[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 103 (Thursday, July 25, 2002)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7373-S7379]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
By Ms. CANTWELL (for herself, Mr. Warner, Mr. Chafee, Mr.
Cleland, Mr. Rockefeller, and Mr. Bingaman):
S. 2790. A bill to provide lasting protection for inventoried
roadless areas within the National Forest System; to the Committee on
Energy and Natural Resources.
Mr. WARNER. Madam President, I rise today to join with my colleague
from Washington, Senator Cantwell, to ensure that the remaining,
undisturbed areas within our National Forest system are permanently
preserved.
Like many of my colleagues, I have worked with the Forest Service and
participated in the public comment process on the development of the
current Roadless Area Conservation Rule. This administrative procedure
was several years in the making with extensive public outreach of
public hearings across the country. Thousands of Americans voiced
support for protecting these areas from road building and other
development.
For my part, this legislation today continues efforts I have
undertaken with my colleagues from the Southeast to protect the
existing roadless areas in the Southern Appalachia forests. In 1997 I
urged the Secretary of Agriculture to impose a moratorium on new road
construction in these inventoried roadless areas. Last year, I urged
President Bush to embrace and implement this important resource
conservation policy. I was very encouraged that the President announced
his administration's support for this rule on May 4, 2001.
Today, with this rule under legal challenge, I believe that it is
important to take another step forward with ensuring that this rule is
codified so that it has the full force of law. While some may advocate
changes to the current rule to gain advantages for greater use or
greater restrictions on these inventoried roadless areas, I want to
assure my colleagues that our legislation today mirrors the current
rule. With the extensive efforts of the Forest Service to analyze the
impact of the rule and the large number of public comments in support,
we must stay true to this effort.
The devastating fires on Forest Service lands in the West this summer
have renewed our commitment to programs to reduce the fuel load on
forest lands. I support Sen. Domenici's initiatives to redirect Forest
Service funding of fuel reduction projects in areas adjoining
residential areas, and remain committed to giving the Forest Service
all of the tools it needs to reduce the loss of life and property from
fires.
An important reason for my support today is because I am convinced
that the Roadless Rule does not prevent the Forest Service from
undertaking any fire prevention activities in roadless areas. Nor, when
a fire exists, does the rule prevent the Forest Service from taking any
appropriate action, including building roads in roadless areas, to
create fire breaks or other means to control a wildfire.
But, Mr. President, there must be no doubt on this important issue.
For that reason, we have provided further clarification that the Forest
Service has every authority to prevent fires or to respond to fires,
and to use appropriated funds to undertake fire suppression activities
in roadless areas.
This rule is a balanced approach to forest service management because
it provides for reasonable exceptions for activities in roadless areas.
I remain committed to the multiple-use management of our national
forests. Timber and mineral resources on these public lands are assets
that should be appropriately utilized and available for all Americans.
My view of multiple-use management also recognizes and advances the
recreational and environmental assets of these roadless areas.
The remaining roadless areas in our national forests are important
for providing outstanding recreational opportunities for the public.
These lands also provide wildlife habitat and protect the water quality
of many watersheds that serve as downstream drinking water sources for
our communities.
The Roadless Area Conservation rule is also sound fiscal policy for
our national forests. The Forest Service has documented an $8.4 billion
backlog in maintaining existing roads within our national forests.
Continuing to build new roads in these fragile areas will only further
strain the scarce dollars within the Forest Service.
As I have indicated, the legislation we are introducing today does
not change the substance or spirit of the Roadless rule in any way. To
be clear, this legislation preserves the exemptions in the rule to
allow for road construction where needed to protect these lands from
floods, fires, and pest infestation. It ensures public access to
private lands, and recognizes the existing rights to ongoing oil and
gas leases.
For Virginia, this legislation ensures that 394,000 acres of
inventoried roadless areas in the George Washington and Jefferson
National Forests are permanently protected. During the public comment
period on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement, the Forest Service
received 68,586 comments from residents of Virginia. The Forest Service
advises me that of this amount more than 98 percent of the comments
supported full protection of these roadless areas.
I am pleased to support this legislation that is important to all
regions of the country. The public has voiced its overwhelming support
for this important conservation initiative, and I trust that my
colleagues will respond by passing this bill this year.
______
By Mr. LEVIN:
S. 2792. A bill to amend the Solid Waste Disposal Act to authorize
the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency to carry out
certain authorities relating to the importation of municipal solid
waste under the Agreement Concerning the Transboundary Movement of
Hazardous Waste between the United
[[Page S7374]]
States and Canada; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, I am introducing legislation today with
Congressman Dingell that will give a voice to the people of Michigan
with regard to the importation of Canadian municipal waste.
Over the past two years, imports from Canada have risen 152 percent
and now constitute about half of the imported waste received at
Michigan landfills. Currently, approximately 110-130 truckloads of
waste come in to Michigan each day from Canada. And this problem isn't
going to get any better. These shipments of waste are expected to
continue as Toronto and other Ontario sources phase out local disposal
sites. On December 4, 2001, the Toronto City Council voted 38-2 to
approve a new solid waste disposal contract that would ship an
additional 700,000 tons of waste per year to the Carleton Farms
landfill in Wayne County, MI, in the near future. In addition, two
other Ontario communities that generate hundreds of thousands of tons
of waste annually have signed contracts to ship their waste to Carleton
Farms.
Based on current usage statistics, the Michigan Department of
Environmental Quality estimates that Michigan has capacity for 15-17
years of disposal in landfills. However, with the proposed dramatic
increase in the importation of waste, this capacity is less than 10
years. The Michigan Department of Environmental Quality estimates that,
for every five years of disposal of Canadian waste at the current usage
volume, Michigan is losing a full year of landfill capacity.
