[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 29 (Thursday, March 14, 2002)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1936-S1940]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. HARKIN (for himself, Mr. Durbin, Mrs. Clinton, and Mr. 
        Schumer):
  S. 2013. A bill to clarify the authority of the Secretary of 
Agriculture to prescribe performance standards for the reduction of 
pathogens in meat, meat products, poultry, and poultry products 
processed by establishments receiving inspection services; to the 
Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Meat and 
Poultry Pathogen Reduction Act of 2002. On December 6, 2001, the Fifth 
Circuit Court of Appeals upheld and expanded an earlier District Court 
decision that removes the U.S. Department of Agriculture's, USDA, 
authority to enforce its Pathogen Performance Standard for Salmonella. 
Passage of this bill is vital because the Fifth Circuit's decision in 
Supreme Beef v. USDA, Supreme Beef, seriously weakens the substantial 
food safety improvements adopted by USDA in its 1996 Hazard Analysis 
Critical Control Point and Pathogen Reduction, HACCP, rule.
  According the Fifth Circuit's opinion in Supreme Beef, today, USDA 
does not have the authority to enforce Performance Standards for 
reducing viral and bacterial pathogens. This decision seriously 
undermines the new meat and poultry inspection system.
  The Pathogen Performance Standard rule recognized that bacterial and 
viral pathogens were the foremost food safety threat in America, 
responsible for 5,000 deaths, 325,000 hospitalizations and 76 million 
illnesses each year. To address the threat of foodborne illness, USDA 
developed a modern inspection system based on two fundamental 
principles.
  The first was that industry has the primary responsibility to 
determine how to produce the safest products possible. Industry must 
examine its plants and determine how to control contamination 
throughout the food production process, from the moment a product 
arrives at their door until the moment it leave their plant.
  The second, even more crucial principle was that plants nationwide 
must reduce levels of dangerous pathogens in meat and poultry products. 
To ensure the new inspection system accomplished this, USDA developed 
Pathogen Performance Standards. These standards provide targets for 
reducing levels of pathogens and require all USDA-inspected facilities 
to meet them. Facilities failing to meet a standard may be shut down 
until they create a corrective action plan to meet the standard.

  So far, USDA has only issued one Pathogen Performance Standard, for 
Salmonella. The vast majority of plants in the U.S. have been able to 
meet the new standard, so it is clearly workable. in addition, USDA 
reports that Salmonella levels for meat and poultry products have 
fallen substantially. The Salmonella standard, therefore has been 
successful. The Fifth Circuit Court's decision threatens to destroy 
this success and set our food safety system back by years.
  The other major problem is that we have an industry dead set on 
striking down USDA's authority to enforce meat and poultry pathogen 
standards. Ever since the original Supreme Beef decision, I have spent 
many hours trying to find a compromise that will allow us to ensure we 
have enforceable, science-based standards for pathogens in meat and 
poultry products. I have previously introduced legislation to address 
this issue and I have worked with industry leaders attempting to reach 
a reasonable compromise.
  However, despite repeated attempts to address industry concerns, 
industry has continually back-tracked and moved the finish line. Many 
times, I have made changes in my legislation to address their concerns 
of the moment only to have them come back and say we have not gone far 
enough. We cannot let the intransigence of the meat and poultry 
industry place our children and our families at increased risk of 
getting ill or dying, because some in the industry want to backtrack on 
food safety.
  I plan to seek every opportunity to get the Meat and Poultry Pathogen 
Reduction Act enacted. I think it is essential, both to ensuring the 
modernization of our food safety system, and ensuring consumers that we 
are making progress in reducing dangerous pathogens.
  I hope that both parties, and both houses of Congress will be able to 
act to pass this legislation without delay. The public's confidence in 
our meat and poultry inspection system depends on it.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, today I am joining Senator Harkin in 
introducing legislation that will clarify the United States Department 
of Agriculture's, USDA, authority to enforce pathogen reduction 
standards in meat and poultry products. I am pleased to join in this 
very important effort.
  Make no mistake, our country has been blessed with one of the safest 
and most abundant food supplies in the world. However, we can do 
better. While food may never be completely free of risk, we must strive 
to make our food as safe as possible. Foodborne illnesses and hazards 
are still a significant problem that cannot be passively dismissed.
  The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, CDC, estimate that as 
many as 76 million people suffer from foodborne illnesses each year. Of 
those individuals, approximately 325,000 will be hospitalized, and more 
than 5,000 will die. Children and the elderly are especially 
vulnerable. In terms of medical costs and productivity losses, 
foodborne illnesses cost the nation billions of dollars annually, and 
the situation is not likely to improve without decisive action. In 
fact, the Department of Health and Human Services

