Advisory Committee Act.--The provisions of the
Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.) shall not
apply to the Commission.
(g) Termination of Commission.--The Commission shall
terminate on the date that is 12 years after the date of the
first meeting of the Commission.
(h) Appointments.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
this Act, the Secretary shall continue to exercise those
authorities vested in the Secretary relating to supervision
of Indian recognition regulated under part 83 of title 25 of
the Code of Federal Regulations until such time as the
Commission is organized and prescribes regulations. The
Secretary shall provide staff and support assistance to
facilitate an orderly transition to regulation of Indian
recognition by the Commission.

SEC. 5. DOCUMENTED PETITIONS FOR RECOGNITION.

(a) In General.--
(1) Letters of intent and documented petitions.--Subject to
subsection (d) and except as provided in paragraph (3), any
Indian group may submit to the Commission letters of intent
and a documented petition requesting that the Commission
recognize the group as an Indian tribe.
(2) Hearing.--
(A) In general.--Indian groups that have been denied or
refused recognition as an Indian tribe under regulations
prescribed by the Secretary shall be entitled to an
adjudicatory hearing under section 9 before the Commission,
if the Commission determines that the criteria established by
this Act changes the merits of the Indian group's documented
petition submitted to the Department.
(B) Hearing record.--For purposes of subparagraph (A), the
Commission shall review the administrative record containing
the documented petition that formed the basis of the
determination to the Indian group by the Secretary.
(C) Treatment of secretary's final determination.--For
purposes of the adjudicatory hearing, the Secretary's final
determination shall be considered a preliminary determination
under section 8(b)(1)(B).
(D) Official government actions to be considered concerning
evidence of criteria.--A statement and an analysis of facts
submitted under this section may establish that, for any
given period of time for which evidence of criteria is
lacking, such absence of evidence corresponds in time with
official acts of the Federal or relevant State Government
which prohibited or penalized the expression of Indian
identity. For such periods of time, the absence of evidence
shall not be the basis for declining to acknowledge the
petitioner.
(3) Exclusion.--The following groups and entities shall not
be eligible to submit a documented petition for recognition
by the Commission under this Act:
(A) Certain entities that are eligible to receive services
from the bureau.--Indian tribes, organized bands, pueblos,
communities, and Alaska Native entities that are recognized
by the Secretary as of the date of enactment of this Act as
eligible to receive services from the Bureau.
(B) Certain splinter groups, political factions, and
communities.--Splinter groups, political factions,
communities, or groups of any character that separate from
the main body of an Indian tribe that, at the time of that
separation, is recognized as an Indian tribe by the
Secretary, unless the group, faction, or community is able to
establish clearly that the group, faction, or community has
functioned throughout history until the date of the
documented petition as an autonomous Indian tribal entity.
(C) Certain groups that have previously submitted
documented petitions.--Groups, or successors in interest of
groups, that before the date of enactment of this Act, have
petitioned for and been denied or refused recognition based
on the merits of their petition as an Indian tribe under
regulations prescribed by the Secretary (other than an Indian
group described in paragraph (2)(A)). Nothing in this
subparagraph shall be construed as excluding any group that
Congress has identified as Indian, but has not identified as
an Indian tribe.
(D) Indian groups subject to termination.--Any Indian group
whose relationship with the Federal Government was expressly
terminated by an Act of Congress.
(4) Transfer of documented petition.--
(A) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
law, not later than 30 days after the date on which all of
the members of the Commission have been appointed and
confirmed by the Senate under section 4(b), the Secretary
shall transfer to the Commission all documented petitions and
letters of intent pending before the Department that request
the Secretary to recognize or acknowledge an Indian group as
an Indian tribe.
(B) Cessation of certain authorities of secretary.--
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, on the date of
the transfer under subparagraph (A), the Secretary and the
Department shall cease to have any authority to recognize or
acknowledge, on behalf of the Federal Government, any Indian
group as an Indian tribe.
(C) Determination of order of submission of transferred
documented petitions.--Documented petitions transferred to
the Commission under subparagraph (A) shall, for purposes of
this Act, be considered as having been submitted to the
Commission in the same order as those documented petitions
were submitted to the Department.
(b) Documented Petition Form and Content.--Except as
provided in subsection (c), any documented petition submitted
under subsection (a) by an Indian group shall be in any
readable form that clearly indicates that the documented
petition is a documented petition requesting the Commission
to recognize the Indian group as an Indian tribe and that
contains detailed, specific evidence concerning each of the
following items:
(1) Statement of facts.--A statement of facts and an
analysis of such facts establishing that the petitioner has
been identified as an American Indian entity on a
substantially continuous basis since 1900. Evidence that the
character of the group as an Indian entity has from time to
time been denied shall not be considered to be conclusive
evidence that this criterion has not been met. Evidence that
the Commission may rely on in determining the Indian identity
of a group may include any 1 or more of the following items:
(A) Identification of petitioner.--An identification of the
petitioner as an Indian entity by any department, agency, or
instrumentality of the Federal Government.
(B) Relationship of petitioner with state government.--A
relationship between the petitioner and any State government,
based on an identification of the petitioner as an Indian
entity.

[[Page S2124]]

(C) Relationship of petitioner with a political subdivision
of a state.--Dealings of the petitioner with a county or
political subdivision of a State in a relationship based on
the Indian identity of the petitioner.
(D) Identification of petitioner on the basis of certain
records.--An identification of the petitioner as an Indian
entity by records in a private or public archive, courthouse,
church, or school.
(E) Identification of petitioner by certain experts.--An
identification of the petitioner as an Indian entity by an
anthropologist, historian, or other scholar.
(F) Identification of petitioner by certain media.--An
identification of the petitioner as an Indian entity in a
newspaper, book, or similar medium.
(G) Identification of petitioner by another indian tribe or
organization.--An identification of the petitioner as an
Indian entity by another Indian tribe or by a national,
regional, or State Indian organization.
(H) Identification of petitioner by a foreign government or
international organization.--An identification of the
petitioner as an Indian entity by a foreign government or an
international organization.
(I) Other evidence of identification.--Such other evidence
of identification as may be provided by a person or entity
other than the petitioner or a member of the membership of
the petitioner.
(2) Evidence of community.--
(A) In general.--A statement of facts and an analysis of
such facts establishing that a predominant portion of the
membership of the petitioner--
(i) comprises a community distinct from those communities
surrounding that community; and
(ii) has existed as a community from historical times to
the present.
(B) Evidence.--Evidence that the Commission may rely on in
determining that the petitioner meets the criteria described
in clauses (i) and (ii) of subparagraph (A) may include 1 or
more of the following items:
(i) Marriages.--Significant rates of marriage within the
group, or, as may be culturally required, patterned out-
marriages with other Indian populations.
(ii) Social relationships.--Significant social
relationships connecting individual members.
(iii) Social interaction.--Significant rates of informal
social interaction which exist broadly among the members of a
group.
(iv) Shared economic activity.--A significant degree of
shared or cooperative labor or other economic activity among
the membership.
(v) Discrimination or other social distinctions.--Evidence
of strong patterns of discrimination or other social
distinctions by nonmembers.
(vi) Shared ritual activity.--Shared sacred or secular
ritual activity encompassing most of the group.
(vii) Cultural patterns.--Cultural patterns that--

(I) are shared among a significant portion of the group
that are different from the cultural patterns of the non-
Indian populations with whom the group interacts;
(II) function as more than a symbolic identification of the
group as Indian; and
(III) may include language, kinship, or religious
organizations, or religious beliefs and practices.

(viii) Collective indian identity.--The persistence of a
named, collective Indian identity continuously over a period
of more than 50 years, notwithstanding changes in name.
(ix) Historical political influence.--A demonstration of
historical political influence pursuant to the criteria set
forth in paragraph (3).
(x) Extended kinship ties.--Not less than 50 percent of the
tribal members exhibit collateral kinship ties through
generations to the third degree.
(C) Criteria for sufficient evidence.--The Commission shall
consider the petitioner to have provided sufficient evidence
of community at a given point in time if the petitioner has
provided evidence that demonstrates any one of the following:
(i) Residence of members.--More than 50 percent of the
members of the group of the petitioner reside in a particular
geographical area exclusively or almost exclusively composed
of members of the group, and the balance of the group
maintains consistent social interaction with some members of
the community.
(ii) Marriages.--Not less than \1/3\ of the marriages of
the group are between members of the group.
(iii) Distinct cultural patterns.--Not less than 50 percent
of the members of the group maintain distinct cultural
patterns including language, kinship, or religious
organizations, or religious beliefs or practices.
(iv) Community social institutions.--Distinct community
social institutions encompassing 50 percent of the members of
the group, such as kinship organizations, formal or informal
economic cooperation, or religious organizations.
(v) Applicability of criteria.--The group has met the
criterion in paragraph (3) using evidence described in
paragraph (3)(B).
(3) Autonomous entity.--
(A) In general.--A statement of facts and an analysis of
such facts establishing that the petitioner has maintained
political influence or authority over its members as an
autonomous entity from historical times until the time of the
documented petition. The Commission may rely on 1 or more of
the following items in determining whether a petitioner meets
the criterion described in the preceding sentence:
(i) Mobilization of members.--The group is capable of
mobilizing significant numbers of members and significant
resources from its members for group purposes.
(ii) Issues of personal importance.--Most of the membership
of the group consider issues acted upon or taken by group
leaders or governing bodies to be of personal importance.
(iii) Political process.--There is widespread knowledge,
communication, and involvement in political processes by most
of the members of the group.
(iv) Level of application of criteria.--The group meets the
criterion described in paragraph (2) at more than a minimal
level.
(v) Intragroup conflicts.--There are intragroup conflicts
which show controversy over valued group goals, properties,
policies, processes, or decisions.
(vi) Continuous line of group leaders.--A continuous line
of group leaders with a description of the means of selection
or acquiescence by a majority of the group's members.
(B) Evidence of exercise of political influence or
authority.--The Commission shall consider that a petitioner
has provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate the exercise
of political influence or authority at a given point in time
by demonstrating that group leaders or other mechanisms exist
or have existed that accomplish the following:
(i) Allocation of group resources.--Allocate group
resources such as land, residence rights, or similar
resources on a consistent basis.
(ii) Settlement of disputes.--Settle disputes between
members or subgroups such as clans or lineages by mediation
or other means on a regular basis.
(iii) Influence on behavior of individual members.--Exert
strong influence on the behavior of individual members, such
as the establishment or maintenance of norms and the
enforcement of sanctions to direct or control behavior.
(iv) Economic subsistence activities.--Organize or
influence economic subsistence activities among the members,
including shared or cooperative labor.
(C) Temporality of sufficiency of evidence.--A group that
has met the requirements of paragraph (2)(C) at any point in
time shall be considered to have provided sufficient evidence
to meet the criterion described in subparagraph (A) at that
point in time.
(4) Governing document.--A copy of the then present
governing document of the petitioner that includes the
membership criteria of the petitioner. In the absence of a
written document, the petitioner shall be required to provide
a statement describing in full the membership criteria of the
petitioner and the then current governing procedures of the
petitioner.
(5) List of members.--
(A) In general.--A list of all then current members of the
petitioner, including the full name (and maiden name, if
any), date, and place of birth, and then current residential
address of each member, a copy of each available former list
of members based on the criteria defined by the petitioner,
and a statement describing the methods used in preparing
those lists.
(B) Requirements for membership.--In order for the
Commission to consider the members of the group to be members
of an Indian tribe for the purposes of the documented
petition, that membership shall be required to consist of
established descendancy from an Indian group that existed
historically, or from historical Indian groups that combined
and functioned as a single autonomous entity.
(C) Evidence of tribal membership.--Evidence of tribal
membership required by the Commission for a determination of
tribal membership shall include the following items:
(i) Descendancy rolls.--Descendancy rolls prepared by the
Secretary for the petitioner for purposes of distributing
claims money, providing allotments, or other purposes.
(ii) Certain official records.--Federal, State, or other
official records or evidence identifying then present members
of the petitioner, or ancestors of then present members of
the petitioner, as being descendants of a historic tribe or
historic tribes that combined and functioned as a single
autonomous political entity.
(iii) Enrollment records.--Church, school, and other
similar enrollment records identifying then present members
or ancestors of then present members as being descendants of
a historic tribe or historic tribes that combined and
functioned as a single autonomous political entity.
(iv) Affidavits of recognition.--Affidavits of recognition
by tribal elders, leaders, or the tribal governing body
identifying then present members or ancestors of then present
members as being descendants of 1 or more historic tribes
that combined and functioned as a single autonomous political
entity.
(v) Other records or evidence.--Other records or evidence
based upon firsthand experience of historians,
anthropologists, and genealogists with established expertise
on the petitioner or Indian entities in general,