We have protections contained in an international agreement with
Canada. In 1986, the U.S. and Canada entered into an agreement allowing
the shipment of hazardous waste across the U.S./Canadian border for
treatment, storage or disposal. In 1992, the two countries decided to
add municipal solid waste to the agreement. However, although the
Agreement requires notification to the importing country and also
allows the importing country to reject shipments, its provisions have
not been enforced.
Further, the EPA has said that it would not object to municipal waste
shipments. We believe that in order to protect the health and welfare
of the citizens of Michigan and their environment, the impact of the
importation on State and local recycling efforts, landfill capacity,
air emissions and road deterioration resulting from increased vehicular
traffic and public health and the environment should all be considered.
The shipments should be rejected by the EPA.
Canada could not export waste to Michigan without the Agreement, but
the U.S. refuses to implement the provisions that would protect the
people of Michigan. We believe that the EPA has the authority to
enforce this Agreement, but this legislation would put additional
pressure on the EPA to enforce it.
______
By Mr. KERRY:
S. 2795. A bill to amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to
provide for payment under the prospective payment system for hospital
outpatient department services under the medicare program for new drugs
administered in such departments as soon as the drugs administered in
such departments as soon as the drug is approved for marketing by the
Commissioner of Food and Drugs; to the Committee on Finance.
Mr. KERRY. Madam President, I am pleased to introduce legislation
today that will fix a flaw in Medicare's claims processing system that
currently denies thousands of cancer patients timely access to
lifesaving treatments. This legislation will ensure that administrative
delays do not force Americans with cancer to wait to be treated with
existing innovative drug therapies that stand to improve and prolong
their lives.
The Food and Drug Administration, FDA, recently granted fast track
authority to a new class of cancer therapies. These therapies, which
combine immunotherapy and radiological treatments, offer promise and
hope for many cancer patients. Under current Medicare policy, however,
reimbursement for FDA-approved drugs in an outpatient setting does not
begin until Medicare issues a billing code for the drug. Consequently,
there is often a delay of several months between FDA approval of and
patient access to a drug.
Prior to the designation of a Medicare billing code, doctors will not
prescribe innovative treatments for patients in an outpatient setting
for fear of their being denied reimbursement by Medicare. However,
within the inpatient setting, Medicare will reimburse hospitals
immediately after FDA approval. Given this discrepancy in current
policy, I am introducing legislation that will allow doctors to submit
claims retroactively and require Medicare to pay for innovative drugs
administered in hospital outpatient settings immediately after FDA
approval.
Cancer patients cannot afford to wait for drugs that have the
potential to improve their health and even save their lives. For
Americans battling cancer, time is of the essence. This legislation
will provide cancer patients with both the hope and the opportunity to
live longer and healthier lives. I urge my colleagues to join me in
support of this legislation.
______
By Mr. LUGAR (for himself, Mr. Breaux, Mr. Chafee, Mr. Grassley,
Mr. Nickles, Mr. Graham, Mr. Hagel, Mr. Specter, Mr. Hatch, and
Mr. Cochran):
S. 2796. A bill to authorize the negotiation of a free trade
agreement with Uruguay; to the Committee on Finance.
Mr. LUGAR. Madam President, I rise today to introduce legislation
authorizing President Bush and his Administration to negotiate a free
trade agreement with Uruguay. I am pleased to be joined by the
following co-sponsors: Senators Breaux, Chafee, Grassley, Nickles,
Graham, Hagel, Specter, Hatch, and Cochran.
President Bush has instructed U.S. Trade Representative, Robert
Zoellick, to pursue a Free Trade Area of the Americas. I support this
effort and this bill is not intended to compete with or replace that
important undertaking. Instead, this legislation seeks to highlight the
important relationship the U.S. enjoys with Uruguay and promote the
need for extending free-trade to South America.
Uruguayan economic reforms focused on the attraction of foreign trade
and capital have proven successful. The economy of Uruguay grew
steadily until low commodity prices and economic difficulties in export
markets caused a recession in 1999. President Jorge Batlle has stated
his intention to continue the promotion of economic growth,
international trade, lower tariffs, and attracting foreign investment.
More than one hundred U.S.-owned companies operate in Uruguay, and many
more market U.S. goods and services.
Uruguay is a member of the World Trade Organization and a dynamic
member of the Southern Cone Common Market, MERCOSUR, with Argentina,
Brazil, and Paraguay. Furthermore, it is an active participant and
proponent of the Free Trade Area of the Americas process and is
coordinator of the e-commerce group and sub-coordinator of the
agricultural subsidies group.
If the United States hopes to sustain its economic strength in the
21st Century, we must participate in an expanding global economy. We
must aggressively pursue opportunities in new and emerging markets. We
must maintain our technological and competitive advantage and sell our
products, services and agricultural commodities in these areas.
American agriculture, telecommunications, computer services, and other
sectors will benefit from the opportunity to compete in Uruguay under a
free trade agreement.
As South America continues to recover from the Argentinian economic
crisis we must look for opportunities to engage the region in free
trade. A free trade agreement with Uruguay would provide American
business with unfettered access to another lucrative market and
Uruguayan business will have better access to American markets to
successfully weather the region's economic fallout. A U.S.-Uruguayan
free trade agreement is a win-win for the United States and Uruguay.
I am hopeful the Senate will approve this important legislation in
the near future.