[[Page S1937]]

predicts that foodborne illnesses and deaths will increase 10-15 
percent over the next decade.
  In an age where our Nation's food supply is facing tremendous 
pressures, from emerging pathogens to an ever-growing volume of food 
imports, from changing food consumption patterns to an aging population 
susceptible to food-related illnesses, and from age-old bacterial 
threats to new potential food security risks, we must have a stronger 
system in place to ensure the safety of our food.
  A key tool for addressing foodborne illness in this country has been 
USDA's Pathogen Reduction/Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point, 
PR/HACCP, regulations that were phased in beginning in January 1998. 
Under these regulations, USDA developed a scientific approach aimed at 
protecting consumers from foodborne pathogens. Instead of a system 
based on sight, smell and touch, USDA moved to a system that would 
successfully detect harmful pathogens whether visible or not and keep 
them from entering the food supply. A major part of this system 
included testing for Salmonella, which is not only one of the most 
common foodborne pathogens, but also one of the easiest to detect. USDA 
used this testing data to determine if meat and poultry plants were 
producing products that were safe for human health.
  Research indicates that USDA's system was working well. According to 
former Secretary of Agriculture, Dan Glickman, the testing techniques 
were successful in controlling Salmonella and other deadly pathogens. 
In less than three years, the Salmonella standard was working, cutting 
the incidence of Salmonella in ground beef by a third.
  USDA's pathogen testing regulations provided consumers with much 
needed confidence in the safety of meat and poultry products. However, 
that confidence has been shattered by a recent court decision. Last 
December, the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that USDA could not 
close down the meat processor Supreme Beef, Inc., a supplier providing 
products to our Nation's school children through the Federal school 
lunch program, even after USDA inspectors tested and found the presence 
of potentially harmful levels of Salmonella at the plant on three 
separate occasions. The result of this court case is that USDA can no 
longer ensure that meat and poultry plants comply with pathogen 
standards. This creates a significant risk that meat and poultry 
products contaminated with common but potentially deadly foodborne 
pathogens will be sold to unsuspecting consumers.
  The legislation we are introducing today will clarify USDA's 
authority to enforce strong safety standards for contamination in meat 
and poultry products. Specifically, this legislation will provide the 
Secretary of Agriculture with the clear authority to control for 
pathogens and enforce pathogen performance standards for meat and 
poultry products. Only with this authority will the Secretary of 
Agriculture be able to ensure the safety of the meat and poultry 
products sold in this country.
  The court's decision in the Supreme Beef case is a step back for food 
safety. We must work together to ensure that USDA has the necessary 
authority to enforce pathogen performance standards that will protect 
public health. Let's not turn our back on food safety and consumer 
protection at such a critical time for food safety and security. I 
encourage my colleagues to join us in this effort to protect our food 
supply and public health.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. FEINGOLD (for himself, and Ms. Collins):
  S. 2014. A bill to provide better Federal interagency coordination 
and support for emergency medical services; to the Committee on 
Governmental Affairs.
  By Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise today with my colleague from 
Maine to introduce legislation that will help to improve and streamline 
Federal support for community-based emergency medical services. Our 
proposal will also provide an avenue for local officials and EMS 
providers to help Federal agencies improve existing programs and future 
initiatives.
  Five Federal agencies currently provide technical assistance and 
funding to State and local EMS systems. These Agencies are the National 
Highway Traffic Safety Administration, the Department of Health and 
Human Services' Health Resources and Services Administration, the 
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the Federal Emergency 
Management Agency's U.S. Fire Administration, and the Centers for 
Medicare and Medicaid Services.
  Last year, the General Accounting Office cited the need to increase 
coordination between these agencies as they address the needs of local 
emergency medical service providers. According to GAO, these needs, 
including personnel, training, equipment, and more emergency personnel 
in the field, tend to vary between urban and rural communities.
  The Federal Government needs to step up to the plate and provide 
support to our firefighters, EMTs, emergency physicians, emergency 
nurses, state medical directors, and others who provide the emergency 
care to those in need. And the Federal agencies must listen to their 
priorities. We have five Federal agencies currently involved in 
supporting EMS services, but they lack coordination and the necessary 
input from our local EMS providers.
  Over the past few years, each of the five Federal agencies has 
separately initiated attempts to promote activities to strengthen 
support for EMS providers and address the needs cited in the GAO 
report. While these efforts are certainly welcome, our legislation will 
help to coordinate and prioritize Federal EMS activities that support 
first responders, and at the same time, ensure effective utilization of 
taxpayer dollars.
  This legislation does not begin to address many of the challenges 
facing our local EMS providers, but it is an important first step. I 
know it is an important step because this legislation is a direct 
result of the input by Wisconsin's fire chiefs, members of Emergency 
Medical Service Board and others. In particular, I would like to thank 
Dr. Marvin Birnbaum of the University of Wisconsin, Fire Chief Dave 
Bloom of the Town of Madison, and Dan Williams, the Chair of 
Wisconsin's EMS advisory board, for their advice and guidance.
  I am also pleased that my legislation has support from public health 
groups such as the American Heart Association and other important 
groups such as the State EMS Directors. In particular, I would like to 
express my appreciation to Steve Hise of the State EMS Directors and 
Karl Moeller of the American Heart Association for their input and 
consistent advocacy on issues facing the EMS community.
  We must be aggressive in seeking the advice of our local EMS 
providers, and helping them to attain the resources that they need to 
provide effective services. They are on the front lines, and deserve 
our support. I ask my colleagues to join me in taking this important 
first step to cosponsor this legislation and improve and streamline 
Federal support for community-based emergency medical services.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire:
  S. 2015. A bill to exempt certain users of fee demonstration areas 
from fees imposed under the recreation fee demonstration program; to 
the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
  Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce 
legislation that would provide equity and fairness to the application 
of the Recreational Fee Demonstration Program, or the Fee Demo Program, 
as it is more commonly called. This bill, the Host Community Fairness 
Act, would exempt local residents from fees imposed as part of the Fee 
Demo Program.
  As I am sure my colleagues are all aware, the Fee Demo Program, which 
started in fiscal year 1996, was established to fund recreational and 
resource needs, and repair facilities throughout our national forests, 
parks and other public lands. Currently, each land management agency 
can establish any number of fee projects and retain and spend all the 
revenue collected. However, at least 80 percent of the fees collected 
are retained at the site where collected. The program was originally 
supposed to end at the end of FY98; however, due to extensions that 
have occurred through the appropriations process, it is now set to 
expire at the end of FY04.

