[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 88 (Thursday, June 27, 2002)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6252-S6261]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
By Mr. FEINGOLD:
S. 2691. A bill to amend the Communications Act of 1934 to facilitate
an increase in programming and content on radio that is locally and
independently produced, to facilitate competition in radio programming,
radio advertising, and concerts, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation
that will promote competition in the radio and concert industries.
This legislation will begin to address many of the concerns that I
have heard from my constituents regarding the concentration of
ownership in the radio and concert industry and its effect on
consumers, artists, local businesses, and ticket prices.
A few weeks ago, I began discussing with my colleagues a number of
concerns that I have been hearing from Wisconsinites. Anti-competitive
practices are hurting local radio station owners, local businesses,
consumers, and artists.
During the debate of the 1996 Telecommunications Act, I joined a
number of my colleagues in opposing the deregulation of radio ownership
rules because of concerns about its effect on consumers, artists, and
local radio stations.
Passage of this act was an unfortunate example of the influence of
soft money in the political process. As my colleagues will recall, I
have consistently said that this act was bought and paid for by soft
money. Everyone was at the table, except for the consumers.
We have enacted legislation to rid the system of this loophole in
campaign finance law, but we must also repair the damage that it
allowed.
In just five years since its passage, the effects of the
Telecommunications Act have been far worse than we imagined. While I
opposed this act because of its anti-consumer bias, I did not predict
that the elimination of the national radio ownership caps and
relaxation of local ownership caps would have triggered such a
tremendous wave of consolidation and harmed such as diverse range of
interests.
This legislation did not simply raise the national ownership limits
on radio stations, it eliminated them all together. It also
dramatically altered the local radio station ownership limits through
the implementation of a tiered ownership system that allowed a company
to own more radio stations in the larger markets.
When the 1996 Telecommunications Act became law there were
approximately 5,100 owners of radio stations. Today, there are only
about 3,800 owners, a decrease of about 25 percent.
Concentration at the local levels are unprecedented.
At the same time that ownership of radio stations has become
increasingly concentrated, some large radio station ownership groups
have also bought promotion services and advertising.
I have been hearing from people at home in Wisconsin, from Radio
station owners, artists, broadcasters, and concert promoters who are
being pushed out by anti-competitive practices, practices that result
from an increasingly concentrated market.
I am very concerned that these levels of concentration are pushing
independent radio station owners and concert promoters out of business.
And I am concerned that a few companies are leveraging their cross-
ownership of radio, concert promotion, and venues in an anti-
competitive manner.
My legislation addresses these concerns by prohibiting any entity
that owns radio stations, concert promotion services, or venues from
leveraging their cross-ownership in anti-competitive manner. Under this
proposal, the FCC would revoke the license of any radio station that
uses its cross owner
[[Page S6253]]
ship of promotion services or venues to prevent access to the airwaves,
venues, or in other anti-competitive ways.
For example, if an owner of a radio station and promotion service
hindered access to the airwaves of a rival promoter, then the owner
would be subject to penalties.
My legislation will also ensure that any future consolidation does
not result in these anti-competitive practices. It will strengthen the
FCC merger review process by requiring the FCC to scrutinize the
mergers of large radio station ownership groups to consider the effect
of national and local concentration on independent radio stations,
concert promoters and consumers.
At the same time, it will also curb future local consolidation by
preventing any upward revision of the limitation of multiple ownership
of radio stations in local markets.
It will also close a loophole that currently allows large radio
ownership companies to exceed the cap by ``warehousing stations''
through a third party. In these arrangements, large radio owners
control a station through a third party, but the stations are not
accounted for in their local ownership cap.
Finally, my legislation will also address many of the problems
created by the consolidation in the radio industry, such as the new
forms of payola. This legislation will require the FCC to modernize the
Federal payola prohibition to prevent these large radio station
ownership groups from leveraging their power to extract money or other
consideration from artists, such as forcing them to play concerts for
free.
Radio is a public medium and we must ensure that it serves the public
good. The concentration of ownership, in the radio and concert
industry, has caused great harm to people and businesses that have been
involved in and concerned about the industry for generations.
It also harms the flow of creativity and ideas that artists seek to
contribute to our society. This concentration does a disservice to our
society at every level of the industry, and it must be addressed.
I urge my colleagues to join me to cosponsor this legislation to help
to restore competition to the radio and concert industry by putting
independent radio stations and concert promoters on a level playing
field in the marketplace. This will help promote competition, local
input, and diversity, and promote consumer choices.
______
By Mr. CORZINE (for himself, Mr Torricelli, Mr. Durbin, and Mr.
Nelson of Florida):
S. 2692. A bill to provide additional funding for the second round of
empowerment zones and enterprise communities; to the Committee on
Finance.
Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation, ``The
Round II Empowerment Zone/Enterprise Community, EZ/EC, Flexibility Act
of 2002,'' to provide funding for the Round II Enterprise Zone/
Enterprise Community program. I want to thank and acknowledge Senators
Torricelli, Durbin and Nelson of Florida for their cosponsorship of
this bill.
This legislation would encourage economic development throughout the
EZ/EC program, particularly to the 15 Round II urban and 5 rural
empowerment zones that were designated in 1999. Each of those
communities has put together strong strategic initiatives to promote
economic growth.
The legislation would help ensure that these Round II communities
will be provided with the funding they have been promised. The bill
also would authorize the use of EZ/EC grants as a match for other
relevant Federal programs. This would provide the EZ/EC program with
maximum flexibility to implement initiatives at the local level.
The Enterprise Zone/Enterprise Community program was created to
provide Federal assistance over ten years in designated urban and rural
communities that would fuel economic revitalization and job growth. The
program does so primarily by providing federal grants to communities
and tax and regulatory relief to help communities attract and retain
businesses.
Unfortunately, an inequity now exists between the way Round I and
Round II EZs and ECs have been funded. Those communities that won EZ
designations in the initial round, in 1994, received full funding from
the Congress, which made all grant awards available for use within the
first two years of designation. However, EZs and ECs designated in
Round II did not receive this same funding authority.
Federal benefits promised to the Round IIs included funding grants of
$100 million for each urban zone, $40 million for each rural zone and
about $3 million for each Enterprise Community over a ten-year period
beginning in 1999. In reliance on those ``promised'' funds, Round II
zones prepared strategic plans for economic revitalization based on the
availability of that funding. However, unlike Round I designees, who
received a full funding up front, Round II zones have received a mere
fraction of the funding promise.
The lack of a certain, predictable funding stream will ultimately
undermine the ability of Round II EZs/ECs to effectively implement
their economic growth strategies in their designated communities. And
that's a shame, because the EZ/EC initiative has produced real results.
In fact, I'm proud to say that one of the best Round II EZs is
located in Cumberland County, NJ. The Cumberland County Empowerment
Zone, a collaborative effort of the communities of Bridgeton,
Millville, Vineland and Port Norris, has been a model EZ, and committed
all the funds made available to it by HUD.
Since the creation of the EZ, Cumberland County has witnessed more
than 100 housing units rehabbed, renovated or newly built. A $4 million
loan pool has been created to fund community and small business
reinvestment. The EZ also has led to the funding for over 60 economic
development initiatives, utilizing more than $11 million in funding to
leverage $120 million in private, public and tax exempt bond financing.
These, are real results. And if the Federal commitment to the EZ
continues, over 1,100 new jobs will be created in the County over the
next year and a half alone.
Cumberland County is just one example of how the EZ/EC initiative has
brought hope and promise to communities throughout America. We need to
do more to support and build on these initiatives. Now is the time for
Congress to fulfill the promise made to Round II EZs and ECs.
I urge my colleagues to cosponsor this legislation, and hope the
Senate will expedite its consideration.
______
By Mr. DORGAN (for himself and Mr. Corzine):
S. 2693: A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to
encourage retirement savings for individuals by providing a refundable
credit for individuals to deposit in a Social Security Plus account,
and for other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, the Board of Trustees for the Social
Security Trust Fund issued its annual report in March describing the
financial health of the Trust Fund and its outlook for the future. The
report shows that the financial condition of the Trust Fund over the
next few decades has improved somewhat since last year, that is, the
Social Security program is now expected to remain solvent for three
additional years through 2041. This is welcome news for the tens of
millions of baby boomers who will depend on this program in the coming
decades.