______
By Mr. McCAIN:
S. 2799. A bill to provide for the use of and distribution of certain
funds
[[Page S7375]]
awarded to the Gila River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on Indian Affairs.
Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I rise to introduce legislation to
authorize the distribution of judgement funds to eligible tribal
members of the Gila River Indian Community in Arizona. Representative
Hayworth recently introduced companion legislation in the House of
Representatives.
The Gila River Indian Community Judgement Fund Distribution Act
resolves two half-century old claims by the Gila River tribe against
the United States for failure to meet Federal obligations to protect
the Community's use of water from the Gila River and Salt River in
Arizona. The original complaint was filed before the Indian Claims
Commission on August 8, 1951. In 1982, the United States Court of
Claims confirmed liability of the United States to the Community, and
recently the settlement of these two claims was determined to be seven
million dollars.
So much time has passed that the Indian Claims Commission formerly in
charge of fund distributions no longer exists. However, a debt does not
disappear. The judgement award has since been transferred from the
Indian Claims Commission to a trust account on behalf of the Community,
managed by the Office of Trust Management at the Department of
Interior.
This judgement award was certified by the Treasury Department on
October 6, 1999 for the final portion of the litigation to the two
remaining dockets of the Gila River Indian Community. Since that time,
the Community has been working with the BIA in an attempt to finalize a
use and distribution plan to submit to Congress for approval. As
outlined in its plan, the Community has decided to distribute the
judgement award equally to eligible tribal members.
I ask unanimous consent to print the tribal resolution approved by
the Gila River Indian Community in support of this payment plan in the
Record.
There being no objection, the resolution was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Gila River Indian Community, Sacaton, AZ
Resolution GR-30-01--a resolution to approve a payment plan for the
distribution of funds awarded under dockets 236-C and 236-D
Whereas, the Gila River Indian Community (the
``Community'') and the United States have been involved in
litigation regarding Docket 236 since August 8, 1951 and two
of the original fourteen dockets, Docket 236-C and Docket
236-D, remain to be resolved as to distribution;
Whereas, Docket 236-C sought monetary compensation from the
United States for its failure to engage in fair and honorable
dealings through failure to carry out its obligation to
protect the Community's use of water from the Gila River;
Whereas, Docket 236-D sought monetary compensation from the
United States for its failure to engage in fair and honorable
dealings through failure to carry out its obligations to
protect the Community's use of water from the Salt River;
Whereas, in Gila River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community v.
U.S. 29 Ind. C1.Comm. 144. (1972), the Indian Claims
Commission held that the United States, as trustee, was
liable towards its beneficiary, the Community, as to the
Docket 236-C claims:
Whereas, in Gila River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community v.
U.S., 684 F.2d 852 (1982), the United States Court of Claims
held that the United States, as trustee, was liable toward
its beneficiary, the Community, as to the Docket 236-D
claims;
Whereas, with approval by the Community under Resolution
GR-98-98, the Community entered into a settlement of Docket
236-C and Docket 236-D with the United States on April 27,
1999 regarding the amount of liability for the sum of Seven
Million Dollars ($7,000,000.00);
Whereas, on May 5, 1999, the United States certified the
judgment for the Community, which allowed payment to be made
into the trust account on behalf of the Gila River Indian
Community and which such payment was made into the trust
account managed by the Office of Trust Funds Management in
Albuquerque, New Mexico and is accruing interest;
Whereas, the Indian Judgment Funds Act of October 19, 1973,
87 Stat. 466, as amended and implemented by 25 CFR Part 87,
requires the Secretary of the Interior to submit a plan of
distribution for docket funds to the United States Congress;
and
Whereas, the Community had developed the attached plan of
distribution, entitled ``Plan for the Use of the Gila River
Indian Community Indian Judgment Funds in Docket 236-C and
Docket 236-D before the United States Court of Federal
Claims'' (the ``Plan of Distribution''), to be submitted to
the Secretary of the Interior for consideration and approval.
Now, therefore be it
Resolved, That the Gila River Indian Community Council
adopts and approves the attached Plan of Distribution, be it
further
Resolved, That the Governor, or in the Governor's absence
the Lieutenant Governor, is authorized and directed to submit
the attached Plan of Distribution to the Secretary of the
Interior for approval, be it finally
Resolved, That the Governor, or in the Governor's absence
the Lieutenant Governor, is authorized and directed to
execute and sign necessary documents to fulfill the intent of
this Resolution.
The purpose of this legislation is to comply with Federal regulations
which requires congressional approval for distribution of judgment
funds to tribal members. The terms of the legislation reflect an
agreement by all parties for a distribution plan for final approval by
the Congress. As part of this legislation, the BIA is also seeking to
resolve remaining expert assistance loans by the Gila River Indian
Community, the Oglala Sioux Tribe, and the Seminole Tribe of Florida,
as originally authorized by the Indian Claims Commission.
Members of the Gila River Indian Community have waited half a century
for final resolution of all their legal claims regarding this matter.
After considerable delay, it is only fair to resolve this matter and
provide compensation as soon as possible. With the short time remaining
in this session, I hope that the Senate will act quickly to move this
legislation through the process.
I ask unanimous consent to print the text of the bill and a section-
by-section summary in the Record.
There being no objection, the additional material was ordered to be
printed in the Record, as follows:
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.
(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Gila River
Indian Community Judgment Fund Distribution Act of 2002''.
(b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents of this Act
is as follows:
Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
Sec. 2. Findings.
Sec. 3. Definitions.
TITLE I--GILA RIVER JUDGMENT FUND DISTRIBUTION
Sec. 101. Distribution of judgment funds.