[[Page S1938]]

  While I agree that the intentions of this program are good, there are 
flaws that must be addressed. What concerns me most is double-taxation 
for the local residents who live in and around these Fee Demo areas. 
These individuals should not also be required to pay to use these 
lands. Especially when they already suffer from a decreased tax-base 
due to the presence of Federal lands in their community and who help to 
provide emergency services. It is wrong to ask them to pay to use land 
that they already support and is essentially in their own backyard.
  Just to be clear, this legislation would exempt residents of any 
county or counties that host any Federal land that has a Fee Demo 
project from paying the fee, regardless of where in the forest or park 
the fee is being imposed. When I say Federal land, I mean any National 
Forest, National Park, National Wildlife Refuge or Bureau of Land 
Management land.
  I would like to take a moment to talk about how this impacts the 
State of New Hampshire. Nearly 50-percent of Berlin, New Hampshire, 
which has a population of about 10,000, falls within the boundaries of 
the White Mountain National Forest. Unfortunately, the city of Berlin 
has dealt with several economic setbacks, including the recent closure 
of a local paper mill, its largest employer. When this situation is 
combined with the fact that half their land is tied up in the National 
Forest, the result is a severe hit to this city's tax base. Asking 
these citizens to pay a fee to hike in their own backyard is not only 
unfair, it is also wrong. I think it is also reasonable to assume that 
this kind of economic situation is not unique to host communities in 
New Hampshire.
  Finally, it should be noted that a clear and convincing majority of 
the New Hampshire House of Representatives sent a message to the U.S. 
Congress regarding their serious concerns with this program. On 
February 14, 2002, the New Hampshire House overwhelmingly voted in 
favor of a resolution that clearly outlines what they see as the 
negative effect this program has had on their local communities.
  The New Hampshire House is one the largest parliamentary bodies in 
the world. Its 400 members receive only a $100 per year stipend and 
they are truly citizen legislators. The resolution's primary sponsors 
included both Republicans and Democrats as well as the Speaker of the 
House and the former Speaker of the House, who is now a State Senator.
  What concerns me most with what these citizen legislators are saying 
is that, ``. . . the Recreational Fee Demonstration Program has 
undermined the longstanding goodwill between the White Mountain 
National Forest and New Hampshire citizens and communities . . .'' and 
``. . . the traditional support of the New Hampshire citizens for 
activities such as trail maintenance and fire safety have been 
compromised . . .''. As the senior Senator from New Hampshire, I find 
these statements very disheartening. In New Hampshire, there is a 
longstanding tradition of open access to both public and private lands. 
The Fee Demo program runs counter to that tradition. Members of 
Congress have a duty to their constituents to maintain a cooperative 
relationship between the Federal land management agencies and the 
communities that are required to host them.
  Enactment of the Host Community Fairness Act is one small step we can 
take in addressing these legitimate concerns and restoring the goodwill 
previously enjoyed between the Federal lands across this country and 
their host communities.
  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. 2015

       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 ``Host Community Fairness Act 
     of 2002''.

     SEC. 2. LOCAL EXEMPTIONS FROM USER FEES.

       Section 315 of the Department of Interior and Related 
     Agencies Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 1996 (16 U.S.C. 
     460l-6a note; Public Law 104-134) is amended--
       (1) by redesignating subsections (c), (d), (e), and (f) as 
     subsections (d), (e), (f), and (g), respectively; and
       (2) by inserting after subsection (b) the following:
       ``(c) Local Exemptions From User Fees.--
       ``(1) In general.--A person that resides in a county in 