However, this latest Trustees' report also makes clear that the
Social Security program still faces significant long-term financial
challenges. This finding was not unexpected. In fact, there is already
bipartisan agreement in Congress that we will need to make some careful
changes to the Social Security system in order to guarantee the
solvency of the Social Security Trust Fund beyond 2041. Today, Senator
Corzine of New Jersey and I are introducing legislation that we think
should be part of those reform discussions.
Our legislation, called the Social Security Plus Account Act, builds
upon two fundamental principles: One, the underlying guaranteed defined
benefit approach of the current Social Security program should not be
scrapped or weakened. Social Security has become the foundation of the
Nation's retirement system, something that people
[[Page S6254]]
can always count on. At a time when private employers are shifting more
retirement saving risks onto the shoulders of their employees through
the use of defined contribution plans like 401(k) plans rather than
traditional defined benefit pension plans, the need to retain Social
Security's basic guaranteed payment is paramount.
Second, this legislation recognizes that Congress must do more to
encourage families and individuals, especially those of modest means,
to increase their savings and to build a retirement nest egg.
Specifically, our legislation provides for the creation of new tax-
favored retirement savings accounts that individuals and families could
access to supplement, but not replace, their expected future Social
Security benefits.
Unlike many reform proposals, this legislation leaves the Social
Security program intact. Many privatization plans force you to choose
between individual accounts and the loss of Social Security's
guaranteed benefit at current levels. Our proposal calls for personal
accounts as an ``add-on'' to Social Security. This is an important
distinction from the ``carve-out'' accounts featured in privatization
plans. Privatization plans will inevitably reduce traditional
guaranteed benefits. Our approach would not.
Under this legislation, eligible individuals can set up and make tax-
favored contributions of up to $2,000 to a new Social Security Plus
Account, SSPA. To provide an extra savings boost for low- and moderate-
income families, our legislation would require the Federal Government
to provide matching contributions between 25 and 100 percent for
married couples with adjusted gross income below $100,000, $50,000 for
singles. The $2,000 limit applies to the total of the individual's own
contribution and the Federal match. This will make it much more
affordable for low and moderate earners to fully fund their accounts.
Like traditional individual retirement accounts, SSPAs can grow tax-
free. For example, if an individual aged 30 who files a joint return
and has annual earnings of about $25,000 contributes $500 to a SSPA,
the Federal Government would match that contribution with a $500
contribution to the account. If that individual contributes $500 in
cash each year to the account for 32 years, earning 5-percent interest
per year, until retirement at age 62, he or she would have some $80,000
available for distribution from the account. This amount grows to
$160,000 if the individual is able to contribute the maximum in each
year.
Let's take another example. Assume that an individual who is forty
years old, files a joint return and has annual adjusted gross income of
$80,000. If he or she could make the maximum permissible contribution
each year until reaching age 62, along with an annual government match
of $400, he or she might expect to have at least $160,128 available at
retirement.
Under our legislation, the accrued amounts that are paid out or
distributed when the holder of a SSPA retires, dies or becomes disabled
are treated like Social Security benefits and a portion of the
distributions would be taxed only above certain threshold amounts.
Now I fully understand that we may not be able to enact this
legislation this year or next. Regrettably, last year's highly-touted
projected budget surpluses have vanished for at least the next several
years and resources are now scarce. The massive tax cuts put in place
in the summer of 2001, and scheduled to take full effect over a period
of years, will make finding adequate funds for many of the Nation's
critical spending priorities even more difficult.
However, many of the privatization proposals would require massive
infusions from the Treasury general revenue fund to offset the
transition and other costs for even partial privatization initiatives.
If such resources are available, it seems to me that we would better
serve our citizens by using these scarce resources to enact Social
Security Plus Accounts that will help them save for retirement but not
put the underlying Social Security program at risk.
The current Social Security system has served us well for many years
and will continue to do so if we make some adjustments. Still we all
know that Social Security reform is needed. I remain committed to
working on a bipartisan basis to address the long-term solvency issues
facing Social Security and to improve retirement savings. And we do
need to implement appropriate Social Security reforms as soon as our
resources will allow us. Needlessly delaying efforts to shore up Social
Security for the long term would likely require more severe action.
We certainly can't afford to make matters worse in the interim. A
number of us in the Senate are concerned by the proposals offered by
President Bush and some in Congress to eliminate the guaranteed basis
of Social Security and replace it, in part with private accounts. The
suggestion to ``privatize'' Social Security, or to invest a portion or
all of the trust funds in the stock market, has been supported by the
large investment banking houses and many others who believe that doing
so would produce higher returns and improve the solvency of the system.
Several of the President's Commission on Social Security
privatization plans would divert some of the payroll taxes that are
currently being collected. Some of the proposals would use well over $1
trillion from the Social Security Trust Fund. This would immediately
and adversely impact the financial well-being of the Social Security
Trust Fund, putting in jeopardy both current and future Social Security
benefits
I do not believe that investing the proceeds of the Social Security
system in the stock market through individual accounts provides the
kind of stability and certainty we need for the management of the
Social Security program. Social Security is intended to provide what
its name suggests, security. Stock market investments do not provide
this secure foundation. They increase, on average, over certain time
periods. But people don't retire at average times. They retire at
particular times.
This point is mostly glossed over by the President's Commission to
Strengthen Social Security. The Commission issued its final report last
December that included several reform options that would allow workers
to invest in personal retirement accounts, but reduce their traditional
guaranteed Social Security benefit. In my judgment, no one, including
the President's Commission, has provided a satisfactory answer to the
question of what happens to people who retire when the market is down
if we change Social Security, even partly, from a social insurance
program to a stock market investment program. This is not mere
polemics. The Enron debacle, the boom and bust of the dot com companies
of the late 1990s, and the declining stock prices of recent weeks all
serve as stark reminders to all of us about the perils of investing in
the stock market.
Again, I will be working for appropriate reforms to extend the life
of the Social Security Trust Fund so future generations can rely on
Social Security. Social Security Plus Accounts can provide a much-
needed supplement to the basic program, but would do so without
undermining it. They do not reform the program by themselves, but are
designed to be part of a responsible reform package.
For many of our nation's seniors, Social Security is the difference
between poverty and a dignified retirement. When President Franklin D.
Roosevelt signed the Social Security program into law in 1935 he said
``We can never insure one-hundred percent of the population against
one-hundred percent of the hazards and vicissitudes of life. But we
have tried to frame a law which will give some measure of protection to
the average citizen and his family against poverty ridden old age.''
The importance of his words and his new social insurance plan are
reflected in Social Security's overwhelming success today. Let's make
sure that the promise and security of Social Security is kept for many
generations to come.
I urge my colleagues to consider supporting this proposal in the
context of comprehensive Social Security reforms considered by the
Senate. Below I've provided a detailed summary of the Social Security
Plus Account Act to more fully explain how the new savings accounts
would work.
I ask unanimous consent that a summary of the bill be printed in the
Record.
There being no objection, the summary was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
[[Page S6255]]
Social Security Plus Account Act of 2002
In general
This legislation creates new tax-favored Social Security
Plus Accounts (SSPA). Generally, an eligible individual with
at least $5,000 of annual earnings and who is not a dependent
of another taxpayer or a full-time college student may
contribute up to $2,000 to a SSPA for each year until he or
she reaches the age of 70 & \1/2\. An individual whose
modified adjusted gross income exceeds $150,000 ($300,000 for
a married individual) is ineligible to make a contribution to
a SSPA.
A 20-percent refundable tax credit is allowed for eligible
contributions to a SSPA. In addition, the federal government
will match a percentage of a SSPA contribution for taxpayers
with modified adjusted gross income (AGI) below a certain
level (See below).
Amounts in SSPAs that are distributed for permissible
purposes are subject to favorable income tax treatment and
are not subject to penalty.