Sec. 102. Responsibility of Secretary; applicable law.
TITLE II--CONDITIONS RELATING TO COMMUNITY JUDGMENT FUND PLANS
Sec. 201. Plan for use and distribution of judgment funds awarded in
Docket No. 228.
Sec. 202. Plan for use and distribution of judgment funds awarded in
Docket No. 236-N.
TITLE III--EXPERT ASSISTANCE LOANS
Sec. 301. Waiver of repayment of expert assistance loans to certain
Indian tribes.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
Congress finds that--
(1) on August 8, 1951, the Gila River Indian Community
filed a complaint before the Indian Claims Commission in Gila
River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community v. United States, Docket
No. 236, for the failure of the United States to carry out
its obligation to protect the use by the Community of water
from the Gila River and the Salt River in the State of
Arizona;
(2) except for Docket Nos. 236-C and 236-D, which remain
undistributed, all 14 original dockets under Docket No. 236
have been resolved and distributed;
(3) in Gila River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community v. United
States, 29 Ind. Cl. Comm. 144 (1972), the Indian Claims
Commission held that the United States, as trustee, was
liable to the Community with respect to the claims made in
Docket No. 236-C;
(4) in Gila River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community v. United
States, 684 F.2d 852 (1982), the United States Claims Court
held that the United States, as trustee, was liable to the
Community with respect to the claims made in Docket No. 236-
D;
(5) with the approval of the Community under Community
Resolution GR-98-98, the Community entered into a settlement
with the United States on April 27, 1999, for claims made
under Dockets Nos. 236-C and 236-D for an aggregate total of
$7,000,000;
(6) on May 3, 1999, the United States Court of Federal
Claims ordered that a final judgment be entered in
consolidated Dockets Nos. 236-C and 236-D for $7,000,000 in
favor of the Community and against the United States;
(7)(A) on October 6, 1999, the Department of the Treasury
certified the payment of $7,000,000, less attorney fees, to
be deposited in a trust account on behalf of the Community;
and
(B) that payment was deposited in a trust account managed
by the Office of Trust Funds Management of the Department of
the Interior; and
(8) in accordance with the Indian Tribal Judgment Funds Use
or Distribution Act (25
[[Page S7376]]
U.S.C. 1401 et seq.), the Secretary is required to submit an
Indian judgment fund use or distribution plan to Congress for
approval.
SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.
In this Act:
(1) Adult.--The term ``adult'' means an individual who--
(A) is 18 years of age or older as of the date on which the
payment roll is approved by the Community; or
(B) will reach 18 years of age not later than 30 days after
the date on which the payment roll is approved by the
Community.
(2) Community.--The term ``Community'' means the Gila River
Indian Community.
(3) Community-owned funds.--The term ``Community-owned
funds'' means--
(A) funds held in trust by the Secretary as of the date of
enactment of this Act that may be made available to make
payments under section 101; or
(B) revenues held by the Community that are derived from
Community-owned enterprises.
(4) IIM account.--The term ``IIM account'' means an
individual Indian money account.
(5) Judgment funds.--The term ``judgment funds'' means the
aggregate amount awarded to the Community by the Court of
Federal Claims in Dockets Nos. 236-C and 236-D.
(6) Legally incompetent individual.--The term ``legally
incompetent individual'' means an individual who has been
determined to be incapable of managing his or her own affairs
by a court of competent jurisdiction.
(7) Minor.--The term ``minor'' means an individual who is
not an adult.
(8) Payment roll.--The term ``payment roll'' means the list
of eligible, enrolled members of the Community who are
eligible to receive a payment under section 101(a), as
prepared by the Community under section 101(b).
(9) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of the Interior.
TITLE I--GILA RIVER JUDGMENT FUND DISTRIBUTION
SEC. 101. DISTRIBUTION OF JUDGMENT FUNDS.
(a) Per Capita Payments.--Notwithstanding the Indian Tribal
Judgment Funds Use or Distribution Act (25 U.S.C. 1401 et
seq.) or any other provision of law (including any regulation
promulgated or plan developed under such a law), the amounts
paid in satisfaction of an award granted to the Gila River
Indian Community in Dockets Nos. 236-C and 236-D before the
United States Court of Federal Claims, less attorney fees and
litigation expenses and including all accrued interest, shall
be distributed in the form of per capita payments (in amounts
as equal as practicable) to all eligible enrolled members of
the Community.
(b) Preparation of Payment Roll.--
(1) In general.--The Community shall prepare a payment roll
of eligible, enrolled members of the Community that are
eligible to receive payments under this section in accordance
with the criteria described in paragraph (2).
(2) Criteria.--
(A) Individuals eligible to receive payments.--Subject to
subparagraph (B), the following individuals shall be eligible
to be listed on the payment roll and eligible to receive a
per capita payment under subsection (a):
(i) All enrolled Community members who are eligible to be
listed on the per capita payment roll that was approved by
the Secretary for the distribution of the funds awarded to
the Community in Docket No. 236-N (including any individual
who was inadvertently omitted from that roll).
(ii) All enrolled Community members who are living on the
date of enactment of this Act.
(iii) All enrolled Community members who died--
(I) after the effective date of the payment plan for Docket
No. 236-N; but
(II) on or before the date of enactment of this Act.
(B) Individuals ineligible to receive payments.--The
following individuals shall be ineligible to be listed on the
payment roll and ineligible to receive a per capita payment
under subsection (a):
(i) Any individual who, before the date on which the
Community approves the payment roll, relinquished membership
in the Community.