     which a fee demonstration area is located, in whole or in 
     part, shall be exempt from any recreational user fees imposed 
     under this section for access to any portion of the fee 
     demonstration area.
       ``(2) Administration.--The Secretary of the Interior and 
     the Secretary of Agriculture in consultation with affected 
     State and local governments, shall establish a method for 
     identifying and exempting persons covered by this subsection 
     from the user fees.''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. MURKOWSKI.
  S. 2016. A bill to authorize the exchange of lands between an Alaska 
Native Village Corporation and the Department of the Interior, and for 
other purposes; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation 
to address a critical concern for one of Alaska's rural villages.
  The village of Newtok, in far western Alaska, is facing the loss of 
its homes and facilities to ever-encroaching erosion by the Ninglick 
River. The village is presently located on the north bank of the river, 
just downstream of a sweeping bend, which is reclaiming the bank at a 
rate of several feet per year.
  By at least 2008, some homes will no longer be habitable and the 
village airport will begin to suffer irreparable damage. It is critical 
for the future of Newtok's residents that Congress act this year to 
make provision for the relocation of the village.
  Newtok is located within the boundaries of the Yukon Delta National 
Wildlife Refuge. Under the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act of 1971, 
Newtok had land selection rights within the Refuge. Most of the lands 
selected by and conveyed to the village by the United States lie on the 
north side of the Ninglick River, although a portion of the village 
land holdings are on Nelson Island, to the south.
  The village has identified 5,580 acres on Nelson Island that will be 
more suitable for a permanent village location. The land on Nelson 
Island is higher in elevation and is underlain with rock and gravel. 
Furthermore, it is situated such that hydraulic forces of the river are 
unlikely to pose any future threat to the well-being of the village.
  The proposed legislation authorizes an equal value exchange of lands 
between the Fish and Wildlife Service and the Newtok Native 
Corporation, the ANCSA corporation organized by the village which owns 
the Newtok Village lands. The proposed exchange is the first important 
step in allowing the Newtok villagers to relocate their village to safe 
ground.
  The exchange is proposed primarily for health and safety reasons, to 
protect the lives and property of Alaska Native villagers. However, 
there is a direct benefit to the broader interest of the United States. 
The land Newtok proposes to relinquish contains habitat of higher value 
for geese, brant, and Spectacled Eider than the land on Nelson Island 
that has been selected for the new village location. Thus the Yukon 
Delta National Wildlife Refuge, while receiving lands of equal economic 
value in the exchange, will actually be receiving lands of greater 
value for waterfowl habitat.
  We should not underestimate the importance of congressional action 
this year on this matter. It will take several years to actually 
relocate the village. Facilities must be constructed and homes must be 
built. Before any of that can begin, the land must be exchanged. I 
therefore urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. CAMPBELL (for himself and Mr. Inouye):
  S. 2017. A bill to amend the Indian Financing Act of 1974 to improve 
the effectiveness of the Indian loan guarantee and insurance program; 
to the Committee on Indian Affairs.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, it is my pleasure to introduce the 
Indian Financing Act Amendments of 2002 to improve the effectiveness of 
an economic development program essential to our Native American 
community. As one of the legislative flowerings of President Nixon's 
``Special Message to Congress on Indian Affairs,'' the Indian Financing 
Act joins the Indian Self Determination and Education Assistance Act as 
pillars of Federal Indian policy. Since Congress enacted the Indian 
Financing Act of 1974 and established the