[[Page S2125]]

identifying then present members or ancestors of then present
members as being descendants of 1 or more historic tribes
that combined and functioned as a single autonomous political
entity.
(c) Exceptions.--A documented petition from an Indian group
that is able to demonstrate by a preponderance of the
evidence that the group was, or is the successor in interest
to, a--
(1) party to a treaty or treaties;
(2) group acknowledged by any agency of the Federal
Government as eligible to participate under the Act of June
18, 1934 (commonly referred to as the ``Indian Reorganization
Act'') (48 Stat. 984 et seq., chapter 576; 25 U.S.C. 461 et
seq.);
(3) group for the benefit of which the United States took
into trust lands, or which the Federal Government has treated
as having collective rights in tribal lands or funds; or
(4) group that has been denominated a tribe by an Act of
Congress or Executive order,
shall be required to establish the criteria set forth in this
section only with respect to the period beginning on the date
of the applicable action described in paragraph (1), (2),
(3), or (4) and ending on the date of submission of the
documented petition.
(d) Deadline for Submission.--
(1) Documented Petitions.--No Indian group may submit a
documented petition to the Commission after 8 years after the
date of the first meeting of the Commission.
(2) Letters of intent.--In the case of a letter of intent,
the Commission shall publish in the Federal Register a notice
of such receipt, including the name, location, and mailing
address of the petitioner. A petitioner who has submitted a
letter of intent or had a letter of intent transferred to the
Commission under section 5 shall be required to submit a
documented petition within 3 years after the date of the
first meeting of the Commission to the Commission. No letters
of intent will be accepted by the Commission after 3 years
after the date of the first meeting of the Commission.

SEC. 6. NOTICE OF RECEIPT OF DOCUMENTED PETITION.

(a) Petitioner.--
(1) In general.--Not later than 30 days after a documented
petition is submitted or transferred to the Commission under
section 5(a), the Commission shall--
(A) send an acknowledgement of receipt in writing to the
petitioner; and
(B) publish in the Federal Register a notice of that
receipt, including the name, location, and mailing address of
the petitioner and such other information that--
(i) identifies the entity that submitted the documented
petition and the date the documented petition was received by
the Commission;
(ii) indicates where a copy of the documented petition may
be examined; and
(iii) indicates whether the documented petition is a
transferred documented petition that is subject to the
special provisions under paragraph (2).
(2) Special provisions for transferred documented
petitions.--
(A) In general.--With respect to a documented petition that
is transferred to the Commission under section 5(a)(4), the
notice provided to the petitioner, shall, in addition to
providing the information specified in paragraph (1), inform
the petitioner whether the documented petition constitutes a
documented petition that meets the requirements of section 5.
(B) Amended petitions.--If the petition described in
subparagraph (A) is not a documented petition, the Commission
shall notify the petitioner that the petitioner may, not
later than 120 days after the date of the notice, submit to
the Commission an amended petition that is a documented
petition for review under section 7.
(C) Effect of amended petition.--To the extent practicable,
the submission of an amended petition by a petitioner by the
date specified in this paragraph shall not affect the order
of consideration of the petition by the Commission.
(b) Others.--In addition to providing the notification
required under subsection (a), the Commission shall notify,
in writing, the Governor and attorney general of, and each
federally recognized Indian tribe within, any State in which
a petitioner resides.
(c) Publication; Opportunity for Supporting or Opposing
Submissions.--
(1) Publication.--The Commission shall publish the notice
of receipt of each documented petition (including any amended
petition submitted pursuant to subsection (a)(2)) in a major
newspaper of general circulation in the town or city located
nearest the location of the petitioner.
(2) Opportunity for supporting or opposing submissions.--
(A) In general.--Each notice published under paragraph (1)
shall include, in addition to the information described in
subsection (a), notice of opportunity for other parties
involved with the petitioners to submit factual or legal
arguments in support of, or in opposition to, the documented
petition.
(B) Copy to petitioner.--A copy of any submission made
under subparagraph (A) shall be provided to the petitioner
within 90 days upon receipt by the Commission.
(C) Response.--The petitioner shall be provided an
opportunity to respond within 90 days to any submission made
under subparagraph (A) before a determination on the
documented petition by the Commission.

SEC. 7. PROCESSING THE DOCUMENTED PETITION.

(a) Review.--
(1) In general.--Upon receipt of a documented petition
submitted or transferred under section 5(a) or submitted
under section 6(a)(2)(B), the Commission shall conduct a
review to determine whether the petitioner is entitled to be
recognized as an Indian tribe.
(2) Content of review.--The review conducted under
paragraph (1) shall include consideration of the documented
petition, supporting evidence, and the factual statements
contained in the documented petition.
(3) Other research.--In conducting a review under this
subsection, the Commission may--
(A) initiate other research for any purpose relative to
analyzing the documented petition and obtaining additional
information about the status of the petitioner; and
(B) consider such evidence as may be submitted by
interested parties.
(4) Access to library of congress and national archives.--
Upon request by the petitioner, the appropriate officials of
the Library of Congress and the National Archives shall allow
access by the petitioner to the resources, records, and
documents of those entities, for the purpose of conducting
research and preparing evidence concerning the status of the
petitioner.
(b) Consideration.--
(1) In general.--Except as otherwise provided in this
subsection, documented petitions submitted or transferred to
the Commission shall be considered on a first come, first
served basis, determined by the date of the original filing
of each such documented petition with the Commission (or the
Department if the documented petition is transferred to the
Commission pursuant to section 5(a)(4) or is an amended
petition submitted pursuant to section 6(a)(2)(B)). The
Commission shall establish a priority register that includes
documented petitions that are pending before the Department
as of the date of the first meeting of the Commission.
(2) Priority consideration.--Each documented petition (that
is submitted or transferred to the Commission pursuant to
section 5(a) or that is submitted to the Commission pursuant
to section 6(a)(2)(B)) of an Indian group that meets 1 or
more of the requirements set forth in section 5(c) shall
receive priority consideration over a documented petition
submitted by any other Indian group.

SEC. 8. PRELIMINARY HEARING.

(a) In General.--Not later than 60 days after the receipt
of a documented petition by the Commission submitted or
transferred under section 5(a) or submitted to the Commission
pursuant to section 6(a)(2)(B), the Commission shall set a
date for a preliminary hearing, which shall in no instance be
held later than 180 days after receipt of the documented
petition. At the preliminary hearing, the petitioner and any
other interested party may provide evidence concerning the
status of the petitioner.
(b) Determination.--
(1) In general.--Not later than 30 days after the
conclusion of a preliminary hearing under subsection (a), the
Commission shall make a determination--
(A) to extend Federal acknowledgment of the petitioner as
an Indian tribe to the petitioner; or
(B) that the petitioner should proceed to an adjudicatory
hearing.
(2) Notice of determination.--The Commission shall publish
in the Federal Register a notice of each determination made
under paragraph (1).
(c) Information To Be Provided Preparatory to an
Adjudicatory Hearing.--
(1) In general.--If the Commission makes a determination
under subsection (b)(1)(B) that the petitioner should proceed
to an adjudicatory hearing, the Commission shall--
(A)(i) not later than 30 days after the date of such
determination, make available appropriate evidentiary records
of the Commission to the petitioner to assist the petitioner
in preparing for the adjudicatory hearing; and
(ii) include such guidance as the Commission considers
necessary or appropriate to assist the petitioner in
preparing for the hearing; and
(B) not later than 30 days after the conclusion of the
preliminary hearing under subsection (a), provide a written
notification to the petitioner that includes a list of any
deficiencies or omissions that the Commission relied on in
making a determination under subsection (b)(1)(B).
(2) Subject of adjudicatory hearing.--The list of
deficiencies and omissions provided by the Commission to a
petitioner under paragraph (1)(B) shall be the subject of the
adjudicatory hearing. The Commission may not make any
additions to the list after the Commission issues the list.

SEC. 9. ADJUDICATORY HEARING.

(a) In General.--Not later than 180 days after the
conclusion of a preliminary hearing under section 8(a), the
Commission shall afford a petitioner who is subject to
section 8(b)(1)(B) an adjudicatory hearing. The subject of
the adjudicatory hearing shall be the list of deficiencies
and omissions provided under section 8(c)(1)(B) and shall be
conducted pursuant to sections 554, 556, and 557 of title 5,
United States Code.
(b) Testimony From Staff of Commission.--In any hearing
held under subsection (a), the Commission shall require
testimony from the acknowledgement and research

[[Page S2126]]

staff of the Commission or other witnesses involved in the
preliminary determination. Any such testimony shall be
subject to cross-examination by the petitioner.
(c) Evidence by Petitioner.--In any hearing held under
subsection (a), the petitioner may provide such evidence as
the petitioner considers appropriate.
(d) Determination by Commission.--Not later than 60 days
after the conclusion of any hearing held under subsection
(a), the Commission shall--
(1) make a determination concerning the extension or denial
of Federal acknowledgment of the petitioner as an Indian
tribe to the petitioner;
(2) publish the determination of the Commission under
paragraph (1) in the Federal Register; and
(3) deliver a copy of the determination to the petitioner,
and to every other interested party.