An eligible individual shall file a designation of the SSPA
to which the match is made, along with his or her tax return
for the year (or if no return is filed, on a form prescribed
by the Secretary of the Treasury) not later than the due date
for filing such return (including extensions) or the 15th day
of April, whichever is later.
Matching contributions
In the case of an eligible individual, the federal
government makes a matching contribution to the SSPA. This is
accomplished as refundable tax credit for the tax year in an
amount equal to the matching contribution. The allowable
credit is treated as an overpayment of tax which may only be
transferred to a SSPA.
The Secretary of the Treasury will make matching
contributions to the SSPAs of taxpayers with modified AGI
below a certain level. The applicable percentage shall be
according to the following:
In the case of an individual filing a joint return:
The applicable percentage is:
If modified adjusted gross income is:
$30,000 or less...................................................100
Over $30,000 but not over $60,000..................................50
Over $60,000 but not over $100,000.................................25
Over $100,000....................................................zero
In the case of a head of household:
$22,500 or less...................................................100
Over $22,500 but not over $45,000..................................50
Over $45,000 but not over $75,000..................................25
Over $75,000.....................................................zero
In the case of any other individual:
$15,000 or less...................................................100
Over $15,000 but not over $30,000..................................50
Over $30,000 but not over $50,000..................................25
Over $50,000.....................................................zero
Maximum contributions
The maximum annual contribution to a SSPA each year in
$2,000--including both the individual and matching
contributions. As such, the maximum annual contribution would
be $1,000 for those in the lowest bracket (with a $1,000
maximum match), $1,333.33 for the middle bracket (with a $667
maximum match) and $1,600 for the next bracket (with a $400
maximum match). Those in the highest bracket with earnings
over $100,000 could contribute $2,000 (with no match).
Minimum contributions
The minimum annual contribution must be sufficient to
ensure that the total deposit is $200 (i.e. the lowest
bracket would have to contribute at least $100, the middle
bracket would have to contribute at least $133, the next
bracket at least $160, and the highest bracket at least
$200).
Tax treatment of SSPAs
Similar to traditional individual retirement accounts
(IRAs), amounts contributed to a SSPA would be tax-favored
and accounts would grow tax-free. However, amounts paid or
distributed out of a SSPA would be taxable like Social
Security benefits. That is, up to 50% of SSPA benefits are
taxable for taxpayers whose income plus 50% of their benefits
exceed $25,000 for individuals and $32,000 for couples. Up to
85% of SSPA benefits are taxable for taxpayers whose income
plus benefits exceeds $34,000 for individuals and $44,000 for
couples.
10-percent penalty for disqualified distributions
Distributions that are not made from a SSPA after
retirement, death, disability or not used for catastrophic
medical expenses exceeding 7.5% of AGI are includible in
gross income and are subject to regular tax rates and a 10-
percent penalty. Matching contributions from the federal
government may be distributed from an SSPA only after
retirement, at death or in the event of disability.
Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I am pleased to join today with Senator
Dorgan in introducing legislation, the Social Security Plus Account Act
of 2002, that would create new tax-favored Social Security Plus
Accounts to supplement the existing Social Security program.
Although the Social Security Trust Fund is now projected to remain
solvent for almost 40 years, I share the interest of a broad range of
leaders in exploring ways to extend solvency further into the future.
At this point, it remains unclear when Social Security reform will be
debated. However, Senator Dorgan and I are introducing this legislation
in the hope that it will be considered when that debate moves forward.
As most of my colleagues know, last year President Bush appointed a
commission to recommend ways to move toward privatization of Social
Security. Last December, that commission issued a report that included
proposals to establish privatized accounts into which a portion of
Social Security contributions would be diverted. The Bush Commission's
proposals included deep cuts in guaranteed benefits, cut that for some
current workers would exceed 25 percent, and for future retirees would
exceed 45 percent.
I strongly oppose these cuts. In my view, they would take the
security out of Social Security. That would undermine the central goal
of the program.
At the same time, I recognize that, by itself, Social Security will
not provide sufficient funds for many retirees in the future. That is
why it is important that Americans save on their own to prepare for
retirement. I therefore support other government initiatives to promote
private savings, such as individual retirement accounts and 401(k)
plans.
The proposal for Social Security Plus Accounts in this legislation
takes the concept of an IRA or 401(k) account, and builds on it. These
new accounts would provide an additional and more powerful savings
incentive for many Americans, especially middle class workers and those
with more modest incomes. Under our legislation, the government would
match contributions by taxpayers with incomes below certain levels. In
addition, all contributions would provide immediate tax relief: a tax
cut equal to 20 percent of the contribution. Moreover, when a person
takes money out of an account at retirement, the proceeds would be
treated in the same manner as Social Security benefits, meaning that
some or all proceeds could be withdrawn tax free.
A Social Security Plus Account would provide a useful supplement to
our Social Security system, without weakening that system in any way.
Unlike the proposals of the Bush Social Security Commission, these new
accounts would not force a reduction in traditional Social Security
benefits. This difference is critical.
Senator Dorgan and I recognize that the establishment of Social
Security Plus Accounts would require resources that are not presently
available. We therefore appreciate that action on our legislation will
have to wait until later, when we have more financing. However, we
believe it important to put our proposal on the table today, to help
ensure that when the appropriate time comes, our colleagues understand
that there is more than one way to establish personal accounts. The
right way, as proposed in this legislation, is to establish accounts
that supplement Social Security, without draining the Social Security
Trust Fund, without cutting benefits, and without undermining Social
Security's promise to Americans who have paid into the system in good
faith.
I want to thank Senator Dorgan for his leadership in this effort. I
look forward to working with him to ensure that we find new and better
ways to promote savings, without undermining the basic guarantees
provided through Social Security.
______
By Mr. ALLEN (for himself and Mr. Warner):
S. 2694. A bill to extend Federal recognition to the Chickahominy
Tribe, the Chickahominy Indian Tribe--Eastern Division, the Upper
Mattaponi Tribe, the Rappahannock Tribe, Inc., the Monacan Tribe, and
the Nansemond Tribe; to the Committee on Indian Affairs.
Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, I rise in support of Virginia's Indian
Tribes and to introduce a bill to extend Federal recognition to six of
Virginia's Indian Tribes.
These Tribes have a rich tradition and history, not only for
Virginia, but also for the Nation as a whole. My bill will recognize
the Chickahominy Tribe; the Chickahominy Tribe Eastern Division; the
Upper Mattaponi Tribe; the Rappahannock Tribe; the Monacan Tribe; and
the Nansemond Tribe.
The title of the bill is the ``Thomasina E. Jordan Indian Tribes of
Virginia Federal Recognition Act''. For me, this legislation also has a
very personal aspect to it. Thomasina Jordan
[[Page S6256]]
was a dear friend of mine. As Governor of Virginia, I appointed
Thomasina as Chair of the Virginia Council on Indians, and she served
as an advisor to me in many ways over the years. Thomasina was a great
leader and civil rights activist in Virginia, paving the way for this
legislation. Regrettably, she passed away in 1999 after a long and
courageous battle with cancer. I offer this legislation in her memory
as her last battle on earth was for Federal recognition of Virginia's
tribes. Thomasina's efforts to ensure equal rights and recognition to
all American Indians continue today in spirit because she was able to
have an effect on the lives of so many individuals and encourage many
to join her quest for fairness, honor and justice.
The American Indians in Virginia contribute to the diverse, exciting
nature and heritage of the Commonwealth of Virginia. Virginians are
united in their desire to honor these first residents and I am pleased
that Senator Warner and I are able to join Virginia's House Delegation
in offering this legislation.
There are more than 550 federally recognized Tribes in the United
States. While no Tribes have been federally recognized in Virginia, the
Commonwealth of Virginia has recognized the eight main tribes.
According to the U.S. Census Bureau, there are over 21,000 American
Indians living in Virginia.
``Federally recognized'' means these tribes and groups can enjoy a
special legal relationship with the U.S. government where no decisions
about their lands and people are made without Indian consent. It is
important that we give Federal recognition to these proud Virginia
tribes so that they cannot only be honored in the manner they deserve
but also for the many benefits that federal recognition would provide.