[[Page S1939]]

Indian Revolving Loan Fund program, the Secretary of the Interior has 
had the ability to insure and guaranty the repayment by qualified 
Native American borrowers of small business loans issued by private 
banks and lenders. The focus of the loan program is commercial lending 
to Native American-owned businesses who cannot otherwise obtain 
financing in conventional credit markets.
  The Indian Revolving Fund Program has grown over the past 28 years to 
reach $60 million in annual lending to Native Americans, though the 
need for capital in Indian economies far outstrips this amount. The 
``Mortgage Finance News'' reports that for housing finance alone, there 
is $2.7 billion in pent-up demand in the Indian community. In addition, 
the ``Native American Lending Study'' released by the Community 
Development Financial Institutions shows, there are great needs in 
Native communities for more capital and liquidity. These unmet needs 
are holding back the growth of Indian economies.
  The purpose of a Federal loan guaranty is to stimulate the private 
lending community into being more active with clients and customers 
they should be serving. Under the current Indian guaranteed loan 
program, the lender shares in the cost of any loan default, and is not 
100 percent guaranteed by the government.
  Lenders across the country have told the Committee on Indian Affairs 
that a major problem restraining their participation in this program is 
the lack of liquidity once the loan is made. These small business loans 
tend to stay on the books for a long time. They are paid down but not 
as rapidly refinanced as conventional loans. Therefore, a bank has its 
capital tied up in these loans, and cannot easily turn around and use 
that capital again.
  The financial community long ago came up with a system to respond to 
this general need, and that is to allow investors to buy loans on the 
secondary market. This is the cornerstone for our private mortgage 
market and the essential job of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. But it is 
also an important part of commercial lending. The Small Business 
Administration, which makes loan guaranties available through over 
1,000 lenders nationwide, 17 years ago recognized the importance of 
secondary market for its SBA loan guaranties. At its request, Congress 
enacted legislation which allows for the orderly transfer and sales of 
the guaranteed portion of the SBA loans through a secondary market 
fiscal transfer agent. This system operates largely at no cost to the 
government, as the fees for the transfer are paid by the buyers and 
sellers of the loans, and not passed back to the borrowers.

  The SBA loan program is highly successful. It assists smaller lenders 
who may not regularly participate in these government programs by 
giving them a standardized and simple process for transfer of the loan. 
The use of the fiscal transfer agent ensures that loan repayments made 
to the original lender are properly flowed through any investors. Most 
importantly, the ability of the SBA to regulate or otherwise discipline 
originating lenders is unimpeded by the secondary market.
  The ``Indian Financing Act Amendments of 2002'' directs the Secretary 
of the Interior to take similar steps to the SBA program by allowing 
the efficient functioning of a secondary market for Native American 
loans or loan guaranties made by the Interior Department.
  It is my hope that the Indian Financing Act Amendments of 2002 will 
profoundly effect Native American small business owners throughout the 
United States, and that the support of the Department, and the Native 
American and financial communities, we can effect positive change not 
just for Native American small business owners, and for Indian 
communities generally.
  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. 2017