(ii) Any minor who relinquishes membership in the
Community, or whose parent or legal guardian relinquishes
membership on behalf of the minor, before the date on which
the minor reaches 18 years of age.
(iii) Any individual who is disenrolled by the Community
for just cause (such as dual enrollment or failure to meet
the eligibility requirements for enrollment).
(iv) Any individual who is determined or certified by the
Secretary to be eligible to receive a per capita payment of
funds relating to a judgment--
(I) awarded to another community, Indian tribe, or tribal
entity; and
(II) appropriated on or before the date of enactment of
this Act.
(v) Any individual who is not enrolled as a member of the
Community on or before the date that is 90 days after the
date of enactment of this Act.
(c) Notice to Secretary.--On approval by the Community of
the payment roll, the Community shall submit to the Secretary
a notice that indicates the total number of individuals
eligible to share in the per capita distribution under
subsection (a), as expressed in subdivisions that reflect--
(1) the number of shares that are attributable to eligible
living adult Community members; and
(2) the number of shares that are attributable to deceased
individuals, legally incompetent individuals, and minors.
(d) Information Provided to Secretary.--The Community shall
provide to the Secretary enrollment information necessary to
allow the Secretary to establish--
(1) estate accounts for deceased individuals described in
subsection (c)(2); and
(2) IIM accounts for legally incompetent individuals and
minors described in subsection (c)(2).
(e) Disbursement of Funds.--
(1) In general.--Not later than 30 days after the date on
which the payment roll is approved by the Community and the
Community has reconciled the number of shares that belong in
each payment subdivision described in subsection (c), the
Secretary shall disburse to the Community the funds necessary
to make the per capita distribution under subsection (a) to
eligible living adult members of the Community described in
subsection (c)(1).
(2) Administration and distribution.--On disbursement of
the funds under paragraph (1), the Community shall bear sole
responsibility for administration and distribution of the
funds.
(f) Shares of Deceased Individuals.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary, in accordance with
regulations promulgated by the Secretary and in effect as of
the date of enactment of this Act, shall distribute to the
appropriate heirs and legatees of deceased individuals
described in subsection (c)(2) the per capita shares of those
deceased individuals.
(2) Absence of heirs and legatees.--If the Secretary and
the Community make a final determination that a deceased
individual described in subsection (c)(2) has no heirs or
legatees, the per capita share of the deceased individual and
the interest earned on that share shall--
(A) revert to the Community; and
(B) be deposited into the general fund of the Community.
(g) Shares of Legally Incompetent Individuals.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary shall deposit the shares of
legally incompetent individuals described in subsection
(c)(2) in supervised IIM accounts.
(2) Administration.--The IIM accounts described in
paragraph (1) shall be administered in accordance with
regulations and procedures established by the Secretary and
in effect as of the date of enactment of this Act.
(h) Shares of Minors.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary shall deposit the shares of
minors described in subsection (c)(2) in supervised IIM
accounts.
(2) Administration.--
(A) In general.--The Secretary shall hold the per capita
share of a minor described in subsection (c)(2) in trust
until such date as the minor reaches 18 years of age.
(B) Nonapplicable law.--Section 3(b)(3) of the Indian
Tribal Judgment Funds Use or Distribution Act (25 U.S.C.
1403(b)(3)) shall not apply to any per capita share of a
minor that is held by the Secretary under this Act.
(C) Disbursement.--No judgment funds, nor any interest
earned on judgment funds, shall be disbursed from the account
of a minor described in subsection (c)(2) until such date as
the minor reaches 18 years of age.
(i) Payment of Eligible Individuals Not Listed on Payment
Roll.--
(1) In general.--An individual who is not listed on the
payment roll, but is eligible to receive a payment under this
Act, as determined by the Community, may be paid from any
remaining judgment funds after the date on which--
(A) the Community makes the per capita distribution under
subsection (a); and
(B) all appropriate IIM accounts are established under
subsections (g) and (h).
(2) Insufficient funds.--If insufficient judgment funds
remain to cover the cost of a payment described in paragraph
(1), the Community may use Community-owned funds to make the
payment.
(3) Minors, legally incompetent individuals, and deceased
individuals.--In a case in which a payment described in
paragraph (2) is to be made to a minor, a legally incompetent
individual, or a deceased individual, the Secretary--
(A) is authorized to accept and deposit funds from the
payment in an IIM account or estate account established for
the minor, legally incompetent individual, or deceased
individual; and
(B) shall invest those funds in accordance with applicable
law.
(j) Use of Residual Funds.--On request by the Community,
any judgment funds remaining after the date on which the
Community completes the per capita distribution under
subsection (a) and makes any appropriate payments under
subsection (i) shall be disbursed to, and deposited in the
general fund of, the Community.
(k) Nonapplicability of Certain Law.--Notwithstanding any
other provision of law, the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25
U.S.C. 2701 et seq.) shall not apply to Community-owned funds
used by the Community to make payments under subsection (i).
SEC. 102. RESPONSIBILITY OF SECRETARY; APPLICABLE LAW.
(a) Responsibility for Funds--After the date on which funds
are disbursed to the Community under section 101(e)(1), the
United States and the Secretary shall have
[[Page S7377]]
no trust responsibility for the investment, supervision,
administration, or expenditure of the funds disbursed.
(b) Deceased and Legally Incompetent Individuals.--Funds
subject to subsections (f) and (g) of section 101 shall
continue to be held in trust by the Secretary until the date
on which those funds are disbursed under this Act.
(c) Applicability of Other Law.--Except as otherwise
provided in this Act, all funds distributed under this Act
shall be subject to sections 7 and 8 of the Indian Tribal
Judgment Funds Use or Distribution Act (25 U.S.C. 1407,
1408).