Members of federally recognized tribes, most importantly, can qualify
for grants for higher education opportunities.
There is absolutely no reason why American Indian Tribes in Virginia
should not share in the same benefits that so many Indian tribes around
the country enjoy.
The Indian Tribes in Virginia have one of the longest histories of
any Indian tribe in America, which is a remarkable point considering
none of the tribes in Virginia are federally recognized. As Virginia
approaches the 400th anniversary of the 1607 founding of Jamestown, the
first permanent English settlement in North America, it is crucial that
the role of Indian tribes in Virginia in the development of our
Commonwealth and our country are properly recognized and appreciated.
There are three routes that an Indian Tribe can pursue in order to
receive Federal recognition. One, the tribe can apply for
administrative recognition through the Bureau of Indian Affairs, which
all these Virginia Tribes have done. Two, a tribe can gain Federal
recognition through an act of Congress. And three, the tribe can obtain
Federal recognition through legal proceedings in the court system.
There has been a sharp increase in recent years of the number of
tribes seeking Federal recognition via an application to the Bureau of
Indian Affairs. However, the General Accounting Office recently
reported that, while the workload at the Bureau of Indian Affairs has
increased dramatically, the resources to handle the large volume of
applications has actually decreased. Since 1978, the Bureau of Indian
Affairs has processed only 32 of the 150 applications it received,
deciding favorably on only 12 of them. In fact, BIA averages only 1.3
completed applications a year. The route of Federal recognition through
the Bureau of Indian Affairs and Bureau of Acknowledgement and
Recognition is a cumbersome and lengthy process, which has taken
sometimes over 20 years for an application to be decided upon.
In 1999, the Virginia General Assembly passed a resolution calling on
the U.S. Congress to grant Federal recognition to the tribes in
Virginia. Identical legislation to what I introduce today has already
been introduced in the House. I join my House colleagues, Mr. Moran of
Virginia, Mrs. Jo Ann Davis of Virginia, Mr. Tom Davis of Virginia, Mr.
Scott, Mr. Schrock, Mr. Boucher, and Mr. Forbes in this important
endeavor.
The precedent has already been set for the second route for
attainment of Federal recognition, through an act of Congress. Since
the 93rd Congress (1973-1974), Congress has restored Federal
recognition to eighteen tribes and has granted seven new Federal
recognitions to tribes. In 2000, Congress passed a law to grant new
Federal recognition to the Shawnee Indians as a separate tribe from the
Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma and another law to restore Federal
recognition to the tribe of Graton Rancheria of California. It is time
that Virginia's tribes receive the same recognition.
The main goal of this legislation is to establish a more equitable
relationship between the tribes and the State and Federal Government.
While I understand that some may have a concern that Federal
recognition of Indian tribes may lead to the establishment of gaming
operations within a State, this is not the case. As a result of the
1988 Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, federally recognized Indian Tribes
can conduct only the gaming operations that are authorized by State
law. Tribes are unable to operate casinos, slot machines or card games
unless approved by a specific State/Tribe Compact. My bill includes
language restating this point to make it clear that nothing in the Act
provides an exception to the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act. Ultimately,
it gives proper coverage under Virginia law so as not to provide
special gaming privileges.
This legislation not only lays out the path for granting Federal
recognition to six American Indian Tribes in Virginia, but it also
honors and details the proud history of each of the six Tribes.
The Virginia tribes have fought hard to retain their heritage and
cultural identity, and it is my hope that this legislation be seen as a
way to recognize this identity.
As Americans, we need to appreciate the many contributions American
Indians have made to our Nation in order to make it the great country
it is today. Thomasina Jordan once wrote: ``We belong to this land. For
10,000 years we have been here. We were never a conquered people. The
dominant society needed us to survive in 1607, and it needs American
Indians and our spiritual values to survive in the next millennium.''
The Commonwealth of Virginia has realized that it needs its proud
Indian tribes. This bill is another step toward recognizing and
appreciating this special relationship.
______
By Mr. FRIST (for himself, Mr. Feingold, and Mr. Lugar):
S. 2695. A bill to amend the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 to extend
the authority for debt reduction, debt-for-nature swaps, and debt
buybacks to nonconsessional loans and credits made to developing
countries with tropical forests; to the Committee on Foreign Relations.
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce, with Senator
Feingold and Senator Lugar, a bill that could have a far-reaching
impact in preserving some of the most pristine tropical forest in the
world.
We seek to amend the Tropical Forest Conservation Act, TFCA, a law
passed in 1998. The TFCA has led to the preservation of thousands of
acres of tropical forest, particularly in the Americas, by allowing low
and middle income countries to engage in debt-for-nature ``swaps.'' The
TFCA allows eligible governments to divert resources currently needed
for debt service toward the conservation and management of disappearing
rain forests.
Our amendment to TFCA would expand the use of this successful
program. Our change would allow more tropical forests to be preserved.
Under TFCA, countries are limited to using concessional debt for making
swaps. Concessional debt is special low-interest loans reserved for the
poorest countries to exchange non-concessional debt, e.g. Export-Import
bank loans, etc. for preserved forest land. This change will not only
increase the potential for swaps in countries with concessional debt,
but also make some countries newly eligible for the program.
One example of a country that is not currently eligible for TFCA, but
that has great potential for using the expanded program, is the African
nation of Gabon. Gabon has some extraordinary, pristine forest land
that deserves to be preserved.
[[Page S6257]]
In the fall of 2000, the National Geographic Society sponsored a
2000-mile, 15-month expedition through Central Africa by Dr. Mike Fay,
a well known conservationist. Dr. Fay traveled through some of the last
unexplored regions on earth, including the Langoue forest in Gabon. His
expedition encountered a remarkable variety of species and habitat that
are in danger of disappearing unless we help Gabon's government
preserve it. Dr. Fay's observations of the Langoue Forest are
compelling. Here are some excerpts from his report:
``[T]here's a river in almost the dead center of Gabon
called the Ivindo which has an amazing set of waterfalls.
It's a big river, probably a hundred or so meters wide, of
slow, black water, and it drains almost all of northeastern
Gabon. These chutes, these waterfalls--two in particular
called Mingouli and Kongou--make this place an attraction.
An Italian named Giuseppe Vassallo, who died about a year
and a half ago . . . promoted this place as a national park
because he said it was the best forest in Gabon. He talked
about it and lobbied for it and cajoled people, but it just
never quite happened. We walked across this block that he'd
always talked about, and I actually flew over it with him in
'98 . . .
And we discovered the highest concentration of giant
elephants that we'd seen on the entire walk. It's probably
the only place left in the central African forest with
elephants that are abundant and with a large percentage of
very large males, tusks that no one has seen in a very
long time, one hundred pounds on a side. Giant elephants,
it's something you just don't see because they've been
pouched out of the population. [And] naive gorillas,
something that we hadn't seen on the entire trip. You can
tell they're naive because when they see you they don't
run away, they don't look alarmed, they don't act alarmed,
they don't vocalize. The males don't charge at all and
they get very curious. They come to see you and they
approach well within the danger zone. They sit there for
hours and they just stare as if it's something they've
never seen before, and it's pretty obvious that they
haven't.
You travel a little bit farther along and there's this
mountain that we'd been navigating toward for a few weeks,
and it's again full of elephants, and it's got all kinds of
beautiful topography and rocky cliffs. It's a real sort
hidden forest, and it really gives you a feeling of great
isolation being up on this mountain plateau. So we started
walking south of the mountain and pretty soon we came upon an
elephant trail that lead us a little bit astray. It lead us
to the east of where we wanted to go but we kept on following
it and it just got bigger and bigger and bigger. I looked a
the map and it was obvious that it was navigating us right
toward a clearing. Long before you get to an elephant
clearing you can tell where you're going, because the
elephant trail opens up to like two meters wide, it's covered
with dung, and there's a huge amount that are on these
``highways.'' It's a lot like how major highway arteries in
the States get bigger as they go into the city, that's
basically what it is for elephants, it's an ``elephant
city.'' So, we get there, and there it is, this clearing that
no one has ever seen before, no conservationist even could
have imagined existed in Gabon. This place is just abounding
with wildlife and you think ``This place really is what old
Giuseppe said it was.'' Even though he had never walked in
it, it was as if he just knew this place was the best. The
place is called Langoue and it still exists.