SEC. 10. APPEALS.

(a) In General.--Not later than 60 days after the date that
the Commission publishes a determination under section 9(d),
the petitioner may appeal the determination to the United
States District Court for the District of Columbia.
(b) Attorney Fees.--If the petitioner prevails in an appeal
made under subsection (a), the petitioner shall be eligible
for an award of reasonable attorney fees and costs under
section 504 of title 5, United States Code, or section 2412
of title 28, United States Code, whichever is applicable.

SEC. 11. EFFECT OF DETERMINATIONS.

A determination by the Commission under section 9(d) that
an Indian group is recognized by the Federal Government as an
Indian tribe shall not have the effect of depriving or
diminishing--
(1) the right of any other Indian tribe to govern the
reservation of such other tribe as that reservation existed
before the recognition of that Indian group, or as that
reservation may exist thereafter;
(2) any property right held in trust or recognized by the
United States for that other Indian tribe as that property
existed before the recognition of that Indian group; or
(3) any previously or independently existing claim by a
petitioner to any such property right held in trust by the
United States for that other Indian tribe before the
recognition by the Federal Government of that Indian group as
an Indian tribe.

SEC. 12. IMPLEMENTATION OF DECISIONS.

(a) Eligibility for Services and Benefits.--
(1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), upon recognition
by the Commission of a petitioner as an Indian tribe under
this Act, the Indian tribe shall--
(A) be eligible for the services and benefits from the
Federal Government that are available to other federally
recognized Indian tribes by virtue of their status as Indian
tribes with a government-to-government relationship with the
United States; and
(B) have the responsibilities, obligations, privileges, and
immunities of those Indian tribes.
(2) Programs of the bureau.--
(A) In general.--The recognition of an Indian group as an
Indian tribe by the Commission under this Act shall not
create an immediate entitlement to programs of the Bureau in
existence on the date of the recognition.
(B) Availability of programs.--
(i) In general.--The programs described in subparagraph (A)
shall become available to the Indian tribe upon the
appropriation of funds.
(ii) Requests for appropriations.--The Secretary and the
Secretary of Health and Human Services shall forward budget
requests for funding the programs for the Indian tribe
pursuant to the needs determination procedures established
under subsection (b).
(b) Needs Determination and Budget Request.--
(1) In general.--Not later than 180 days after an Indian
group is recognized by the Commission as an Indian tribe
under this Act, the appropriate officials of the Bureau and
the Indian Health Service of the Department of Health and
Human Services shall consult and develop in cooperation with
the Indian tribe, and forward to the Secretary or the
Secretary of Health and Human Services, as appropriate, a
determination of the needs of the Indian tribe and a
recommended budget required to serve the newly recognized
Indian tribe.
(2) Submission of budget request.--Upon receipt of the
information described in paragraph (1), the appropriate
Secretary shall submit to the President a recommended budget
along with recommendations, concerning the information
received under paragraph (1), for inclusion in the annual
budget submitted by the President to the Congress pursuant to
section 1108 of title 31, United States Code.

SEC. 13. ANNUAL REPORT CONCERNING COMMISSION'S ACTIVITIES.

(a) List of Recognized Tribes.--Not later than 90 days
after the first meeting of the Commission, and annually on or
before each January 30 thereafter, the Commission shall
publish in the Federal Register a list of all Indian tribes
that--
(1) are recognized by the Federal Government; and
(2) receive services from the Bureau.
(b) Annual Report.--
(1) In general.--Beginning on the date that is 1 year after
the date of the first meeting of the Commission, and annually
thereafter, the Commission shall prepare and submit a report
to the Committee on Indian Affairs of the Senate and the
Committee on Resources of the House of Representatives that
describes the activities of the Commission.
(2) Content of reports.--Each report submitted under this
subsection shall include, at a minimum, for the year that is
the subject of the report--
(A) the number of documented petitions pending at the
beginning of the year and the names of the petitioners;
(B) the number of documented petitions received during the
year and the names of the petitioners;
(C) the number of documented petitions the Commission
approved for acknowledgment during the year and the names of
the acknowledged petitioners;
(D) the number of documented petitions the Commission
denied for acknowledgment during the year and the names of
the petitioners; and
(E) the status of all pending documented petitions on the
date of the report and the names of the petitioners.

SEC. 14. ACTIONS BY PETITIONERS FOR ENFORCEMENT.

Any petitioner may bring an action in the district court of
the United States for the district in which the petitioner
resides, or the United States District Court for the District
of Columbia, to enforce the provisions of this Act, including
any time limitations within which actions are required to be
taken, or decisions made, under this Act. The district court
shall issue such orders (including writs of mandamus) as may
be necessary to enforce the provisions of this Act.

SEC. 15. REGULATIONS.

The Commission may, in accordance with applicable
requirements of title 5, United States Code, promulgate and
publish such regulations as may be necessary to carry out
this Act.

SEC. 16. GUIDELINES AND ADVICE.

(a) Guidelines.--Not later than 90 days after the date of
the first meeting of the Commission, the Commission shall
make available to Indian groups suggested guidelines for the
format of documented petitions, including general suggestions
and guidelines concerning where and how to research
information that is required to be included in a documented
petition. The examples included in the guidelines shall not
preclude the use of any other appropriate format.
(b) Research Advice.--The Commission may, upon request,
provide suggestions and advice to any petitioner with respect
to the research of the petitioner concerning the historical
background and Indian identity of that petitioner. The
Commission shall not be responsible for conducting research
on behalf of the petitioner.

SEC. 17. ASSISTANCE TO PETITIONERS.

(a) Grants.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary of Health and Human Services
may award grants to Indian groups seeking Federal recognition
as Indian tribes to enable the Indian groups to--
(A) conduct the research necessary to substantiate
documented petitions under this Act; and
(B) prepare documentation necessary for the submission of a
documented petition under this Act.
(2) Treatment of grants.--The grants made under this
subsection shall be in addition to any other grants the
Secretary of Health and Human Services is authorized to
provide under any other provision of law.
(b) Competitive Award.--The grants made under subsection
(a) shall be awarded competitively on the basis of objective
criteria prescribed in regulations promulgated by the
Secretary of Health and Human Services.

SEC. 18. PROTECTION OF CERTAIN PRIVILEGED INFORMATION.

Notwithstanding any other provision of law, upon the
effective date of this Act, when responding to any requests
for information on petitions and related materials filed by a
group seeking Federal recognition as an Indian tribe pursuant
to part 83 of title 25 of the Code of Federal Regulations,
including petitions and related materials transferred to the
Commission from the Department under section 5(a)(4), as well
as related materials located within the Department that have
yet to be transferred to the Commission, the Department and
the Commission shall exclude materials identified by the
petitioning group as information related to religious
practices or sacred sites, and which the group is forbidden
to disclose except for the limited purpose of Department and
Commission review.

SEC. 19. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

(a) Commission.--There are authorized to be appropriated to
the Commission to carry out this Act (other than section 17)
such sums as are necessary for each of fiscal years 2002
through 2014.
(b) Secretary of HHS.--There are authorized to be
appropriated to the Secretary of Health and Human Services to
carry out section 17 such sums as are necessary for each of
fiscal years 2002 through 2014.
______

By Mrs. FEINSTEIN (for herself, Mr. Schumer, and Mr. Kennedy):
S. 505. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to regulate
certain .50 caliber sniper weapons in the same manner as machine guns
and

[[Page S2127]]

other firearms, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise on behalf of myself, Senator
Schumer, and Senator Kennedy to re-introduce the Military Sniper Weapon
Regulation Act. This bill, which I first introduced with Senator
Lautenberg in 1999, will reclassify powerful .50 caliber military
sniper rifles under the National Firearms Act, thus making it much more
difficult for terrorists, doomsday cults, and criminals to obtain these
guns for illegitimate use. It is my sincere hope that in this new, 50-
50 Senate, we can finally make some progress on this bill and limit the
use of these powerful guns.
Fifty caliber sniper rifles, manufactured by a small handful of
companies and individuals, are deadly, military style assault weapons,
designed for armed combat with wartime enemies. They weigh up to 28
pounds and are capable of piercing light armor at more than 4 miles.
The guns enable a single shooter to destroy enemy jeeps, tanks,
personnel carriers, bunkers, fuel stations, and even communication
centers. As a result, their use by military organizations worldwide has
been spreading rapidly.
But along with the increasing military use of the gun, we have also
seen increased use of the weapon by violent criminals and terrorists
around the world. The weapons are deadly accurate up to 2,000 yards.
This means that a shooter using a 50 caliber weapon can reliably hit a
target more than a mile away. In fact, according to a training manual
for military and police snipers published in 1993, a bullet from this
gun ``even at one and a half miles crashes into a target with more
energy than Dirty Harry's famous .44 magnum at point-blank'' range.
And the gun is ``effective'' up to 7,500 yards. In other words,
although it may be hard to aim at that distance, the gun will have its
desired destructive effect at that distance--more than 4 miles from the
target.
The weapon can penetrate several inches of steel, concrete, or even
light armor. In fact, many ranges used for target practice do not even
have enough safety features to accommodate these guns, it is just too
powerful.
Recent advances in weapons technology allow this gun to be used by
civilians against armored limousines, bunkers, individuals, and even
aircraft, in fact, one advertisement for the gun apparently promoted
the weapon as able to ``wreck several million dollars' worth of jet
aircraft with one or two dollars' worth of cartridge.''
This gun is so powerful that one dealer told undercover GAO
investigators ``You'd better buy one soon. It's only a matter of time
before someone lets go a round on a range that travels so far, it hits
a school bus full of kids. The government will definitely ban .50
calibers. This gun is just too powerful.''