TITLE II--CONDITIONS RELATING TO COMMUNITY JUDGMENT FUND PLANS
SEC. 201. PLAN FOR USE AND DISTRIBUTION OF JUDGMENT FUNDS
AWARDED IN DOCKET NO. 228.
(a) Definition of Plan.--In this section, the term ``plan''
means the plan for the use and distribution of judgment funds
awarded to the Community in Docket No. 228 of the United
States Claims Court (52 Fed. Reg. 6887 (March 5, 1987)), as
modified in accordance with Public Law 99-493 (100 Stat.
1241).
(b) Conditions.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
law, the Community shall modify the plan to include the
following conditions with respect to funds distributed under
the plan:
(1) Applicability of Other Law Relating to Minors.--Section
3(b)(3) of the Indian Tribal Judgment Funds Use or
Distribution Act (25 U.S.C. 1403(b)(3)) shall not apply to
any per capita share of a minor that is held, as of the date
of enactment of this Act, by the Secretary.
(2) Share of minors in trust.--The Secretary shall hold a
per capita share of a minor described in paragraph (1) in
trust until such date as the minor reaches 18 years of age.
(3) Disbursal of funds for minors.--No judgment funds, nor
any interest earned on judgment funds, shall be disbursed
from the account of a minor described in paragraph (1) until
such date as the minor reaches 18 years of age.
(4) Use of remaining judgment funds.--On request by the
governing body of the Community, as manifested by the
appropriate tribal council resolution, any judgment funds
remaining after the date of completion of the per capita
distribution under section 101(a) shall be disbursed to, and
deposited in the general fund of, the Community.
SEC. 202. PLAN FOR USE AND DISTRIBUTION OF JUDGMENT FUNDS
AWARDED IN DOCKET NO. 236-N.
(a) Definition of Plan.--In this section, the term ``plan''
means the plan for the use and distribution of judgment funds
awarded to the Community in Docket No. 236-N of the United
States Court of Federal Claims (59 Fed. Reg. 31092 (June 16,
1994)).
(b) Conditions.--
(1) Per capita aspect.--Notwithstanding any other provision
of law, the Community shall modify the last sentence of the
paragraph under the heading ``Per Capita Aspect'' in the plan
to read as follows: ``Upon request from the Community, any
residual principal and interest funds remaining after the
Community has declared the per capita distribution complete
shall be disbursed to, and deposited in the general fund of,
the Community.''.
(2) General provisions.--Notwithstanding any other
provision of law, the Community shall--
(A) modify the third sentence of the first paragraph under
the heading ``General Provisions'' of the plan to strike the
word ``minors''; and
(B) insert between the first and second paragraphs under
that heading the following:
``Section 3(b)(3) of the Indian Tribal Judgment Funds Use or
Distribution Act (25 U.S.C. 1403(b)(3)) shall not apply to
any per capita share of a minor that is held, as of the date
of enactment of the Gila River Indian Community Judgment Fund
Distribution Act of 2002, by the Secretary. The Secretary
shall hold a per capita share of a minor in trust until such
date as the minor reaches 18 years of age. No judgment funds,
or any interest earned on judgment funds, shall be disbursed
from the account of a minor until such date as the minor
reaches 18 years of age.''.
TITLE III--EXPERT ASSISTANCE LOANS
SEC. 301. WAIVER OF REPAYMENT OF EXPERT ASSISTANCE LOANS TO
CERTAIN INDIAN TRIBES.
(a) Gila River Indian Community.--Notwithstanding any other
provision of law--
(1) the balance of all outstanding expert assistance loans
made to the Community under Public Law 88-168 (77 Stat. 301)
and relating to Gila River Indian Community v. United States
(United States Court of Federal Claims Docket Nos. 228 and
236 and associated subdockets) are canceled; and
(2) the Secretary shall take such action as is necessary--
(A) to document the cancellation of loans under paragraph
(1); and
(B) to release the Community from any liability associated
with those loans.
(b) Oglala Sioux Tribe.--Notwithstanding any other
provision of law--
(1) the balances of all outstanding expert assistance loans
made to the Oglala Sioux Tribe under Public Law 88-168 (77
Stat. 301) and relating to Oglala Sioux Tribe v. United
States (United States Court of Federal Claims Docket No. 117
and associated subdockets) are canceled; and
(2) the Secretary shall take such action as is necessary--
(A) to document the cancellation of loans under paragraph
(1); and
(B) to release the Oglala Sioux Tribe from any liability
associated with those loans.
(c) Seminole Nation of Oklahoma.--Notwithstanding any other
provision of law--
(1) the balances of all outstanding expert assistance loans
made to the Seminole Nation of Oklahoma under Public Law 88-
168 (77 Stat. 301) and relating to Seminole Nation v. United
States (United States Court of Federal Claims Docket No. 247)
are canceled; and
(2) the Secretary shall take such action as is necessary--
(A) to document the cancellation of loans under paragraph
(1); and
(B) to release the Seminole Nation of Oklahoma from any
liability associated with those loans.
____
Section-By-Section Analysis--Gila River Indian Community-Judgement Fund
Use and Distribution Legislation
Section 1: Short Title and Table of Contents
Short Title: Gila River Indian Community Judgement Fund
Distribution Act of 2002; and Table of Contents.
Section 2: Findings
Provides factual background regarding the litigation that
led to the seven million settlement awarded to Gila River
Indian Community for the United States' failure to protect
the Community's use of water from the Gila River and Salt
River under Dockets 236-C and 236-D of Gila River Pima-
Maricopa Indian Community v. United States, filed on August
8, 1951 before the Indian Claims Commission.