       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 Financing Act 
     Amendments of 2002.''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSE.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
       (1) the Indian Financing Act of 1974 (25 U.S.C. 1451 et 
     seq.) was intended to provide Native American borrowers with 
     access to commercial capital sources that, but for that Act, 
     would not be available through loans guaranteed by the 
     Secretary of the Interior;
       (2) although the Secretary of the Interior has made loan 
     guarantees available, acceptance of loan guarantees by 
     lenders to benefit Native American business borrowers has 
     been limited;
       (3) 27 years after enactment of the Act, the promotion and 
     development of Native American-owned business remains an 
     essential foundation for growth of economic and social 
     stability of Native Americans;
       (4) acceptance by lenders of the loan guarantees may be 
     limited by liquidity and other capital market-driven 
     concerns; and
       (5) it is in the best interest of the guaranteed loan 
     program to--
       (A) encourage the orderly development and expansion of a 
     secondary market for loans guaranteed by the Secretary; and
       (B) expand the number of lenders originating loans under 
     that Act.
       (b) Purposes.--The purposes of this Act are--
       (1) to stimulate the use by lenders of secondary market 
     investors for loans guaranteed by the Secretary of the 
     Interior;
       (2) to preserve the authority of the Secretary to 
     administer the program and regulate lenders;
       (3) to clarify that a good faith investor in loans 
     guaranteed by the Secretary will receive appropriate 
     payments;
       (4) to provide for the appointment by the Secretary of a 
     qualified fiscal transfer agent to administer a system for 
     the orderly transfer of the loans;
       (5) to authorize the Secretary to--
       (A) promulgate regulations to encourage and expand a 
     secondary market program for loans guaranteed by the 
     Secretary; and
       (B) allow the pooling of the loans as the secondary market 
     develops; and
       (6) to authorize the Secretary to establish a schedule for 
     assessing lenders and investors for the necessary costs of 
     the fiscal transfer agent and system.

     SEC. 3. LOAN GUARANTEES.

       Section 205 of the Indian Financing Act of 1974 (25 U.S.C. 
     1485) is amended--
       (1) by inserting ``(a) In General.--'' before ``Any loan''; 
     and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(b) Transfer of Loans and Unguaranteed Portions of 
     Loans.--
       ``(1) Transfer.--
       ``(A) In general.--The lender of a loan guaranteed under 
     this title may transfer to any person--
       ``(i) all of the rights and obligations of the lender under 
     the loan, or in an unguaranteed portion of the loan; and
       ``(ii) the security given for the loan or unguaranteed 
     portion.
       ``(B) Regulations.--A transfer under subparagraph (A) shall 
     be consistent with such regulations as the Secretary shall 
     promulgate under subsection (g).
       ``(C) Notice.--A lender that completes a transfer under 
     subparagraph (A) shall give notice of the transfer to the 
     Secretary (or a designee of the Secretary).
       ``(2) Effect of transfer.--On any transfer under this 
     subsection, the transferee shall--
       ``(A) be considered to be the lender under this title;
       ``(B) become the secured party of record; and
       ``(C) be responsible for--
       ``(i) performing the duties of the lender; and
       ``(ii) servicing the loan or portion of the loan, as 
     appropriate, in accordance with the terms of guarantee of the 
     Secretary of the loan or portion of the loan.
       ``(c) Transfer of Guaranteed Portions of Loans.--
       ``(1) Transfer.--
       ``(A) In general.--The lender of a loan guaranteed under 
     this title, and any subsequent transferee of all or part of 
     the guaranteed portion of the loan, may transfer to any 
     person--
       ``(i) all or part of the guaranteed portion of the loan; 
     and
       ``(ii) the security given for the guaranteed portion 
     transferred.
       ``(B) Regulations.--A transfer under subparagraph (A) shall 
     be consistent with such regulations as the Secretary shall 
     promulgate under subsection (g).
       ``(C) Notice.--A lender that completes a transfer under 
     subparagraph (A) shall give notice of the transfer to the 
     Secretary (or a designee of the Secretary).
       ``(D) Acknowledgement.--On receipt of notice of a transfer 
     under subparagraph (C), the Secretary (or a designee of the 
     Secretary) shall issue to the transferee the acknowledgement 
     of the Secretary of--
       ``(i) the transfer; and
       ``(ii) the interest of the transferee in the guaranteed 
     portion of a loan that was transferred.
       ``(2) Effect.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law, 
     with respect to any transfer under this subsection, the 
     lender shall--
       ``(A) remain obligated under the guarantee agreement 
     between the lender and the Secretary;
       ``(B) continue to be responsible for servicing the loan in 
     a manner consistent with the guarantee agreement; and
       ``(C) remain the secured creditor of record.
       ``(d) Full Faith and Credit.--