There are about 1.2 million acres in the Langoue Forest that are
completely untouched. Experts familiar with the region estimate that
more than 700,000 acres at the heart of the forest could be preserved
for about $3.5 million. This part of the forest includes the naive
gorillas, the giant elephants, and the waterfalls.
At the very modest cost, our amendment will give nations like Gabon a
new tool for preserving their remaining tropical forest, for the
benefit of the people of Gabon, and for the benefit of mankind.
I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the interview with Dr.
Fay and the text of a letter from Conservation International appear at
this point in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
[From National Geographic News, Aug. 9, 2001]
Interview: Mike Fay Is on a Trek to Preserve Forest in Gabon
(By Andrew Jones)
Last year, conservationist J. Michael Fay completed a
2,000-mile (3,218-kilometer), fifteen-month walk through
central Africa in some of the world's most pristine forests.
Now, the expedition leader for the National Geographic
Society and an ecologist for the Wildlife Conservation
Society has undertaken another challenge: a personal campaign
to preserve nearly 250,000 hectares (618,000 acres) of forest
in Gabon as a national park.
National Geographic News: You were in the African bush for
fifteen months. How has that changed your perspective on
conservation?
Dr. J. Michael Fay: As a conservationist, I would say it's
a double-edged sword. Because when you're out there, you
realize how much is left. There's such abundance--it's so
huge, it goes on forever. You can walk for fifteen months and
basically be in the woods the whole time and not have to
traverse areas that are inhabited by humans. And you think,
``Wow, that's cool. This place is at the ends of the Earth;
it will never be touched.'' Then you look at the map and the
logging activity and you look at the human expansion and you
think, ``This place is all going to disappear in the next
seven to ten years.''
It makes you wake up to the fact that human beings, even in
the 21st century, still don't regard natural resources as
something precious. Because if they did, there would be a
worldwide effort to preserve these places rather than extract
wood out of them as quickly as possible with zero regard for
ecosystems, while wasting most of that wood before you get it
to the market. So from my perspective, it was pretty
depressing.
NG News: do you think there's anyone in particular to
blame? Or is there no one person or group we can point to as
the source of the problem?
Fay: I think the human species is what it is. It evolved to
extract as many resources as it possibly could from the
environment to survive better and better. That's kind of what
humans are programmed to do. And to do the opposite of that,
to conserve, I think is a very difficult thing for people to
even comprehend, let alone enact. It's kind of counter-
evolutionary, and I think it takes a lot of education and a
lot of foresight. If humans want to survive on this planet
without having some kind of catastrophic event take out large
percentages of the population someday in the future, then
they're going to have to make that shift. A lot of people
talk about it, a lot of people understand it, but it's really
hard to make that last jump and actually say, ``Okay, I'm
going to make a switch.''
NG News: You're now trying to have nearly 250,000 hectares
of forest land in Gabon designated as a national park. Why
did you choose that particular area?
Fay: Well, there's a river in almost the dead center of
Gabon called the Ivindo which has an amazing set of
waterfalls. It's a big river, probably a hundred or so meters
wide, of slow, black water, and it drains almost all of
northeastern Gabon. These chutes, these waterfalls--two in
particular called Mingouli and Kongou--make this place an
attraction.
An Italian named Giuseppe Vassallo, who died about a year
and a half ago . . . promoted this place as a national park
because he said it was the best forest in Gabon. He talked
about it and lobbied for it and cajoled people,but it just
never quite happened. We walked across this block that he'd
always talked about, and I actually flew over it with him in
'98. We looked at the logging companies coming in from the
west at a very rapid rate, and so we tried to design a walk
in this place that didn't go through any logging. And we
discovered the highest concentration of giant elephants that
we'd seen on the entire walk. It's probably the only place
left in the central African forest with elephants that are
abundant and with a large percentage of every large males--
tusks that no one has seen in a very long time, one hundred
pounds on a side. Giant elephants--it's something you just
don't see because they've been poached out of the population.
[And] naive gorillas--something that we hadn't seen on the
entire trip. You can tell they're naive because when they see
you they don't run away, they don't look alarmed, they don't
act alarmed, they don't vocalize. The males don't charge at
all and they get very curious. They come to see you and they
approach well within the danger zone. They sit there for
hours and they just stare as if it's something they've never
seen before, and it's pretty obvious that they haven't.
You travel a little bit farther along and there's this
mountain that we'd been navigating toward for a few weeks,
and it's again full of elephants, and it's got all kinds of
beautiful topography and rocky cliffs. It's a real sort of
hidden forest, and it really gives you a feeling of great
isolation being up on this mountain plateau.
So we started walking south of the mountain and pretty soon
we came upon an elephant trail that lead us a little bit
astray. It lead us to the east of where we wanted to go but
we kept on following it and it just got bigger and bigger and
bigger. I looked at the map and it was obvious that it was
navigating us right toward a clearing. Long before you get to
an elephant clearing you can tell where you're going, because
the elephant trail opens up to like two meters wide, it's
covered with dung, and there's a huge amount of track that
are on these ``highways.'' It's a lot like how major
highway arteries in the States get bigger as they go into
the city--that's basically what it is for elephants--it's
an ``elephant city.'' So, we get there, and there it is--
this clearing that no one has ever seen before, no
conservationist even could have imagined existed in Gabon.
This place is just abounding with wildlife and you think
``This place really is what old Giuseppe said it was.''
Even though he had never walked in it, it was as if he
just knew this place was the best. The place is called
Langoue and it still exists.
If you look at the map from a land-use perspective though,
you realize that the entire block has been given away to many
different
[[Page S6258]]
logging companies, and they're working their way into Langoue
as fast as we can talk. They're going to log that entire
area, and there's still about 500,000 hectares [1,235,500
acres] that are completely virgin, untouched forest. But
because of the sheer number of logging companies in there,
the potential to log that block completely very quickly is
very high. So we're launching a campaign with the government
and the logging companies and the conservation community and
with the general public to try and create a national park in
this place. That means pushing back time. That means going
back in time essentially four or five years [ago], when there
were no logging concessions in this place. And that's
difficult to do. And it's expensive.
NG News: How much money are you looking to raise?
Fay: Well, if we had three and a half million dollars
today, right now, we can go into Gabon tomorrow and negotiate
the logging rights for those concessions and maybe preserve
300,000 hectares [741,000 acres] of that forest, which
includes those native gorillas, the giant elephants, the
clearing on the mountain and the waterfalls. We could start
that process quite easily tomorrow. But surprisingly, finding
three and a half million dollars for conservation, in this
world that has too much money, is very difficult.
NG News: Where have you been looking for funding?
Fay: Everywhere. You know, we don't have a major
coordinated fund-raising effort that we're investing lots of
money into. We're trying to do it on the cheap, I guess you
could say. We're trying to use the media coverage that we've
received and use the connections that we have from a number
of sources. We have raised well over a million dollars
already, but we . . . need three and a half million dollars,
and without it we're not gonna get that national park. . . .
When you look at the exploitation of the resources in those
countries it's not done for the consumption of Gabonese or
Congolese, it's done primarily for the consumption of
Americans, Asians, and Europeans. And people need to be
responsible for that. They can't just blithely keep going
farther afield and exploiting the wilderness without having
to pay some attention to that fact, without having to pay up.
. . . We get all upset when the U.S. government wants to go
drilling in [the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge]. But when
an oil company wants to drill in the most pristine place in
Gabon, we don't say ``boo.'' And that has to change. People
need to be responsible globally if they're going to exploit
globally. It has to be a two-way street.
NG News. How do you propose to monitor the park and protect
it from such threats as poaching, logging, and bushmeat
hunting?
Fay: It's that double-edged sword again. The place is very
isolated right now. So we're looking at a four-pronged
approach. The first prong was to basically get a team on the
ground . . . to protect that clearing and get a presence in
there that says to people, ``There's somebody looking after
this place.'' People have taken an interest in it, people
have recognized that it's something that needs to be
protected. . . . We have money from the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service to establish a camp and a team on the
ground. So that's prong number one.