When I first introduced this bill, I commented that a study by the
General Accounting Office revealed some eye-opening facts about how and
where this gun is used, and how easily it is obtained. The GAO reports
that many of these guns wind up in the hands of domestic and
international terrorists, religious cults, outlaw motorcycle gangs,
drug traffickers, and violent criminals.
One doomsday cult headquartered in Montana purchased 10 of these guns
and stockpiled them in an underground bunker, along with thousands of
rounds of ammunition and other guns. At least one .50 caliber gun was
recovered by Mexican authorities after a shoot-out with an
international drug cartel in that country. The gun was originally
purchased in Wyoming, so it is clear that the guns are making their way
into the hands of criminals worldwide.
Another .50 caliber sniper rifle, smuggled out of the United States,
was used by the Irish Republican Army to kill a large number of British
soldiers.
And ammunition for these guns is also readily available, even over
the Internet. Bullets for these guns include ``armor piercing
incendiary'' ammunition that explodes on impact, and even ``armor
piercing tracing'' ammunition reminiscent of the ammunition that lit up
the skies over Baghdad during the Persian Gulf war.
Several ammunition dealers were willing to sell armor piercing
ammunition to an undercover GAO investigator even after the
investigator said he wanted the ammunition to pierce an armored
limousine or maybe to ``take down'' a helicopter. In fact, our own
military helps to provide thousands of rounds of .50 caliber
ammunition, by essentially giving away tons of spent cartridges, many
of which are then refurbished and sold on the civilian market.
This bill will begin the process of making these guns harder to get
and easier to track.
Current law classifies .50 caliber guns as ``long guns,'' subject to
the least government regulation for any firearm. Sawed-off shotguns,
machine guns, and even handguns are more highly regulated than this
military sniper rifle. In fact, many states allow possession of .50
caliber guns by those as young as 14 years old, and there is no
regulation on second-hand sales.
Essentially, this bill would re-classify .50 caliber guns under the
National Firearms Act, which imposes far stricter standards on powerful
and destruction weapons. For instance:
NFA guns may only be purchased from a licensed dealer, and not
second-hand. This will prevent the sale of these guns at gun shows and
in other venues that make it hard for law enforcement to track the
weapons.
Second, purchasers of NFA guns must fill out license transfer
applications and provide fingerprints to be processed by the FBI in
detailed criminal background checks. By reclassifying the .50 caliber,
Congress will be making a determination that sellers should be more
careful about to whom they give these powerful, military guns.
ATF reports that this background check process takes about 60 days,
so prospective gun buyers will face some delay. However, legitimate
purchasers of this $7,000 gun can certainly wait that long.
Clearly, placing a few more restrictions on who can get these guns
and how is simply common sense. This bill will not ban the sale, use or
possession of .50 caliber weapons. The .50 caliber shooting club will
not face extinction, and ``legitimate'' purchasers of these guns will
not lose their access--even though that, too, might be a reasonable
step, since I cannot imagine a legitimate use of this gun.
The bill will simply place stricter requirements on the way in which
these guns can be sold, and to whom. The measure is meant to offer a
reasoned solution to making it harder for terrorists, assassins, and
other criminals to obtain these powerful weapons. If we are to continue
to allow private citizens to own and use guns of this caliber, range,
and destructive power, we should at the very least take greater care in
making sure that these guns do not fall into the wrong hands.
I urge my colleagues to support this bill.
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. 505

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 ``Military Sniper Weapon
Regulation Act of 2001''.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

The Congress finds that--
(1) certain firearms originally designed and built for use
as long-range 50 caliber military sniper weapons are
increasingly sold in the domestic civilian market;
(2) the intended use of these long-range firearms, and an
increasing number of models derived directly from them, is
the taking of human life and the destruction of materiel,
including armored vehicles and such components of the
national critical infrastructure as radars and microwave
transmission devices;
(3) these firearms are neither designed nor used in any
significant number for legitimate sporting or hunting
purposes and are clearly distinguishable from rifles intended
for sporting and hunting use;
(4) extraordinarily destructive ammunition for these
weapons, including armor-piercing and armor-piercing
incendiary ammunition, is freely sold in interstate commerce;
and
(5) the virtually unrestricted availability of these
firearms and ammunition, given the uses intended in their
design and manufacture, present a serious and substantial
threat to the national security.

SEC. 3. COVERAGE OF 50 CALIBER SNIPER WEAPONS UNDER NATIONAL
FIREARMS ACT.

(a) In General.--Section 5845(a) of the Internal Revenue
Code of 1986 (defining firearm) is amended by striking ``(6)
a machine

[[Page S2128]]

gun; (7) any silencer (as defined in section 921 of title 18,
United States Code); and (8) a destructive device.'' and
inserting ``(6) a 50 caliber sniper weapon; (7) a machine
gun; (8) any silencer (as defined in section 921 of title 18,
United States Code); and (9) a destructive device.''
(b) 50 Caliber Sniper Weapon.--
(1) In general.--Section 5845 of the Internal Revenue Code
of 1986 is amended by redesignating subsections (d) through
(m) as subsections (e) through (n), respectively, and by
inserting after subsection (c) the following new subsection:
``(d) 50 Caliber Sniper Weapon.--The term `50 caliber
sniper weapon' means a rifle capable of firing a center-fire
cartridge in 50 caliber, .50 BMG caliber, any other variant
of 50 caliber, or any metric equivalent of such calibers.''
(2) Modification to definition of rifle.--Subsection (c) of
section 5845 of such Code is amended by inserting ``or from a
bipod or other support'' after ``shoulder''.
(3) Conforming amendment.--Section 5811(a) of such Code is
amended by striking ``section 5845(e)'' and inserting
``section 5845(f)''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act.
______

By Mr. MURKOWSKI:
S. 506. A bill to amend the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act, to
provide for a land exchange between the Secretary of Agriculture and
the Huna Totem Corporation, and for other purposes; to the Committee on
Energy and Natural Resources.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation today
on behalf of the Huna Totem Corporation and the residents of Hoonah,
Alaska.
This bill would require the Huna Totem Corporation to convey
ownership of approximately 1,999 acres of land to the United States
Forest Service. In exchange for these lands the Huna Totem Corporation
will be allowed to select other lands readily accessible to Hoonah in
order to fulfill their ANCSA entitlement. This legislation also
requires the exchange of lands to be of equal value and provides for
additional compensation if needed. Lastly, the legislation requires
that any potential timber harvested from land acquired by Huna Totem
Corporation not be available for export.
The city of Hoonah is located in Southeast Alaska on the northeast
part of Chichagoff Island. Hoonah has been the home of the Huna people
since the last advance of the great ice masses into Glacier Bay,
forcing the Huna people to look for new homes. Since the Huna people
had traditionally used the Hoonah area each summer as a subsistence
harvesting area, it was natural for them to settle in the area now
called Hoonah. The community has a population of approximately 918
residents and is located forty miles from Juneau; Alaska's capital
city.
Within the city of Hoonah is located the Huna Totem Corporation, an
Alaska Native Corporation formed pursuant to the Alaska Native Claims
Settlement Act, ANCSA. Huna Totem is the largest Tlingit Indian Village
Corporation in Southeast Alaska. Under the terms of ANCSA each village
corporation had to select lands within the core township or townships
in which all or part of the Native village is located.
In 1975, Huna Totem filed its ANCSA land selections within the two
mile radius of the city of Hoonah as mandated by ANCSA. Since the
community of Hoonah is located along the shoreline at the base of
Hoonah Head Mountain, the surrounding lands are steep hillsides,
cliffs, or are designated watershed for the municipal water sources.
Most of the acres, approximately 1,999, of this land are not suitable
for economic purposes due to the topography and watershed limitations.
Therefore in order for the Huna Totem Corporation to receive full
economic benefit of the lands promised to them under ANCSA, and for the
city of Hoonah to protect its watershed, alternative lands must be
sought for Huna Totem to seek revenue from.
The legislation I am offering today would achieve these goals. By
authorizing a land exchange between the Huna Totem Corporation and the
U.S. Forest Service the residents of Hoonah will be able to fully
recognize the benefits promised under the Alaska Native Claims
Settlement Act.
______

By Mr. MURKOWSKI:
S. 509. A bill to establish the Kenai Mountains-Turnagain Arm
National Heritage Area in the State of Alaska, and for other purposes;
to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill to
establish the Kenai Mountains-Turnagain Arm National Heritage Corridor
in my State of Alaska.
The national heritage corridor, when enacted, will include the first
leg of the Iditarod National Historic Trail and most of the Seward
Highway National Scenic Byway. National heritage designation will give
us the ability to tell the American public about the critical role that
this transportation corridor played in shaping the traditions and
values of the residents of south-central Alaska. From native trade-
routes to shipping ports, from trails to railroads and later highways,
these are the themes of our national heritage and the settling of the
North.
This would be the first among the 16 existing national heritage areas
that highlights the experience of settling the northern frontier. The
fact that it would be one of a kind strengthens the case for
designation.
Unlike any of the existing national heritage areas, the Kenai
Mountains-Turnagain Arm National Heritage Corridor will highlight the
experience of the northern frontier--of transportation and settlement
in a harsh landscape, of the gold rush and resource development in a
remote area. These are the themes of the proposal, themes that form our
perception of ourselves as a nation. The proposed heritage corridor
wonderfully expresses these themes.
Within the proposed heritage corridor there are a number of small
historic communities that developed around transportation and the gold
rush. Dwarfed by the sweeping landscapes around them, these small
communities are today still tied to cycles of nature: summer runs of
salmon, the fall migration of wildlife, the deep snows of winter, and
the rush of springtime melt. National heritage designation is about the
relationship that people develop with their surroundings. This
relationship remains intact in the proposed corridor and has had a
lasting impact on the values of the residents who live there today.
Turnagain Arm, once a critical transportation link, has the world's
second largest tidal range. Visitors can stand along the shore lines
and actually watch 30 foot tides move in and out of the arm. On
occasion, the low roar of an oncoming bore tide can be heard as a wall
of water sweeps up the Turnagain.
A traveler through the alpine valleys and mountain passes of the
heritage corridor can witness a landscape shaped by powerful geologic
forces: retreating glaciers, earthquake subsidence, and avalanche
scars. The area is home to variety of wildlife: Dall sheep, Beluga
whales, moose, bald eagles, trumpeter swans, and Arctic terns to name a
few.
Bounded by saltwater on either side, the proposed corridor has been
an important transportation route from the resource rich Kenai
Peninsula into the rest of Alaska. Alaskan natives established trade
routes following river valleys and around like the fjord-like lakes.
Later, Russian fur-traders, gold rush stampeders, missionaries, and
others arrived all seeking access into the resource-rich land. The
famous Iditarod Trail to Nome, which was used to haul mail in and gold
out, started on the Kenai Peninsula.
A series of starts and stops by railroad entrepreneurs eventually
culminated in the completion of the Alaska Railroad from Seward to
Fairbanks by the federal government. President Harding boarded the
train in Seward in 1923 to drive the golden spike at Nenana (and died
on the boat returning to Seattle). It was only in the last half of this
century that the highway from Seward to Anchorage was opened. Before
then the small communities of the area were linked to the rest of
Alaska by wagon trail, rail, and by boat across Turnagain Arm and the
Kenai River.
The Heritage corridor contains one of the earliest mining regions in
Alaska. Russians left evidence of their search for gold at Bear Creek
near Hope. In 1895, discovery of a rich deposit at Canyon Creak
precipitated the Turnagain Arm Gold Rush, predating the stampede to the
Klondike.
The early settlements and communities of the area are still very much
as they were in the past. But, as in the early days, this is a region
where ``nature is boss,'' and historic trails and