[[Page S1940]]

       ``(1) In general.--The full faith and credit of the United 
     States is pledged to the payment of all loan guarantees made 
     under this title.
       ``(2) Validity.--
       ``(A) In general.--Except as provided in subparagraph (B), 
     the validity of a guarantee of a loan under this title shall 
     be incontestable if the guarantee is held by a transferee of 
     a guaranteed obligation whose interest in a guaranteed loan 
     has been acknowledged by the Secretary (or a designee of the 
     Secretary) under subsection (c)(1)(D).
       ``(B) Fraud or misrepresentation.--Subparagraph (A) shall 
     not apply in a case in which the Secretary determines that a 
     transferee of a loan or portion of a loan transferred under 
     this section has actual knowledge of fraud or 
     misrepresentation, or participates in or condones fraud or 
     misrepresentation, in connection with the loan.
       ``(e) Damages.--The Secretary may recover from a lender any 
     damages suffered by the Secretary as a result of a material 
     breach of an obligation of the lender under the guarantee of 
     the loan.
       ``(f) Fee.--The Secretary may collect a fee for any loan or 
     guaranteed portion of a loan transferred in accordance with 
     subsection (b) or (c).
       ``(g) Regulations.--Not later than 180 days after the date 
     of enactment of this subsection, the Secretary shall 
     promulgate such regulations as are necessary to facilitate, 
     administer, and promote the transfer of loans and guaranteed 
     portions of loans under this section.
       ``(h) Central Registration.--On promulgation of final 
     regulations under subsection (g), the Secretary shall--
       ``(1) provide for the central registration of all loans and 
     portions of loans transferred under this section; and
       ``(2) contract with a fiscal transfer agent--
       ``(A) to act as a designee of the Secretary; and
       ``(B) on behalf of the Secretary--
       ``(i) to carry out the central registration and paying 
     agent functions; and
       ``(ii) to issue acknowledgements of the Secretary under 
     subsection (c)(1)(D).
       ``(i) Pooling.--
       ``(1) In general.--Nothing in this title prohibits the 
     pooling of whole loans, or portions of loans, transferred 
     under this section.
       ``(2) Regulations.--The Secretary may promulgate 
     regulations to effect orderly and efficient pooling 
     procedures under this title.''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. SARBANES:
  S. 2019. A bill to extend the authority of the Export-Import Bank 
until April 30, 2002; considered and passed.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce a bill 
that would create a unique area within the Cibola National Forest in 
New Mexico, entitled the T'uf Shur Bien Preservation Trust Area. The 
importance of this bill cannot be overstated. It would resolve, through 
a negotiated agreement, the Pueblo of Sandia's land claim to Sandia 
Moutain, an area of significant value and use to all New Mexicans. The 
bill would also maintain full public ownership and access to the 
National Forest and Sandia Mountain Wilderness lands within the 
Pueblo's claim area; clear title for affected homeowners; and grant the 
necessary rights-of-way and easements to protect private property 
interests and the public's ongoing use of the Area.
  The need for this bill and the basis for Sandia Pueblo's claim arise 
from a 1748 grant to the Pueblo from a representative of the King of 
Spain. That grant was recognized and confirmed by Congress in 1858, 11 
Stat. 374). There remains, however, a dispute over the location of the 
eastern boundary of the Pueblo that stems from an 1859 survey of the 
grant. That survey fixed the eastern boundary roughly along the top of 
a foothill on the western slope of the mountain, rather than along the 
true crest of the mountain. The Pueblo has contended that the 
interpretation of the grant, and thus the survey and subsequent patent, 
are erroneous, and that the true eastern boundary is the crest of the 
mountain.
  In the early 1980's, the Pueblo approached the Department of the 
Interior seeking a resurvey of the grant to locate the eastern boundary 
of the Pueblo along the main ridge of Sandia Mountain. In December 
1988, the Solicitor of the Department of the Interior issued an opinion 
rejecting the Pueblo's claim. The Pueblo challenged the opinion in 
federal district court and in 1998, the court issued on Order setting 
aside the 1988 opinion and remanding the matter to Interior for forther 
proceedings. Pueblo of Sandia v. Babbitt, Civ. No. 94-2624, D.D.C., 
July 18, 1998. The Order was appealed but appellate proceedings were 
stayed for more than a year while a settlement was being negotiated. 
Ultimately, on April 4, 2000, a settlement agreement was executed 
between the United States, Pueblo, and the Sandia Peak Tram Company. 
That agreement was conditioned on congressional ratification, but 
remains effective until November 15, 2002.
  In November, 2000, the Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia 
Circuit dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the 
District Court's action was not a final appealable decision. Upon 
dismissal, the Department of the Interior proceeded with its 
reconsideration of the 1988 Solicitor's opinion in accord with the 1998 
Order of the District Court. On January 19, 2001, the Solicitor issued 
a new opinion that concluded that the 1859 survey of the Sandia Pueblo 
grant was erroneous and that a resurvey should be conducted. 
Implementation of the opinion would therefore remove the area from its 
National Forest status and convey it to the Pueblo. The Department 
stayed the resurvey, however, until after November 15, 2002, so that 
there would be time for Congress to legislate the settlement and make 
it permanent.
  To state the obvious, this is a very complicated situation. The area 
that is the subject of the Pueblo's claim has been used by the Pueblo 
and its members for centuries and is of great significance to the 
Pueblo for traditional and cultural reasons. The Pueblo strongly 
desires that the wilderness character of the area continue to be 
preserved and its use by the Pueblo protected. Notwithstanding that 
interest and use, the Federal Government has administered the claim 
area as a unit of the National Forest system for most of the last 
century and over the years has issued patents for several hundred acres 
of land within the area to persons who had no notice of the Pueblo's 
claim. As a result, there are now several subdivisions within the 
external boundaries of the area, and although the Pueblo's lawsuit 
specifically disclaimed any title or interest in privately-owned lands, 
the residents of the subdivisions have concerns that the claim and its 
associated litigation have resulted in hardships by clouding titles to 
land. Finally, as a unit of the National forest system, the areas has 
great significance to the public and in particular, the people in the 
State of New Mexico, including the residents of the Counties of 
Bernalillo and Sandoval and the City of Albuquerque, who use the claim 
area for recreational and other purposes and who desire that the public 
use and natural character of the area be preserved.