Section 3: Definitions
Provides definitions as utilized in the legislation.
Title I: Gila River Judgement Fund Distribution
Section 101: Distribution of Judgement Funds.
(a) Per Capita Payments. Authorizes distribution of
judgement fund amount, less attorneys fees and litigation
expenses, including all accrued interest, to all eligible
enrolled members of the Community on a per capita basis.
(b) Preparation of Payment Roll. Requires the Community to
prepare the payment roll of eligible enrolled members
according to specific criteria, and includes description of
individuals who shall be deemed ineligible to receive per
capita payment.
(c) Notice to Secretary. Requires the Community to notify
the Secretary of Interior of the total number of individuals
eligible to share in the per capita distribution after the
Community's preparation of the payment roll.
(d) Information Provided to Secretary. Requires the
Community to provide the Secretary of Interior with
information necessary to allow the Secretary to establish
estate accounts for deceased individuals and Individual
Indian Money accounts for legally incompetent individuals and
minors.
(e) Disbursement of Funds. Requires the Secretary to
disburse to the Community the funds necessary to make the per
capita payment, not later than 30 days after the payment roll
has been approved by the Community and the Community has
reconciled the number of shares that belong in each payment
category. Provides that once the funds are disbursed to the
Community, the Community shall be responsible for
administering and distributing the funds.
(f) Shares of Deceased Individuals. Requires the Secretary
of Interior to distribute per capita shares of deceased
individuals to their heirs and legatees in accordance with
existing regulations. Where there are no heirs, provides that
funds revert to the Community and shall be deposited in the
Community's general fund.
(g) Shares of Legally Incompetent Individuals. Requires the
Secretary of Interior to deposit shares of legally
incompetent individuals into supervised Individual Indian
Money accounts to be administered pursuant to existing
regulations.
(h) Shares of Minors. Requires the Secretary of Interior to
deposit shares of minors into supervised Individual Indian
Management accounts and requires the Secretary to hold the
funds in trust until the minor is 18 years of age. Provides
that section 3(b)(3) of the Indian Tribal Judgement Funds Act
does not apply, the effect of which is to prevent parents and
guardians of minors from being able to receive shares on
behalf of minors before they turn 18.
(i) Payment of Eligible Individuals Not Listed on Payment
Roll. Provides that individuals not listed on payment roll,
but eligible for payment, can be paid from any residual
principal or interest fund remaining after the Community has
made its per capita distribution and the Individual Indian
Money accounts have been established. Authorizes the
Community to pay these individuals from Community-owned funds
if the residual funds are insufficient. Authorizes the
Secretary to accept and deposit Community-owned funds into an
Individual Indian Money or estate account established for a
minor, legal incompetent or deceased beneficiary who is
eligible to receive payment, but who was not paid from the
judgment fund. Provides that the Secretary shall invest such
funds pursuant to existing regulation.
(j) Use of Residual Funds. Provides that if the Community
requests it, residual principal and interest funds remaining
after the
[[Page S7378]]
Community's per capita distribution is complete shall be
disbursed to the Community and deposited into the Community's
general fund.
(k) Non-applicability of Certain Law. Provides that the
Indian Gaming Regulatory Act shall not apply to Community-
owned funds used by the Community to cover shortfalls in
funding necessary to make payments to individuals not listed
on the payment roll, but determined to be eligible. Added to
ensure that the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act's prohibition on
distribution of gaming funds as per capita payments would not
prevent Community-owned funds, including revenues from
gaming, from being used to cover shortfalls.
Section 102: Responsibility of Secretary; Applicable Law.
(a) Responsibility For Funds. Provides that after
disbursement of funds to Community, the Secretary of Interior
shall no longer have trust responsibility for the judgment
funds.
(b) Deceased and Legally Incompetent Individuals. Provides
that Secretary shall continue to have trust responsibility
over funds retained in accounts for deceased beneficiaries
and legally incompetent individuals.
(c) Applicability of other Law. Provides that pursuant to
sections 7 and 8 of the Indian Tribal Judgment Funds Use or
Distribution Act, per capita payments are not taxable to
individuals under state or federal law as income.
Title II--Conditions Relating to Community Judgement Fund Plans
Section 201
Provides definition and conditions of the plan for use and
distribution of judgement funds awarded in Docket No. 228.
Adds paragraph providing that Indian Tribal Judgement Funds
Use and Distribution shall not apply to minors' per capita
shares held by the Secretary under the plan (effect is to
prevent shares from being distributed to parents and
guardians of minors prior to age 18) and that Secretary shall
hold the minors' per capita shares in trust until they reach
age 18. Also adds paragraph stating that upon Community's
request, any residual principal and interest funds remaining
after the Community has declared the per capita payment
complete shall be distributed to the Community and deposited
into the Community's general fund.
Section 202
Provides definition and conditions of the plan for use and
distribution of judgement funds awarded in Docket No. 236-N.
Amends the plan to authorize disbursement of residual
principal and interest funds to the Community. Provides that
provision of Indian Tribal Judgment Funds Act permitting
payment to parents and legal guardians of minors is not
applicable, and requires Secretary to hold minors' shares in
trust until they turn 18.
Title III--Expert Assistance Loans
Section 301
Waiver of repayment of expert assistance loans to certain
Indian tribes. Waives repayment of expert assistance loans
made by the Department of Interior to Gila River Indian
Community, Oglala Sioux Tribe, Pueblo of Santo Domingo, and
Seminole Nation of Oklahoma.