[[Page S2129]]

evidence of mining history are often embedded and nearly hidden in the
landscape. What can be seen stands as powerful testimony to the human
fortitude, perseverance, and resourcefulness that is America's proudest
heritage from the people who settled the Alaskan frontier.
People living in the Kenai Mountains-Turnagain Arm Corridor share a
sense that it is a special place. In part, this is simply because of
the sheer natural beauty; but it is also because the Alaska frontier is
relatively recent. Memories of the times when the inhabitants were
dependent on their own resources, and on each other, are still very
much alive.
Communities are small, but they are alive with volunteerism. All have
active historical societies. Groups in Seward and Girdwood have
organized to rebuild the Iditarod Trail. In town of Hope citizens
constructed a museum of mining history, building it themselves out of
logs and donated materials. Local people have conducted historic
building surveys, written books and short histories, collected and
published old diaries, and created web pages to record and share the
history of their communities. Seward, the corridor's gateway, has
created a delightful array of visitor opportunities that display and
interpret the region's natural setting, Native culture, and history.
National heritage area designation would greatly encourage and expand
these good efforts.
Mr. President, it is important to note that this national heritage
area is a local grass roots effort and it will remain a locally driven
grass roots effort. Decisions will be made by locals, not by Federal
bureaucrats. The only role of the Federal Government is to provide
technical expertise, mostly in the areas of the interpretation of the
many historic sites and tremendous natural resource features that are
found throughout the entire region. There will be no additional land
ownership by the Federal Government or by the local management entity
that is charged with putting together a coordinated plan to interpret
the heritage area. The heritage area is about local people working
together.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the bill be printed in the
Record, in its entirety, immediately after my remarks and I urge my
colleagues to support this legislation.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:

S. 509

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ``Kenai Mountains-Turnagain
Arm National Heritage Area Act of 2001''.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSES.

(a) Findings.--Congress find that--
(1) The Kenai Mountains-Turnagain Arm transportation
corridor is a major gateway to Alaska and includes a range of
transportation routes used first by indigenous people who
were followed by pioneers who settled the nation's last
frontier;
(2) the natural history and scenic splendor of the region
are equally outstanding; vistas of nature's power include
evidence of earthquake subsidence, recent avalanches,
retreating glaciers and tidal action along Turnagain Arm,
which has the world's second greatest tidal range;
(3) the cultural landscape formed by indigenous people and
then by settlement, transportation and modern resource
development in this rugged and often treacherous natural
setting stands as powerful testimony to the human fortitude,
perseverance, and resourcefulness that is America's proudest
heritage from the people who settled the frontier;
(4) there is a national interest in recognizing,
preserving, promoting, and interpreting these resources;
(5) the Kenai Mountains-Turnagain Arm region is
geographically and culturally cohesive because it is defined
by a corridor of historic routes--trail, water, railroad, and
roadways through a distinct landscape of mountains, lakes,
and fjords;
(6) national significance of separate elements of the
region include, but are not limited to, the Iditarod National
Historic Trail, the Seward Highway National Scenic Byway, and
the Alaska Railroad National Scenic Railroad;
(7) national heritage area designation provides for the
interpretation of these routes, as well as the national
historic districts and numerous historic routes in the region
as part of the whole picture of human history in the wider
transportation corridor including early Native trade routes,
connections by waterway, mining trail, and other routes;
(8) national heritage area designation also provides
communities within the region with the motivation and means
for ``grass roots'' regional coordination and partnerships
with each other and with borough, State, and Federal
agencies; and
(9) national heritage area designation is supported by the
Kenai Peninsula Historical Association, the Seward Historical
Commission, the Seward City Council, the Hope and sunrise
Historical Society, the Hope Chamber of Commerce, the Alaska
Association for Historic Preservation, the Cooper Landing
Community Club, the Alaska Wilderness Recreation and Tourism
Association, Anchorage Historic Properties, the Anchorage
Convention and Visitors Bureau, the Cook Inlet Historical
Society, the Moose Pass Sportsman's Club, the Alaska
Historical Commission, the Girdwood Board of Supervisors, the
Kenai River Special Management Area Advisory Board, the Bird/
Indian Community Council, the Kenai Peninsula Borough
Trails Commission, the Alaska Division of Parks and
Recreation, the Kenai Peninsula Borough, the Kenai
Peninsula Tourism Marketing Council, and the Anchorage
Municipal Assembly.
(b) Purposes.--The purposes of this Act are--
(1) to recognize, preserve, and interpret the historic and
modern resource development and cultural landscapes of the
Kenai Mountains-Turnagain Arm historic transportation
corridor, and to promote and facilitate the public enjoyment
of these resources; and
(2) to foster, through financial and technical assistance,
the development of cooperative planning and partnerships
among the communities and borough, State, and Federal
Government entities.

SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

In this Act:
(1) Heritage area.--The term ``Heritage Area'' means the
Kenai Mountains-Turnagain Arm National Heritage Area
established by section 4(a) of this Act.
(2) Management entity.--The term ``management entity''
means the 11 member Board of Directors of the Kenai
Mountains-Turnagain Arm National Heritage Corridor
Communities Association.
(3) Management plan.--The term ``management plan'' means
the management plan for the Heritage Area.
(4) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of the Interior.

SEC. 4. KANAI MOUNTAINS-TURNAGAIN ARM NATIONAL HERITAGE AREA.

(a) Establishment.--There is established the Kenai
Mountains-Turnagain Arm National Heritage Area.
(b) Boundaries.--The Heritage Area shall comprise the lands
in the Kenai Mountains and upper Turnagain Arm region
generally depicted on the map entitled ``Kenai Peninsula/
Turnagain Arm National Heritage Corridor'', numbered ``Map
#KMTA--1, and dated ``August 1999''. The map shall be on file
and available for public inspection in the offices of the
Alaska Regional Office of the National Park Service and in
the offices of the Alaska State Heritage Preservation
Officer.

SEC. 5. MANAGEMENT ENTITY.

(a) The Secretary shall enter into a cooperative agreement
with the management entity, to carry out the purposes of this
Act. The cooperative agreement shall include information
relating to the objectives and management of the Heritage
Area, including the following:
(1) A discussion of the goals and objectives of the
Heritage Area;
(2) An explanation of the proposed approach to conservation
and interpretation of the Heritage Area;
(3) A general outline of the protection measures, to which
the management entity commits.
(b) Nothing in this Act authorizes the management entity to
assume any management authorities or responsibilities on
Federal lands.
(c) Representatives of other organizations shall be invited
and encouraged to participate with the management entity and
in the development and implementation of the management plan,
including but not limited to: The State Division of Parks and
Outdoor Recreation; the State Division of Mining, Land and
Water; the Forest Service; the State Historic Preservation
Office; the Kenai Peninsula Borough; the Municipality of
Anchorage; the Alaska Railroad; the Alaska Department of
Transportation; and the National Park Service.
(d) Representation of ex-officio members in the non-profit
corporation shall be established under the bylaws of the
management entity.

SEC. 6. AUTHORITIES AND DUTIES OF MANAGEMENT ENTITY.

(a) Management Plan.--
(1) In general.--Not later than 3 years after the
Secretary enters into a cooperative agreement with the
management entity, the management entity shall develop a
management plan for the Heritage Area, taking into
consideration existing Federal, State, borough, and local
plans.
(2) Contents.--The management plan shall include, but not
be limited to--
(A) comprehensive recommendations for conservation,
funding, management, and development of the Heritage Area;
(B) a description of agreements on actions to be carried
out by Government and private organizations to protect the
resources of the Heritage Area;
(C) a list of specific and potential sources of funding to
protect, manage, and develop the Heritage Area;

[[Page S2130]]

(D) an inventory of the resources contained in the Heritage
Area; and
(E) a description of the role and participation of other
Federal, State, and local agencies that have jurisdiction on
lands within the Heritage Area.
(b) Priorities.--The management entity shall give priority
to the implementation of actions, goals, and policies set
forth in the cooperative agreement with the Secretary and the
heritage plan, including assisting communities within the
region in--
(1) carrying out programs which recognize important
resource values in the Heritage Area;
(2) encouraging economic viability in the affected
communities;
(3) establishing and maintaining interpretive exhibits in
the Heritage Area;
(4) improving and interpreting heritage trails;
(5) increasing public awareness and appreciation for the
natural, historical, and cultural resources and modern
resource development of the Heritage Area;
(6) restoring historic buildings and structures that are
located within the boundaries of the Heritage Area; and
(7) ensuring that clear, consistent, and appropriate signs
identifying public access points and sites of interest are
placed throughout the Heritage Area.
(c) Public Meetings.--The management entity shall conduct 2
or more public meetings each year regarding the initiation
and implementation of the management plan for the Heritage
Area. The management entity shall place a notice of each such
meeting in a newspaper of general circulation in the Heritage
Area and shall make the minutes of the meeting available to
the public.

SEC. 7. DUTIES OF THE SECRETARY.

(a) The Secretary, in consultation with the Governor of
Alaska, or his designee, is authorized to enter into a
cooperative agreement with the management entity. The
cooperative agreement shall be prepared with public
participation.
(b) In accordance with the terms and conditions of the
cooperative agreement and upon the request of the management
entity, and subject to the availability of funds, the
Secretary may provide administrative, technical, financial,
design, development, and operations assistance to carry out
the purposes of this Act.

SEC. 8. SAVINGS PROVISIONS.

(a) Regulatory Authority.--Nothing in this Act shall be
construed to grant powers of zoning or management of land use
to the management entity of the Heritage Area.
(b) Effect on Authority of Governments.--Nothing in this
Act shall be construed to modify, enlarge, or diminish any
authority of the Federal, State, or local governments to
manage or regulate any use of land as provided for by law or
regulation.
(c) Effect on Business.--Nothing in this Act shall be
construed to obstruct or limit business activity on private
development or resource development activities.

SEC. 9. PROHIBITION ON THE ACQUISITION OR REAL PROPERTY.

The management entity may not use funds appropriated to
carry out the purposes of this Act to acquire real property
or interest in real property.