Prong number two is the buy-back. We need to negotiate with
logging companies and with the Gabonese government to find
out how much it is going to cost and which blocks we can get.
We're dealing with ten different blocks, each about 25,000
hectares (62,000 acres) . . . and each one takes a separate
negotiation essentially. We have the green light from the
Gabonese forestry minister to start this process.
The third prong of the effort is to establish a trust fund
so that management will take place there in the long term.
Trust funds not only create a situation where you can get
funding for a place like that, but you also have a much
broader management base . . . because if there's an
international trust fund then there's an international board.
And if there's an international board, people are going to be
interested in keeping this place in a state that this fund
was set up to preserve. Over the years national governments
in Africa have shown great interest and have collaborated in
international conservation efforts in their countries. This
is seen as positive and we have had great success in the past
with these associations.
And then the fourth thing is to actually establish a long-
term presence on the ground, which again requires some sort
of international collaboration between the conservation
organization and the national government. It relies on
funding from the outside rather than inside the country. We
have a grant to pay for the ground action for the next three
years and the effort to negotiate the national park. So we're
making pretty good progress on our four prongs. But we've
only completed about 10 to 30 percent of the 100 percent that
we need to go on all four of those demands. So, there's still
a lot of work to be done.
There are some positive elements to build on. Along the
megatransect route there are already some protected areas.
The idea is to preserve and fully protect about one tenth of
the entire forest. We need to be pragmatic by setting
reasonable targets that we can accomplish.
____
Conservation International,
Washington, DC, June 26, 2002.
Hon. Bill Frist,
U.S. Senate, 416 Russell Senate Office Building, Washington,
DC
Dear Senator Frist: Conservation International applauds
your leadership in sponsoring legislation to strengthen the
Tropical Forest Conservation Act (TFCA). Through making
nonconcessional debt eligible for TFCA treatment, this
legislation paves the way for substantial conservation gains
by allowing additional countries to participate in debt-for-
nature swaps.
Gabon is a good example. The country contains some of the
world's most pristine and biologically important tropical
forests--forests that shelter an incredible diversity of
wildlife including populations of gorillas and chimpanzees so
wild as to never before have encountered human beings.
Protecting Gabon's forests is an urgent priority of the
conservation community. It is also important to Gabon's
future. These forests are essential to maintaining
hydrological patterns, protecting water quality and quantity,
and offering development opportunities in the form of a
potentially significant exotourism market. As you well know,
their exploitation poses an additional risk of exposing human
beings to deadly disease. In fact, the most recent Ebola
outbreak occurred in Gabon.
Gabon should be a strong candidate for debt relief under
the Tropical Forest Conservation Act: it has abundant,
critical, and threatened tropical forests; it has a stable
political regime; it seeks resources for conservation; and it
owes debts to the United States. Unfortunately, the TFCA's
narrow construction prohibits Gabon from seeking debt
treatment under the Act. Your legislation would change this.
Conservation International has a long history of
participating in debt-for-nature swaps and has significant
private resources to bring to the table in support of public/
private partnerships under the TFCA. In fact, we recently
worked with The Nature Coservancy and World Wildlife Fund to
contribute a total of $1.1 million to a TFCA deal in Peru,
which leveraged $5.5 million in U.S. Government funds and
generated $10.6 million in local currency payments for
conservation of Peru's forests. With passage of your
legislation. CI anticipates additional opportunities to work
with the U.S. and key tropical forest countries to
simultaneously achieve conservation and debt relief.
Thank you once again for your leadership.
Sincerely,
Nicholas Lapham,
Senior Director for Policy.
______
By Mr. BINGAMAN:
S. 2696. A bill to clear title to certain real property in New Mexico
associated with the Middle Rio Grande Project, and for other purposes;
to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce the
Albuquerque Biological Park Title Clarification Act. This bill would
assist the City of Albuquerque, NM by clearing its title to two parcels
of land located along the Rio Grande. More specifically, it would allow
the city to move forward with its plans to improve the properties as
part of a Biological Park Project, a city funded initiative to create a
premier environmental educational center for its citizens and the
entire State of New Mexico.
The Biological Park Project has been in the works since 1987 when the
city began to develop an aquarium and botanic garden along the banks of
the Rio Grande. The facilities constitutes just a portion of the
overall project. In pursuit of the balance of the project, the city, in
1997, purchased two properties from the Middle Rio Grande Conservancy
District, MRGCD, for $3,875,000. The first property, Tingley Beach, had
been leased by the city from MRGCD since 1931 and used for public park
purposes. The second property, San Gabriel Park, had been leased by the
city sine 1963, and also used for public park purposes.
In the year 2000, the city's plan were interrupted when the U.S.
Bureau of Reclamation claimed that in 1953 it had acquired ownership of
all of MRGCD's property that is associated with the Middle Rio Grande
Project. The United States' assertion called into question the validity
of the 1997 transaction between the city and MRGCD. Both MRGCD and the
city dispute the United States' claim of ownership.
This dispute is delaying the city's progress in developing the
Biological Park Project. If the matter is simply left to litigation,
the delay will be both indefinite and unnecessary. Reclamation has
already determined that the two properties are surplus to the needs of
the Middle Rio Grande Project. Moreover, this history of this issue
indicates that Reclamation had once considered releasing its interest
in the properties for $1.00 each. Obviously, the Federal interest in
these properties is low while the local interest is very high.
Moreover, this bill would address
[[Page S6259]]
only the status of the two properties at issue. The general dispute
concerning title to project works is left for the courts to decide.
I hope my colleagues will work with me to help resolve this issue
which is important to the citizens of my state. While much of what we
do here in the Congress is complex and time-consuming work, we should
also have the ability to move quickly when necessary and appropriate to
solve local problems caused by federal actions. I therefore urge my
colleagues to support this legislation.
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. 2696
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 ``Albuquerque Biological Park
Title Clarification Act''.
SEC 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSE.
(a) Findings.--The Congress finds that:
(1) In 1997, the City of Albuquerque, New Mexico paid
$3,875,000 to the Middle Rio Grande Conservancy District to
acquire two parcels of land known as Tingley Beach and San
Gabriel Park.
(2) The City intends to develop and improve Tingley Beach
and San Gabriel Park as part of its Albuquerque Biological
Park Project.
(3) In 2000, the City's title to Tingley Beach and San
Gabriel Park was clouded by the Bureau of Reclamation's
assertion that MRGCD had earlier transferred its assets,
including Tingley Beach and San Gabriel Park, to the United
States as part of a 1953 grant of easement associated with
the Middle Rio Grande Project.
(4) The City's ability to continue developing the
Albuquerque Biological Park Project has been hindered by the
cloud on its title.
(5) The United States' claim of ownership is disputed by
the City and MRGCD in Rio Grande Silvery Minnow v. John W.
Keys, III, No. CV 99-1320 JP/RLP-ACE (D. N.M. filed Nov. 15
1999).
(6) Tingley Beach and San Gabriel Park are surplus to the
needs of the Middle Rio Grande Project.
(b) Purpose.--The purpose of this Act is to disclaim on
behalf of the United States, any right, title, and interest
it may have in and to Tingley Beach and San Gabriel Park,
thereby removing the cloud on the City's title to these
lands.
SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.
In this Act:
(a) City.--The term ``City'' means the City of Albuquerque,
New Mexico.
(b) Middle Rio Grande Conservancy District.--The terms
``Middle Rio Grande Conservancy District'' and ``MRGCD'' mean
a political subdivision of the State of New Mexico,
created in 1925 to provide and maintain flood protection
and drainage, and maintenance of ditches, canals, and
distribution system for irrigation in the Middle Rio
Grande Valley.
(c) Middle Rio Grande Project.--The term ``Middle Rio
Grande Project'' means the federal reclamation project on the
Middle Rio Grande authorized by the Flood Control Act of 1948
(Public Law 80-858; 62 Stat. 1179) and the Flood Control Act
of 1950 (Public Law 81-516).