  Because of the complexity of the situation, including the significant 
and overlapping interests just mentioned, Congress has not yet acted in 
this matter. In particular, concerns about the settlement were 
expressed by parties who did not participate in the final stages of the 
negotiations. I have worked with those parties to address their 
concerns while still trying to maintain the benefits secured by the 
parties in the Settlement Agreement. I believe the legislation that I 
have introduced today is a fair compromise. It provides the Pueblo 
specific rights and interests in the area that help to resolve its 
claim with finality but also, as noted earlier, maintains full public 
ownership and access to the National Forest system lands. In that 
sense, using the term ``Trust'' in the title recognizes those specific 
interests but does not confer the same status that exists when the 
Secretary of the Interior accepts title to land in trust on behalf of 
an Indian tribe.
  Most importantly, the bill I am introducing today relies on a 
settlement as the basis for resolving this claim. Although other 
approaches have been circulated, this bill is the only one with the 
potential to secure a consensus of the interested parties. Not only is 
a negotiated settlement the appropriate manner by which to resolve the 
Pueblo's claim, it also allows for a solution that fits the unique 
circumstances of this situation. To my knowledge, Sandia Pueblo's claim 
is the only Indian land claim that exists where the tribe may 
effectively recover ownership of federal land without an Act of 
Congress. Nonetheless, the parties have negotiated a creative 
arrangement to address the Pueblo's interest, protect private property, 
and still maintain public ownership of the land. That is to be 
commended and I am proud to introduce this legislation to preserve the 
substance of that arrangement.




                          ____________________