SEC. 10. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

(a) First Year.--For the first year $350,000 is authorized
to be appropriated to carry out the purposes of this Act, and
is made available upon the Secretary and the management
entity completing a cooperative agreement.
(b) In General.--There is authorized to be appropriated not
more than $1,000,000 to carry out the purposes of this Act
for any fiscal year after the first year. Not more than
$10,000,000 in the aggregate, may be appropriated for the
Heritage Area.
(c) Matching Funds.--Federal funding provided under this
Act shall be matched at least 25 percent by other funds or
in-kind services.
(d) Sunset Provision.--The Secretary may not make any grant
or provide any assistance under this Act beyond 15 years from
the date that the Secretary and management entity complete a
cooperative agreement.
______

By Mr. LUGAR:
S. 508. A bill to authorize the President to promote posthumously the
late Raymond Ames Spruance to the grade of Fleet Admiral of the United
States Navy, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Armed
Services.
Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, at 10:25 a.m. on June 4, 1942, a Japanese
armada including four carriers was steaming east towards Midway Island,
1150 miles west of Pearl Harbor in the Central Pacific. Its objectives:
Invade the strategically situated atoll, seize the U.S. base and
airstrip, and, if possible, destroy what remained of our Pacific fleet
after the surprise attack on Pearl Harbor the preceding December.
At 10:30 a.m. three of the four Japanese carriers and their aircraft
were a flaming shambles. Moments before, Japanese fighter cover had
swatted down torpedo bomber squadrons from the U.S. carriers
Enterprise, Hornet, and Yorktown--the final, fatal mission for 35 of 41
American planes and 68 of 82 pilots and gunners. But their courageous
attack had drawn the fighters down to deck level, leaving the skies
nearly empty for the 37 U.S. dive bombers who then appeared and, in
five fateful minutes, changed the course of history. By nightfall, the
fourth Japanese carrier, too, was a blazing wreck, a fitting coda to a
day that reversed forever the military fortunes of Imperial Japan.
``So ended,'' wrote Churchill, ``the battle of June 4, rightly
regarded as the turning point of the war in the Pacific.'' With Sir
Winston, of course, the question at times was whether the event could
rise to the level of his prose. Midway measured up. ``The annals of war
at sea,'' he intoned, ``present no more intense, heart-shaking shock''
than Midway and its precursor in the Coral Sea--battles where ``the
bravery and self-devotion of the American airmen and sailors and the
nerve and skill of their leaders was the foundation of all.''
Few today pause to remember Midway, now six decades past. Fewer still
recall the American leader whose nerve and skill were paramount in what
historians consider one of the two or three most significant naval
battles in recorded history. He was an unlikely figure, a little-known,
soft-spoken, publicity-averse 56-year-old Rear Admiral from Indiana
named Raymond Ames Spruance. Yet it is doubtful that any other American
in uniform contributed more than this quiet Hoosier to our World War II
triumph--a foundation for every blessing of peace and prosperity we now
enjoy.
I heard Admiral Spruance speak in February 1946, when I was 13 years
old and he visited Shortridge High School in Indianapolis, his alma
mater and soon to be mine. Our teachers were excited as they shepherded
my junior high classmates and me into the auditorium for a joint
assembly with the high schoolers. But nothing about the speech was
particularly vivid or exciting to this member of the youthful audience.
I recall little more than the talk about our recent victory in the
Pacific--with little hint from the modest man on stage about his
personal involvement, at one crucial juncture after another, in making
that victory possible.
Only years later did I really understand how large a role Raymond
Spruance had played on the stage of actual events, starting at Midway.
His very presence at the battle--replacing the flamboyant William
``Bull'' Halsey, temporarily shore-bound with a skin ailment--had been
happenstance. Yet it was Spruance, with no prior carrier combat
experience, who at the key moment made the crucial command decision to
launch all available aircraft, which led to the devastation of the
enemy carriers. It was Spruance who then preserved that turning-point
victory, instinctively resisting Japanese attempts over the next two
days to lure the American fleet into a trap--a trap subsequent U.S.
intelligence would confirm was indeed waiting. It was Spruance, as
famed Navy historian Samuel Eliot Morison would write, who ``emerged
from the battle one of the greatest admirals in American naval
history.''
It was also Spruance who, when complimented on Midway years after the
War, would say, ``There were a hundred Spruances in the Navy. They just
happened to pick me for the job.'' Herman Wouk's masterful ``War And
Remembrance'' has the best rejoinder, which the author puts in the
mouth of a fictional wartime adversary: ``In fact, there was only one
Spruance and luck gave him, at a fateful hour, to America.'' Speaking
in their own voices, Wouk and other Americans of faith would quarrel
only with the word ``luck.''

Midway would prove but the first of many Spruance-led successes. As
Commander of the newly formed Fifth Fleet, he would lead American
operations in the Gilberts, then in the Marshalls, and then in the
Marianas, including the invasion of Saipan. (Among the fighting men
under Spruance's overall command during this 1943-44 period was a young
aviator--the war's youngest commissioned Naval pilot--named George
Bush). Spruance would then command 1945's crucial, hard-fought
invasions of Iwo Jima and Okinawa, the latter involving some 1,200
vessels and 548,000 men, an amphibious operation on a scale surpassed
only by Normandy.
Throughout, he maintained the unassuming attitude that downplayed his

[[Page S2131]]

own role at Midway. Unlike some of his contemporaries (and in marked
contrast to the spirit of our own age), Spruance avoided publicity and
abjured self-promotion, which he saw as a threat to effective command.
``A man's judgment is best,'' said Spruance, ``when he can forget
himself and any reputation he may have acquired, and can concentrate
wholly on making the right decision.'' These are words to live by for
any leader. Spruance, both during the war and in his later service as
President of the Naval War College and Ambassador to the Philippines,
lived them as few other leaders in any age and any field of endeavor
have managed.
One consequence was that he forwent levels of recognition and reward
accorded others who, though fully worthy, were certainly no more worthy
than he. Serious historians and scholars, however, never doubted the
merits of the man whose biography is aptly titled ``The Quiet
Warrior.'' Among all the war's combat admirals ``there was no one to
equal Spruance,'' wrote Morison. ``He envied no man, regarded no one as
rival, won the respect of all with whom he came in contact, and went
ahead in his quiet way winning victories for his country.''
That was surely enough for Spruance, who passed away in December
1969. But I do not think it should be enough for us, his countrymen,
who are the beneficiaries of the victories he won. That is why I have
introduced legislation authorizing and requesting President Bush to
promote Raymond Spruance--the ``quiet warrior'' under whom the
President's father once served--to the five-star rank of Fleet Admiral
of the United States Navy. I believe this posthumous honor should be
the fitting, and final, promotion among America's World War II Armed
Forces, even as we anticipate dedication of a national memorial
honoring all who served in that conflict.
It is fitting, first of all, because it corrects an oversight. Near
the end of the war, Congress authorized four five-star positions each
in the Army and in the Navy. The new generals of the Army were George
Marshall, Douglas MacArthur, Dwight Eisenhower and Henry ``Hap''
Arnold--later redesignated general of the Air Force. The first three
five-star admirals were Pacific commander-in-chief Chester Nimitz,
wartime CNO Ernest King, and William Daniel Leahy, President
Roosevelt's chief of staff and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs. But an
internal battle raged for months over whether the fourth fleet admiral
would be the colorful Halsey--who was ultimately selected--or his more
reticent colleague, the victor at Midway. Later, when Congress
authorized another five-star post for the ``GI General,'' Omar Bradley,
it overlooked creating a fifth Navy five-star opening, which
unquestionably would have gone to Bradley's ocean-going counterpart,
Raymond Spruance.

Typically, Spruance stayed away from these controversies. His one
comment came in 1965, when he wrote a friend:

So far as my getting five-star rank is concerned, if I
could have had it along with Bill Halsey, that would have
been fine; but, if I had received it instead of Bill Halsey,
I would have been very unhappy over it.

Well, Raymond Spruance can now have five-star rank ``along with Bill
Halsey.'' He deserves it, the more so because he did not seek it. It is
an oversight that he was not given it earlier. But these are reasons
enough to correct that oversight now.
And there are other reasons we should pay Raymond Spruance this
posthumous honor, reasons that have as much to do with us as with him.
What we choose to honor says a great deal about who we are. Much of
what our political and popular culture ``honors'' today--with celebrity
and fortune and swarms of media attention is the foolish and flighty,
the sensational and self-indulgent. Too often, the pursuits made
possible by freedom are unworthy of the sacrifices that preserved
freedom itself.
Those sacrifices were made by earlier generations inspired by a
simpler, sturdier set of values, values that included duty to country
and, when necessary, self-sacrifice on her behalf. If we cherish and
would preserve the blessings of freedom, we must hold up before our
children--who daily see too many less worthy models--those who
willingly made the sacrifices that kept freedom alive.
No one served the values of freedom more fully or nobly, and with
less thought of personal praise or fame, than Raymond Spruance. On any
list of the great Allied military leaders of World War II, his
character and his contributions to victory stand in the very first
rank. It is simple justice to him, and fitting and proper for us, now
to award him actual rank commensurate with such character and
contributions. My hope is that my colleagues and the President will
agree--so that history henceforth will honor Fleet Admiral Raymond Ames
Spruance, the quiet Hoosier warrior whose triumph at Midway opened the
door to America's triumph in the Pacific.
______

By Mr. SANTORUM:
S. 510. A bill to amend the Caribbean Basin Economic Recovery Act to
provide trade benefits for certain textile covers; to the Committee on
Finance.
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. 510

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

SECTION 1. CERTAIN TEXTILE COVERS.

Section 213(b)(2)(A) of the Caribbean Basin Economic
Recovery Act (19 U.S.C. 2703(b)(2)(A)) is amended by adding
at the end the following:
``(ix) Certain textile covers.--Certain textile covers
classifiable under subheading 6302.31.90 or 6302.32.20 of the
HTS--

``(I) assembled in a CBTPA beneficiary country from fabric
wholly formed and cut in the United States, from yarns wholly
formed in the United States, that are entered under
subheading 9802.00.80 of the HTS; or
``(II) assembled from fabric cut in a CBTPA beneficiary
country from fabric wholly formed in the United States, from
yarns wholly formed in the United States, if the covers are
assembled in a CBTPA beneficiary country with thread formed
in the United States.''.

______

By Ms. SNOWE:
S. 511. A bill to authorize the Secretary of Transportation to issue
a certificate of documentation with appropriate endorsement for
employment in the coastwise trade for the vessel AJ; to the Committee
on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of bill be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:

S. 511

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

SECTION 1. CERTIFICATE OF DOCUMENTATION.