______
By Mr. BAUCUS (for himself, Mr. Burns, Mr. Daschle, and Mr.
Johnson):
S. 2800. A bill to provide emergency disaster assistance to
agricultural producers; to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and
Forestry.
Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, on March 28, 2002, Secretary Veneman
declared Montana a drought disaster. This drought designation came two
months earlier than in 2001, and eight months earlier than in 2000.
The unrelenting drought Montana is suffering has brought economic
hardship to our agriculture producers and rural communities. In 1996,
the year before the drought, Montana received $847 million in cash
receipts from wheat sales. In 2001, four years into the drought,
Montana received $317 million in cash receipts, a 62 percent decline.
Agriculture is more than 50 percent of my State's economy, and is
truly the backbone of my State. The drought not only affects our
farmers and ranchers. It is felt throughout our rural communities.
Small businesses are being forced to close their doors. Families are
moving away to find work. It would be virtually impossible to find a
single person who has not been either directly or indirectly affected
by the dry conditions that we have.
Without our help, without passing natural disaster assistance, it is
estimated that 40 percent of Montana's farmers and ranchers will not
qualify for operating loans for the 2002 crop year. A large percentage
of these hardworking people will lose their land, their homes, their
jobs, and their way of life. They will not be purchasing clothes, seed,
feed, fertilizer, or equipment in their local stores. They will have to
move, take their kids out of school. Small towns will die.
It is unfortunate that farmers and ranchers from Montana have to
suffer the effects of prolonged drought without Federal assistance
because disaster was not as wide spread in 2001 as it has been in 2002.
The farmers and ranchers who suffered from severe drought in 2001
should not be penalized, rather rewarded for their persistence and
dedication to Montana's vital industry. We desperately need cooperation
and support from all sides to prove relief to our producers that have
struggled through dry conditions for so long. We need disaster
assistance immediately and we need to provide extra assistance for
those who have endured drought in 2001 and 2002. It is time to take
action and to provide for those who have produced so many vital
resources for the people of the United States.
I am disappointed that we have not been able to produce legislation
that is much needed and long overdue to benefit the hard working
farmers and ranchers of the state of Montana and across the country.
Many of the agricultural producers in Montana who have worked the same
land for generations will no longer be able to survive as farmers or
ranchers without disaster relief. Consecutive years of drought have
caused economic devastation that soon prevent these agricultural
producers from doing their jobs. The effects of this cycle will be
devastating to the economy and the people of my state.
Unfortunately natural disaster is no longer an issue for just a few
States. As of July 22, forty-nine of 50 States are impacted by drought
and 36 percent of our country is currently classified as some level of
drought. This is an issue that can no longer be ignored.
I am pleased today to introduce with Senator Burns a natural disaster
package that will provide assistance to producers who have had losses
due to natural disasters in 2001 and 2002. It also includes funding for
2001 and 2001 for the Livestock Assistance Program and the American
Indian Livestock Feed Program. The package that we introduce today is
the same policy that 69 of my Senate Colleagues supported when Senator
Enzi and I offered the amendment to the Farm Bill but extended to cover
the 2002 crop year as well.
It is true that the U.S. Department of Agriculture has utilized the
tools that they have available to them. Access to low interest loans,
grazing and haying on CRP acreage are important pieces to ensuring that
our producers stay in business. However, there is still one major piece
of the puzzle missing and that is natural disaster assistance.
It is also true that crop insurance is a very important risk
management tool. I supported the crop insurance reform bill and I
support and understand the importance of crop insurance. More than 90
percent of insurable acres in Montana are insured. Unfortunately for
the program to be run in an actuarially sound fashion, producers are
helped the least when they hurt the most. When a producer is suffering
from consecutive years of drought, their premium increases and their
coverage decreases.
We have the opportunity to stop that process. To keep our rural
communities and economies alive. Rural America is resilient. And like
them, I will not give up. Thousands of people are suffering from a
relentless drought. They deserve natural disaster assistance and I will
continue to fight to ensure they get it.
I am pleased to be working with my fellow Senator from Montana, and I
ask each of my Senate colleagues to join us in this effort.
Mr. BURNS. Madam President, I rise today to express my support of the
Emergency Disaster Assistance Act of 2002. I am proud to join my
colleague from Montana, Senator Baucus, in introducing this
legislation.
However, more importantly I rise today in support of America's
farmers and ranchers. In my home State of Montana, we are looking at
our fifth summer of severe drought. Many places in my great State are
drying up and blowing away. Dirt fills the ditches alongside the roads
and so many tumbleweeds clog the fences. I fear this may be the case
for much of the West and Midwest after this summer.
This legislation would provide much needed relief to those farmers
and ranchers hit the hardest by the drought. Many have argued the Farm
[[Page S7379]]
Bill adequately met the needs of those earning their living in
agriculture. I disagree. The Farm Bill provides economic assistance,
but not weather related disaster assistance.
In fact, it does not help farmers ``when times are tough,'' and the
drought conditions of the past several years indicate that these are
indeed very difficult times. The very reason I am requesting drought
assistance is precisely because this farm bill does not sufficiently
meet the needs of those farmers who have suffered loss due to natural
conditions during the past 4 years. I believe the farmers in the most
extreme situations are the very ones we should be helping.
I am committed to working with my colleagues to get this much-needed
assistance out to our rural areas, to the places that need it the most.
I am also committed to doing this in the most responsible way possible.
I believe we can reach an agreement and find a realistic amount that
helps producers, yet is fiscally responsible.
____________________