(d) San Gabriel Park.--The term ``San Gabriel Park'' means
the tract of land containing 40.2236 acres, more or less,
situated within Section 12, and Section 13, T10N, R2E,
N.M.P.M., City of Albuquerque, Bernalillo County, New Mexico,
and described by New Mexico State Plane Grid Bearings
(Central Zone) and ground distances in a Special Warranty
Deed conveying the property from MRGCD to the City, dated
November 25, 1997.
(e) Tingley Beach.--The term ``Tingley Beach'' means the
tract of land containing 25.2005 acres, more or less,
situated within Section 13 and Section 24, T10N, R2E,
N.M.P.M., City of Albuquerque, Bernalillo County, New Mexico,
and described by New Mexico State Plane Grid Bearings
(Central Zone) and ground distances in a Special Warranty
Deed conveying the property from MRGCD to the City, dated
November 25, 1997.
SEC. 4. DISCLAIMER OF PROPERTY INTEREST.
(a) In General.--As of the date of enactment of this Act,
the United States--
(1) disclaims any right, title, and interest it may have in
and to Tingley Beach and San Grabiel Park; and
(2) recognizes as valid the special warranty deeds dated
November 25, 1997, conveying Tingley Beach and San Gabriel
Park from MRGDC to the City.
(b) Other Federal Action.--The Secretary of the Interior
shall take any and all actions to ensure that future maps,
property descriptions, or other documents generated in
association with the Middle Rio Grande Project, are
consistent with this Act.
SEC. 5. OTHER RIGHTS, TITLE, AND INTERESTS UNAFFECTED.
(a) In General.--Except as expressly provided in section 4,
nothing in this Act shall be construed to affect any right,
or interest in and to any land associated with the Middle Rio
Grande Project.
(b) Ongoing Litigation.--Nothing contained in this Act
shall be construed to affect or otherwise interfere with any
position set forth by any party in the lawsuit pending before
the United States District Court for the District of New
Mexico, No. CV 99-1320 JP/RLP-ACE, entitled Rio Grande
Silvery Minnow v. John W. Keys, III, concerning the right,
title, or interest in and to any property associated with the
Middle Rio Grande Project.
______
By Mr. REID (for himself, Mrs. Boxer, Mrs. Clinton, Mr.
Lieberman, and Mr. Sarbanes):
S. 2697. A bill to require the Secretary of the Interior to implement
the final rule to phase out snowmobile use in Yellowstone National
Park, John D. Rockefeller, Jr. Memorial Parkway, and Grant Teton
National Park, and snowplane use in Grand Teton National Park; to the
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, in Yellowstone National Park last winter,
park rangers wore respirators. This isn't some kind of a joke, this is
the truth. In Yellowstone National Park, the park rangers wore
respirators because the air was so clouded and fogged with the
pollution from snowmobiles that they had to do that to preserve their
health.
Ealier this week, the Bush administration decided to open Yellowstone
and Grand Teton National Parks to snowmobile traffic. In doing so, they
chose to ignore an avalanche of public comments that strongly supported
the banning of snowmobiles in these two magnificent national parks.
They chose pollution over protection.
Mr. President, this isn't the first failing grade of this
administration's environmental report card. I am sorry to say it
probably won't be the last. It is, however, particularly disappointing
in light of the Yellowstone National Park's importance to the American
people.
Today, I join with Senators Boxer, Clinton, and Lieberman to
introduce the Yellowstone Protection Act to shield America's first
national park from a relapse of damaging snowmobile traffic.
Congressmen Rush Holt and Christopher Shays are introducing a similar
bill in the House of Representatives today. I salute them for their
bipartisan leadership on this most important issue.
When Congress established the National Park Service, we directed it
to ``conserve the scenery and the natural and historic objects and the
wildlife'' of our parks ``unimpaired for the enjoyment of future
generations.''
Mr. President, I have given speeches talking about Government and the
things we should be proud of. Near the top of the list every time is
our national park system. We are the envy of the world with these
magnificent parks, as well we should be. To think that people who work
in the parks must wear respirators because of the smog caused by
snowmobiles, that is hard to imagine.
In January of 2001, the National Park Service did the right thing.
Wisely, it adopted a rule to phase out snowmobile use in the park.
After carefully studying the science, examining the law, and reviewing
the comments of the American people, it determined--the Park Service
did--that the use of snowmobiles was inconsistent with the mission of
Yellowstone National Park.
Yet despite that historic decision and the overwhelming evidence that
led to it, despite the science the EPA said was among the best it had
ever seen, despite the support of over 80 percent of the people
commenting on this issue, the National Park Service, under pressure
from the administration and special interests, decided on Tuesday to
roll back this commonsense rule.
The Bush administration chose to ignore science, environmental laws,
and public opinion.
The Yellowstone Protection Act simply codifies the original National
Park Service rule that would have banned snowmobiles in the park.
Yellowstone Park is the birthplace of our park system. Congress
created the National Park Service to protect Yellowstone and other
parks.
Yellowstone Park should serve as a guiding light for our protection
of natural resources, not as a canary in a coal mine.
Today, we must act to protect Yellowstone just as our forefathers did
in 1872, when they established this magnificent national park. They
made a
[[Page S6260]]
farsighted decision to guarantee that each new generation would inherit
a healthy and vibrant Yellowstone.
This Congress must step forward to uphold what Congress began 130
years ago.
This legislation requires the management of Yellowstone and Grand
Teton National Parks to be guided by law and informed by science, not
dictated and directed by special interests.
We have suffered through the work that has been done by the Bush
administration with the environment--whether it is arsenic in the
water, whether it is stopping children from having their blood tested
for lead, whether it is making it easier for power generators to dump
millions of tons of pollutants in the air, whether it is easing up on
Superfund legislation, refusing to fund Superfund legislation--all
these things you would think would be enough. But, no, it is not
enough. Now they have to say that Smokey the Bear must wear a
respirator. I think that is too much.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the
Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 2697
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 ``Yellowstone Protection
Act''.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
Congress finds the following:
(1) The January 22, 2001, rule phasing out snowmobile use
in Yellowstone National Park, Grand Teton National Park, and
the John D. Rockefeller, Jr. Memorial Parkway was made by
professionals in the National Park Service who based their
decision on law, 10 years of scientific study, and extensive
public process.
(2) An environmental impact statement that formed the basis
for the rule concluded that snowmobile use is impairing or
adversely impacting air quality, natural soundscapes,
wildlife, public and employee health and safety, and visitor
enjoyment. According to the Environmental Protection Agency,
the environmental impact statement had ``among the most
thorough and substantial science base that we have seen
supporting a NEPA document''.
(3) The National Park Service concluded that snowmobile use
is violating the mission given to the agency by Congress--to
manage the parks ``in such manner and by such means as will
leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future
generations''. The National Park Service also found that
snowmobile use is ``inconsistent with the requirements of the
Clean Air Act, Executive Orders 11644 and 11989 [by
Presidents Nixon and Carter, relating to off-road vehicle use
on public lands], the NPS's general snowmobile regulations
and NPS management objectives for the parks''.
(4) In order to maintain winter visitor access, the Park
Service outlined a plan to use the already existing mode of
winter transportation know as snowcoaches, which are mass
transit, oversnow vehicles similar to vans. The final rule
states that a snowcoach transit system ``would reduce adverse
impacts on park resources and values, better provide for
public safety, and provide for public enjoyment of the park
in winter''.
(5) The National Park Service Air Resources Division
determined that despite being outnumbered by automobiles 16
to 1 during the course of a year, snowmobiles produce up to
68 percent of Yellowstone's carbon monoxide pollution and up
to 90 percent of the park's annual hydrocarbon emissions.
(6) Noise from snowmobiles routinely disrupts natural
sounds and natural quiet at popular Yellowstone attractions.
A February 2000 ``percent time audible'' study found
snowmobile noise present more than 90 percent of the time at
8 of 13 sites.
(7) In Yellowstone's severe winter climate, snowmobile
traffic regularly disturbs and harasses wildlife. In October
2001, 18 eminent scientists warned the Secretary of the
Interior that ``ignoring this information would not be
consistent with the original vision intended to keep our
national parks unimpaired for future generations''. National
Park Service regulations allow snowmobile use only when that
use ``will not disturb wildlife . . .'' (36 CFR 2.18(c)).