Notwithstanding section 27 of the Merchant Marine Act, 1920
(46 U.S.C. App. 883), section 8 of the Act of June 19, 1886
(24 Stat. 81, chapter 421; 46 U.S.C. App. 289), and sections
12106 and 12108 of title 46, United States Code, the
Secretary of Transportation may issue a certificate of
documentation with appropriate endorsement for employment in
the coastwise trade for the vessel AJ, United States official
number 599164.
______

By Mr. DORGAN (for himself, Mr. Enzi, Mr. Graham, Mr. Voinovich,
Mr. Breaux, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Durbin, Mr. Chafee, Mrs. Lincoln,
Mrs. Hutchison, and Mr. Rockefeller):
S. 512. A bill to foster innovation and technological advancement in
the development of the Internet and electronic commerce, and to assist
the States in simplifying their sales and use taxes; to the Committee
on Finance.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, today I'm joined by Senators Enzi, Graham,
Voinovich, Breaux, and a number of our colleagues in re-introducing the
Internet Tax Moratorium and Equity Act. This legislation is nearly
identical to legislation we sponsored in the last Congress. We believe
that it is absolutely imperative that Congress move quickly this year
to consider this legislation and the difficult tax issues relating to
Internet sales that it seeks to address.
First, most everyone who is familiar with this issue knows that the
current expiration date for the moratorium on Internet access and
discriminatory taxes is fast approaching. We believe

[[Page S2132]]

the moratorium should be extended. Also, this legislation moves toward
a solution to the growing web of tax compliance problems that faces
virtually everyone who would do business across State lines, sellers
and customers alike.
Despite some setbacks, Internet technology and commerce will continue
to be a real growth engine for our economy. The past holiday season,
retail sales over the Internet jumped 76 percent from the same period a
year earlier. A recent University of Texas study estimated that $830
billion in revenues were generated by the Internet economy in 2000, up
58 percent from 1999 levels. Together, this information suggests that
Internet sales are not going to be either temporary or insignificant,
and neither are the compliance problems.
We believe that the approach embraced in our bill would help create a
climate in which Web-based firms and Main Street businesses can co-
exist and compete on fair and even terms. Any new form of commerce
presents a challenge to the rules and structures that have grown up
around the old. The automobile required the reform of traffic-control
rules designed for the horse-and-buggy era. And the Internet is no
exception. The Internet has raised vexing questions about privacy and
property rights. It has raised similarly vexing questions regarding the
revenue systems of the States and localities of this nation. Clearly,
the Internet does not fit neatly into these systems as they have
evolved over the last two hundred years.
This disconnect has created tensions on all sides. On one side are
the vital new businesses, Internet service providers, Web-based
businesses and the rest, worried that they will be singled out as cash
cows and subjected to new and unfair taxes. On the other side are State
and local governments worried about the erosion of their tax bases and
their ability to pay for the schools, police, garbage collection and
more that their taxpayers need and expect. In between are Main Street
merchants who collect sales taxes from their customers and worry about
unfair competition from Web-based business that do not have to collect
these taxes. And we shouldn't overlook the citizens and taxpayers, who
appreciate the convenience and opportunities of the Web but who also
care about their Main Street merchants, and about their schools and
other local services.
All of these concerns are understandable and valid. Our job in
Congress is to try to address the problem in a fair and constructive
way.
The solution begins with a recognition of the problem. Collecting a
sales tax in a face-to-face transaction on Main Street or at the mall
is a relatively simple process. The seller collects the tax and remits
it to the State or local government. But with remote sales--such as
catalog and Internet sales, it's more difficult. States cannot require
a seller to collect a sales tax unless the business has an actual
location or sales people in the State. So most States, and many
localities, have laws that require the local buyer to send an
equivalent ``use tax'' to the State or local government when he or she
did not pay taxes at the time of purchase.
The reality, of course, is that customers almost never do that. It
would be a major inconvenience, and people are not accustomed to paying
sales taxes in that way. So, despite the requirement in the law, most
simply don't do it. This tax, which is already owed, is not paid. For
years, State and local governments could accept this loss because
catalog sales were a relatively minor portion of overall commerce. The
rapid growth of Internet sales is changing all that.
Internet and catalog sellers correctly argue that collecting sales
taxes would be a significant burden for them. Understandably, they
contend that it would be difficult for them to have to comply with tax
laws from thousands of different jurisdictions, 46 States and thousands
of local governments have sales taxes, with different tax rates and all
of the idiosyncracies regarding what is taxable and what is non-
taxable. They have a point.
However, there are some remote sellers who know they enjoy an
advantage over Main Street businesses and simply do not want to lose
it. They can sell a product without collecting the tax, whereas Main
Street businesses must collect the local sales tax. Main Street
businesses claim that is unfair, and they have a point, too.
As I have said before, all sides in this debate have valid points,
and that is the premise of the bill we introduce today. There are three
basic principles underlying the Internet Tax Moratorium and Equity Act.
First, we believe that this new Internet technology will remain a
real growth engine for our economy, and the solution must begin by
putting the worries of Web-based entrepreneurs to rest. They should not
be concerned about new and discriminatory tax burdens, and they should
not be singled out as cash cows. Congress should make this clear.
That's why our bill would extend the existing moratorium, which is set
to expire on October 21st, through December 31, 2005. That will help
remove some of the anxiety about the approaching expiration date,
while giving all stakeholders--State and local governments, Internet
sellers, and the bricks and mortar retail community, time to work
together to develop a real solution for the sales and use tax
compliance problems now facing many businesses and their customers.

Second, State and local governments should be encouraged to simplify
their sales tax systems as they apply to remote sellers. And third,
once States have reduced the burden on sellers by simplifying their
sales and use tax systems, then it is only fair that remote sellers do
their part and collect any use tax that is owed, just as local
merchants collect sales taxes. This simple step would free the consumer
from the burden of having to report such taxes individually. It would
level the playing field for local retailers and others that already
collect and remit such taxes, and it would protect the ability of State
and local governments to provide necessary services for their residents
in the future.
Specifically, the Internet Tax Moratorium and Equity Act would do the
following:
Extend the existing moratorium on Internet access, multiple and
discriminatory taxes through December 31, 2005.
Put Congress on record as urging States and localities to streamline
their sales and use tax systems. Among other things, a dramatically
simplified sales and use tax system would allow remote sellers to use
information provided by the States to easily identify the single
applicable rate for each sale, as well as provide sellers relief from
liability for relying on such information.
Require such a simplified tax system to include: uniform definitions
for goods and services, uniform procedures for the treatment of exempt
purchasers, and uniform rules for attributing transactions to
particular tax jurisdictions, as well as uniform audit procedures and a
seller's option for a single audit.
Authorize States to enter into an Interstate Sales and Use Tax
Compact through which member States would adopt the streamlined sales
and use tax system. Congressional authority and consent to enter into
such a Compact would expire if it has not occurred by January 1, 2006.
Authorize States that adopt the Compact to require remote sellers
with more than $5 million in annual gross sales to collect and remit
sales and use taxes on remote sales, once twenty States have adopted
such a Compact, unless Congress has acted to disapprove the Compact by
law within a period of 120 days after the Congress receives it.
Prohibit States that have not adopted the simplified sales and use
tax system from gaining benefit from the authority extended in the bill
to require sellers to collect and remit sales and use taxes on remote
sales.
In my judgment, it would be a serious mistake for Congress to adopt a
lengthy extension of the current Internet tax moratorium without
addressing these underlying problems. If we don't address the problems,
then the growth of the Internet, which should be a benefit to
Americans, will instead mean a major erosion of funds available to
build and maintain schools and roads, finance police departments and
garbage collection, and all the other services that citizens in this
country want and need.
Moreover, the competitive crisis facing local retailers is also
growing more

[[Page S2133]]

urgent. In testimony before the Commerce Committee in the last
Congress, a representative from a large retailer testified that his
company is incorporating a separate business to put the business on the
Internet. It will do so in a manner that will enable them to avoid
sales and use taxes. Even though the retailer has locations in every
State and therefore would be required to collect such taxes on Internet
sales, it believes that such avoidance is needed to compete with other
large competitors that will be making those sales tax-free. This
scenario could play out over and over again unless we act quickly and
decisively. If we don't act, the large retailers will survive, the
small Main Street businesses will continue to struggle, and there will
be a massive loss of revenues to fund schools and other basic services.
Let me conclude by reiterating that this is an issue that Congress
must address now. It is important for Congress to begin the process of
finding a long-term solution to the problem this year before the
moratorium expires. We believe that our legislation strikes a proper
balance between the interests of the Internet industry, State and local
governments, local retailers and remote sellers. It is workable and
fair, and I urge my colleagues to cosponsor this much-needed bipartisan
legislation.
I ask unanimous consent to have the following two statements put in
the Record, one from a group of organizations representing States and
localities, and the other from the E-Fairness Coalition.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

[From National Governors' Association, National Conference of State
Legislatures, Council of State Governments, National Association of
Counties, United States Conference of Mayors, and International City/
County Management Association, March 9, 2001]

Statement on the Introduction of the ``Internet Tax Moratorium and
Equity Act'' Sponsored by Senators Dorgan, Enzi, Voinovich, Graham,
Breaux, Hutchison, Chafee, Thomas, Lincoln, Durbin and Rockefeller

Our organizations representing the nation's state and local
governments support the goals of Senators Dorgan, Enzi,
Voinovich, Graham, Breaux, Hutchison, Thomas, Chafee,
Lincoln, Durbin and Rockefeller to provide for a level
playing field for all retail sales through state based
simplification of sales and use tax structures that allows
for the collection of the appropriate applicable state and
local sales and use tax.
State and local governments recognize the need to simplify
the current sales and use tax collection systems to benefit
the national economy through the removal of unnecessary
complexity. The nation's state and local sales and use taxes
are the single most important source of support for public
education in America. We regard it as critical that the
Congress support efforts to prevent erosion of this revenue
source essential to funding our education systems.
The efforts of the more than 30 states to simplify their
systems to dramatically reduce the complexity and cost of
collection for all sellers is evidence of our commitment to
adapt to the new economy. We would oppose any effort to
extend the moratorium, unless and until, Congress acts to
restore the authority of states and local governments to
ensure that all vendors are treated equally.
We support federal legislation that ensures that any sales
and use tax simplification process would be developed and
implemented on the state and local level and grant to those
states the authority to require out of state sellers to
collect and remit sales and use taxes. Preservation of state
and local sovereignty is a cornerstone of our federal system;
this legislation promises an important opportunity to restore
this element.
We look forward to working with Senators Dorgan, Enzi,
Voinovich, Breaux, Graham, Hutchison, Thomas, Chafee,
Lincoln, Durbin, Rockefeller and others to further refine
legislative language to achieve this end.
____

e-Fairness,

Washington, DC, March 7, 2001.
Hon. Byron Dorgan,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Dorgan: I am writing to congratulate you on
the introduction of the ``Internet Tax and Moratorium Equity
Act.''
The e-Fairness Coalition includes brick-and-mortar and
online retailers, realtors, retail and real estate
associations, as well as publicly and privately owned
shopping centers, the Newspaper Association of America, and
members of the high-tech community such as Gateway and
Vertical Net. The Coalition advocates a level playing field
with respect to sales and use tax collection for all
retailers, including bricks-and-mortar as well as Internet-
based.
We have been working for over 18 months to help provide a
comprehensive solution to the questions surrounding Internet
taxation. We continue to believe that federal legislation is
necessary in order to provide for tax equity amongst all
retailers. Your bill is important because it promotes the
continued growth of the Internet by extending the current
moratorium on Internet access fees and multiple and
discriminatory taxes. However, it also provides clear and
reasonable simplification guidelines that once adopted would
allow the states to require that remote sellers collect use
taxes just as Main Street retailers collect sales taxes.
On behalf of the nation's retailers and real estate
interests--and the 1 in 5 American workers our members
represent--I applaud you for your leadership on this
important issue. Our Coalition looks forward to continuing to
work with you to provide a level playing field for all
retailers and all consumers.
Sincerely,
Lisa Cowell,
Executive Director.
On behalf of:
Alabama Retail Association.
American Booksellers Association.
American Jewelers Association.
Ames Department Stores.
Atlantic Independent Booksellers Association.
CBL & Associates Properties, Inc.
Circuit City Stores, Inc.
Electronic Commerce Association.
First Washington Realty Trust, Inc.
Florida Retail Federation.
Gateway Companies, Inc.
General Growth Properties, Inc.
Georgia Retail Association.
Great Lakes Booksellers Association.
Home Depot.
Illinois Retail Merchants Association.
International Council of Shopping Centers (ICSC).
International Mass Retail Association (IMRA).
Kentucky Retail Association.
Kimco Realty Corporation.
K-Mart Corporation.
Lowe's Corporation, Inc.
The Macerich Company.
Michigan Retailers Association.
Mid-South Booksellers Association.
Missouri Retailers Association.
Mountains & Plains Booksellers Association.
National Association of College Stores.
National Association of Convenience Stores.
National Association of Industrial and Office Properties
(NAIOP).
National Association of Real Estate Investment Trusts
(NAREIT).
National Association of Realtors (NAR).
National Community Pharmacists Association.
National Retail Federation.
New England Booksellers Association.
Newspaper Association of America.
North American Retail Dealers Association.
Northern California Independent Booksellers.
Pacific Northwest Booksellers Association.
Performance Warehouse Association.
RadioShack Corporation.
Regency Realty Corporation.
Retailers Association of Massachusetts (RAM).
ShopKo.
Simon Property Group.
Southeast Booksellers Association.
Southern California Booksellers Association.
South Carolina Merchants Association (SCMA).
Target, Inc.
Taubman Centers, Inc.
The Gap, Inc.
The Macerich Company.
The Musicland Group, Inc.
The Real Estate Roundtable.
The Rouse Company.
Variety Wholesalers.
VerticalNet, Inc.
Virginia Retail Merchants Association.
Wal-Mart.
Weingarten Realty Investors.
Westfield America, Inc.

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the Internet Tax
Moratorium and Equity Act introduced today by Senator Dorgan. I am an
original cosponsor and I encourage each of my colleagues to join me as
a cosponsor of this bill. We had to take a look at the Internet sales
tax issue for people who might be using legislative vehicles to develop
huge loopholes in our current system. We are federally mandating states
into a sales tax exemption. We need to preserve the system for those
cities, towns, counties, and states that rely on the ability to collect
the sales tax they are currently getting.
There are some critical issues here that have to be solved to keep
the stability of state and local government--just the stability of it--
not to increase sales tax, just protect what is there right now. I
believe the Internet Tax Moratorium and Equity Act is a monumental step
forward in protecting, yet enhancing, the current system.
Certainly, no Senator wants to take steps that will unreasonably
burden the development and growth of the

[[Page S2134]]

Internet. At the same time, we must also be sensitive to issues of
basic competitive fairness and the negative affect our action or
inaction can have on brick-and-mortar retailers, a critical economic
sector and employment force in all American society, especially in
rural states like Wyoming. In addition, we must consider the legitimate
need of state and local governments to have the flexibility they need
to generate resources to adequately fund their programs and operations.
If the loophole exists, I can share a method for local retailers to
avoid sales tax collection too--but creating this loophole will lead to
others--pay attention here. Sales tax collection and federal and state
income tax could be in the same boat, if sales tax collection is no
longer necessary on Internet sales purely by virtue of the sale over
the Internet. Why shouldn't an employee whose check is written on the
Internet and transmitted directly to his bank account not owe any
income tax? Both would be Internet tax loopholes--tax collection
exemptions forced by an all-knowing federal government.
As the only accountant in the Senate, I have a unique perspective on
the dozens of tax proposals that are introduced in Congress each year.
In addition, my service on the state and local level and my experiences
as a small business owner enable me to consider these bills from more
than one viewpoint.
I understand the importance of protecting and promoting the growth of
Internet commerce because of its potential economic benefits. It is a
valuable resource because it provides access on demand. In addition, it
is estimated that the growth of online businesses will create millions
of new jobs nationwide in the coming years. Therefore, I do not support
a tax on the use of Internet itself.
I do, however, have concerns about using the Internet as a sales tax
loophole. Sales taxes go directly to state and local governments and I
am very leery of any federal legislation that bypasses their
traditional ability to raise revenue to perform needed services such as
school funding, road repair and law enforcement. I will not force
states into a huge new exemption. While those who advocate a permanent
loophole on the collection of a sales tax over the Internet claim to
represent the principles of tax reduction, they are actually advocating
a tax increase. Simply put, if Congress continues to allow sales over
the Internet to go untaxed and electronic commerce continues to grow as
predicted, revenues to state and local governments will fall and
property taxes will have to be increased to offset lost revenue or
states who do not have or believe in state income taxes will be forced
to start one.
After months of hard work, negotiations, and compromise, the Internet
Tax Moratorium and Equity Act has been introduced. I would like to
commend Senator Dorgan on his commitment to finding a solution and
working with all parties to find that solution. The bill extends the
existing moratorium on Internet access, multiple, and discriminatory
taxes for an additional four years through December 31, 2005.
Throughout the past several years, we have heard that catalog and
Internet companies say they are willing to allow and collect sales tax
on interstate sales (regardless of traditional or Internet sales) if
states will simplify collections to one rate per state sent to one
location in that state. I think that is a reasonable request. I have
heard the argument that computers make it possible to handle several
thousand tax entities, but from an auditing standpoint as well as
simplicity for small business, I support one rate per state. I think
the states should have some responsibility for redistribution not a
business forced to do work for government. Therefore, the bill would
put Congress on record as urging states and localities to develop a
streamlined sales and use tax system, which would include a single,
blended tax rate with which all remote sellers can comply. You need to
be aware that states are prohibited from gaining benefit from the
authority extended in the bill to require sellers to collect and remit
sales and use taxes on remote sales if the states have not adopted the
simplified sales and use tax system.

Further, the bill would authorize states to enter into an Interstate
Sales and Use Tax Compact through which members would adopt the
streamlined sales and use tax system. Congressional authority and
consent to enter into such a compact would expire if it has not
occurred by January 1, 2006. The bill also authorizes states to require
all other sellers to collect and remit sales and use taxes on remote
sales unless Congress has acted to disapprove the compact by law within
a period of 120 days after the Congress receives it.
We introduce this bill because we do not think there is adequate
protection now. It is very important we do not build electronic
loopholes on the Internet, an ever-changing Internet, one that is
growing by leaps and bounds, one that is finding new technology
virtually every day. What we know as the Internet today is not what we
will be using by the time the moratorium is finalized. More and more
people are using the Internet everyday.
Mr. President, I recognize this body has a constitutional
responsibility to regulate interstate commerce. Furthermore, I
understand the desire of several Senators to protect and promote the
growth of Internet commerce. Internet commerce is an exciting field. It
has a lot of growth potential. The new business will continue to create
millions of new jobs in the coming years.
The exciting thing about that for Wyomingites is that our merchants
do not have to go where the people are. For people in my state, that
means their products are no longer confined to a local market. They do
not have to rely on expensive catalogs to sell merchandise to the big
city folks. They do not have to travel all the way to Asia to display
their goods. The customer can come to us on the Internet. It is a
remarkable development, and it will push more growth for small
manufacturers in rural America, especially in my state. We have seen
some of the economic potential in the Internet and will continue this
progress. It is a valuable resource because it provides access on
demand. It brings information to your fingertips when you want it and
how you want it.
I was the mayor of a small town, Gillette, Wyoming, for 8 years. I
later served in the State House for 5 years and the State Senate for 5
years. Throughout my public life, I have always worked to reduce taxes,
to return more of people's hard-earned wages to them.
I am not here to argue in favor of taxes. There were times in
Gillette when we had to make tough decisions. I was mayor during the
boom time when the size of our town doubled in just a few years. We had
to be very creative to be sure that our revenue sources would cover the
necessary public services--important services like sewer, water, curb
and gutter, filling in potholes, shoveling snow, collecting garbage,
and mostly water. It is a tough job because the impact of your decision
is felt by all of your neighbors. Hardly any of those problems is
solved without money. When you are the mayor of a small town, you are
on call 24 hours a day. You are in the phone book. People can call you
at night and tell you that the city sewer is backing up into their
house. I was fascinated how they were always sure that it was the
city's sewer that was doing it. Therefore, it is important that we do
not cut towns out of an historic source of revenue. They provide
services you really depend on. Remember you cannot flush your toilet
over the Internet.
The point is that the government that is closest to the people is
also on the shortest time line to get results. I think it is the
hardest work. I am very concerned with any piece of legislation that
mandates or restricts local government's ability to meet the needs of
its citizens. This has the potential to provide electronic loopholes
that will take away all of their revenue. The Internet Tax Moratorium
and Equity Act would designate a level playing field for all involved--
business, government, and the consumer.
I do strongly support this bill. The current system of collecting
revenues for those towns and states should be preserved--preserved on a
level playing field for all involved. I do not think we have all the
answers, or we would not be asking for this bill. So whatever we do, we
have to have a bill that will preserve the way that small business and
small towns function at the present time. Our bill is critical for
towns,

[[Page S2135]]

small businesses, and you and me. I urge my colleagues to support it. I
yield the floor.

____________________