(8) At Yellowstone's west entrance, park rangers and fee
collectors suffer from symptoms of carbon monoxide poisoning
due to snowmobile exhaust. According to National Park Service
records, in December 2000, a dozen park employees filed
medical complaints citing sore throats, headaches, lethargy,
eye irritation, and tightness in the lungs. Their supervisor
requested more staff at the west entrance, not because of a
need for additional personnel to cover the work there, but so
the supervisor could begin rotating employees more frequently
out of the ``fume cloud'' for the sake of their health. In
2002, for the first time in National Park history, rangers
were issued respirators to wear while performing their
duties.
(9) The public opportunity to engage in the environmental
impact study process was extensive and comprehensive. During
the 3-year environmental impact study process and rulemaking,
there were 4 opportunities for public consideration and
comment. The Park Service held 22 public hearings in regional
communities such as West Yellowstone, Cody, Jackson, and
Idaho Falls, and across the Nation. The agency received over
70,000 individual comments. At each stage of the input
process, support for phasing out snowmobiles grew,
culminating in a 4-to-1 majority in favor of the rule in
early 2001. More recently, 82 percent of those commenting
wrote in favor of the National Park Service decision to phase
out snowmobile use in the parks.
SEC. 3. FINAL RULE CODIFIED.
Beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act, the
Secretary of the Interior shall implement the final rule to
phase out snowmobile use in Yellowstone National Park, the
John D. Rockefeller Jr. Memorial Parkway, and Grand Teton
National Park, and snowplane use in Grand Teton National
Park, as published in the Federal Register on January 22,
2001 (66 Fed. Reg. 7260-7268). The Secretary shall not have
the authority to modify or supersede any provision of that
final rule.
______
By Mr. ROCKEFELLER:
S. 2698. A bill to establish a grant program for school renovation,
and for other purposes; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor,
and Pensions.
______
By Mr. ROCKEFELLER:
S. 2699. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to expand
the incentives for the construction and renovation of public schools;
to the Committee on Finance.
Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, today I am introducing two bills
aimed at addressing our national school infrastructure crisis. Schools
across America have been allowed to fall into ill repair, and in some
school districts, there is a serious need for new school construction.
The Department of Education has found that the average age of a
public school building in this country is 42 years old, an age when
buildings tend to deteriorate. In 1995, the GAO found that the unmet
need for school construction and renovation in the United States was a
staggering $112 billion.
When our schools are in poor condition, our children suffer and our
Nation suffers. Studies have shown that children in well-kept schools
perform better than children in deteriorating buildings. Certainly our
children deserve the advantages that come with studying in a safe,
clean, modern environment. The state of our schools is unacceptable,
and it is our responsibility to do all we can to remedy this situation.
These bills are the first pieces of my education agenda for 2002. In
addition to investing in school construction, we must also invest in
school leadership. Within the next few weeks, I intend to promote
initiatives for school principals and incentives to recruit and retain
teachers. School leadership will be essential in meeting the higher
standards set by our new Leave No Child Behind Act, and principals play
a pivotal role. I will be pushing legislation to ensure that we invest
in leadership programs to help principals be bold leaders of reform.
Also, I intend to introduce tax incentives to reward highly qualified
teachers as a way to recruit and retain the best and the brightest for
our classrooms. Building leadership among principals and teachers is as
essential to quality education as modern schools.
These efforts build on my ongoing education efforts on math and
science and technology. In 1996, I was proud to sponsor the E-Rate
program with Senator Snowe to connect our classroom to the Internet
because our students must be connected to modern technology to gain the
skills needed for the 21st century. This year, I am working hard to
enact the National Math and Science Partnership Act to authorize almost
a $1 billion a year for five years for the National Science Foundation
to invest in promoting quality math and science education. The
combination of these legislative initiatives should help provide the
essential resources and leadership necessary to achieve our education
goals.
I can see the effects of deteriorating school buildings in my State
of West Virginia. There alone, the need for school construction,
renovation, and repair is rapidly approaching a staggering $2 billion
over the next 10 years, a sum West Virginia cannot meet without
assistance.
[[Page S6261]]
West Virginia has, in the past, benefitted greatly from Federal
programs designed to improve the quality of school buildings, and the
money we've received has been put to excellent use. Funding made
available by the Qualified Zone Academy Bond program, a program in
which the Federal Government authorizes the states to sell school
construction bonds and then pays the interest to the bond holders, has
provided my state with over $4 million in bond funding since 1998. This
money has been used to renovate science labs, install wireless computer
equipment, remove asbestos, and provide modular classrooms, among many
other valuable projects. Another program, a direct funding initiative
included in the FY 2001 final budget agreement, has also been a great
success in West Virginia and across the nation.
Many schools in my State are unable to take advantage of school
bondings because some local communities are so needy that they cannot
afford even the low- or no-interest loans that program makes available.
And when areas which are already disadvantaged are hit with natural
disasters, such as the heartbreaking catastrophic flooding West
Virginia has now suffered two years in a row, school districts cannot
be expected to keep up with their infrastructure needs.
The direct funding initiative in the 2001 budget made $1.2 billion in
grants available for emergency school renovation and repair and
technology improvements across America. West Virginia was fortunate to
receive nearly $8 million in funding from the program, enabling our
schools to replace roofs, fix faulty wiring and sewage systems, remove
asbestos, and make themselves better prepared for fire emergencies.
The success stories from these programs prove that we can make a real
impact in the quality of schools in our nation. I am proud to introduce
two bills today designed to build upon these past successes: the
America's Better Classroom Act and the Building Our Children's Future
Act.
The America's Better Classroom Act is designed to expand and build
upon the success of the Qualified Zone Academy Bond, or the QZAB
program. It expands this program by $2.8 billion so even more school
districts will be able to take advantage of the low-or no-interest
school construction loans that it provides. QZAB's are aimed at schools
in disadvantaged areas. To qualify, a school must be located in an
empowerment zone, enterprise community, or 35 per cent of its students
must be eligible for free or reduced lunch.
In addition to expanding the QZAB program, the America's Better
Classroom Act creates a new $22 billion bonding program designed to
help all school districts meet their renovation needs. Funding to
states will be allocated based on the Title I funding formula. In this
way, many more school districts will have the opportunity to reap the
benefits of no- or low-interest loans for school renovation and repair.
This legislation is similar to a House bill sponsored by Congresswoman
Nancy Johnson and Congressman Charlie Rangel. I look forward to working
with the House colleagues on this crucial program.
The second bill I introduce today is the Building Our Children's
Future Act, a $5 billion initiative designed to help schools that, due
to poverty, high growth, or unforseen disaster, are unable to meet
their repair and renovation needs. Many districts that are facing these
difficult challenges find themselves so strapped that they cannot even
afford to pay back the principle on an interest-free loan. These areas
need direct help, and this grant program provides it.
The Building Our Children's Future Act gives each State funding based
on Title I, with a priority to target funding to schools that have been
damaged or destroyed by a natural disaster or are located in a high
poverty or high growth areas, defined by the state. This makes certain
that states have the flexibility to put the money where it is needed
the most.
The bill also recognizes that not all renovation needs are the same.
In the 21st century, providing students and teachers with access to
technology will be a critical part of keeping schools up-to-date.
Likewise, we have made a commitment to assist states in covering the
costs of special education, a commitment that will undoubtedly require
renovation and construction to accommodate special needs. For this
reason, the Building Our Children's Future Act sets aside a portion of
its funds for states to make technology improvements and carry out
programs under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.
Finally, the Building Our Children's Future Act also makes money
available to schools with high Native American populations and schools
located in outlying areas, so that no group will be left behind as we
seek to remedy our school infrastructure crisis.
I believe that America's Better Classroom Act and the Building Our
Children's Future Act are important steps toward giving our children
the learning environments they deserve. When our schools are in
disrepair, we cannot expect our educational system to be any different.
I hope you will join me in supporting these two bills and, in doing so,
join me in supporting the futures of our children and our Nation.
____________________