[Congressional Record Volume 161, Number 78 (Wednesday, May 20, 2015)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3185-S3188]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
By Ms. MURKOWSKI:
S. 1395. A bill to reinstate certain mining claims in the State of
Alaska; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise today to reintroduce legislation
in a dramatically different form to reinstate two small miner's claims,
which have been taken from them because of an inequitable federal
administrative process.
Under revisions to the Federal Mining Law of 1872, 30 U.S.C. 28(f)
holders of unpatented mineral claims must pay a claim maintenance fee
originally set at $100 per claim by a deadline, set by regulation, of
September l each year. Since 2004 that fee has risen to $140 per claim.
But Congress also provided a claim maintenance fee waiver for ``small''
miners, those who hold 10 or fewer claims, so that they do not have to
submit the fee, but that they must file to renew their claims and
submit an affidavit of annual labor, work conducted on the claim, each
year, certifying that they had performed more
[[Page S3186]]
than $100 of work on the claim in the preceding year, 30 U.S.C.
28f(d)(1). The waiver provision further states: ``If a small miner
waiver application is determined to be defective for any reason, the
claimant shall have a period of 60 days after receipt of written
notification of the defect or defects by the Bureau of Land Management
to: A) cure such defect or defects or (B) pay the . . . claim
maintenance fee(s) due for such a period.''
Since past revisions of the law, there have been a series of
incidents where miners have argued that they submitted their
applications and affidavits of annual labor in a timely manner, but due
to clerical error by U.S. Bureau of Land Management staff, mailing
delays or for unexplained reasons, the applications or documents were
not recorded as having been received in a timely fashion. In that case
BLM has terminated the claims, deeming them null and void. While mining
claim holders have argued that the law provides them time to cure claim
defects, BLM has argued that the cure only applies when applications or
fees have been received in a timely manner. Thus, there is no
administrative remedy for miners who believe that clerical errors by
BLM or mail issues resulted in loss or the late recording of claim
extension applications and paperwork.
There have been a number of cases where Congress has been asked to
override BLM determinations and reinstate mining claims simply because
of the disputes over whether the claims had been filed in a timely
manner. Congress in 2003 reinstated such claims in a previous Alaska
case. Claims in two other incidents were reinstated following a U.S.
District Court case in the 10th Circuit first in 2009 in the case of
Miller v. United States and in a second Alaska case in 2013.
Legislation to correct the provision to prevent this problem actually
was approved by the Senate in 2007, but did not ultimately become law.
In the past three Congresses I have introduced legislation intended
to short circuit continued litigation and pleas for claim reinstatement
by clarifying the intent of Congress that miners do have to be informed
that their claims are in jeopardy of being voided and given 60 days of
notice to cure defects, including giving them time to submit their
applications and to submit affidavits of annual labor, should their
submittals not be received and processed by BLM officials on time. If
all defects are not cured within 60 days--the obvious intent of
Congress in passing the original act--then claims should be subject to
voidance. But this administration has opposed the legislation arguing
that it would be too expensive to notify all small miners who fail to
file their small miner waiver documents on time and giving them time to
solve the defect prior to the loss of their claims. It has even been
suggested that giving small miners simple due process would just
encourage miners to ignore the deadline for filing of their fee
waivers.
I clearly find the cost argument unpersuasive. Many Federal
departments and agencies, the Federal Communication Commission, as one
example, routinely sends out notices on permit and license
applications. The FCC sends out hundreds of thousands of such notices
to Americans who have small radio licenses expiring yearly, warning
them that they need to file applications for license renewal. The
Bureau of Land Management certainly should be able to afford a few
hundred stamps to perform a similar service. Given the value of claims
placed at risk and the bother, inconvenience and fear of loss of
claims, it is highly unlikely that miners would avoid filing their
waiver paperwork on time just because a notification process was
clearly in place before claims could be terminated.
But after facing the clear opposition of this administration over 6
years to resolving this inequity, today I simply file legislation to
remedy the injustices for two of my constituents who have lost their
rights, in one case to nine mineral claims on the Kenai Peninsula, near
Hope, Alaska, and in the second case to a single placer claim in the
Fortymile District of northeast Alaska. The transition language
proposed will reinstate claims for Mr. John Trautner, who has lost
title to claims that he had held from 1982 to 2004. Mr. Trautner
suffered this loss even though he had a consistent record of having
paid the annual labor assessment fee for the previous 22 years. The
local BLM office did have a time-date-stamped record that the
maintenance fee waiver certification form had been filed weeks before
the deadline, but just not a record that the affidavit of annual labor
had arrived when he dropped it at the office in Anchorage at the same
time.
In the second case, it will reinstate a claim held by Mr. and Mrs.
Vernon Thurneau, now of Wasilla, who lost their claim after mining it
continuously for 38 years in 2009, simply because of a holiday season
error. In this case the Thurneau's paid their fees on time, and turned
in their proof of labor affidavit to the Fairbanks Recorders Office in
December before the deadline. They received a time and date stamp that
they produced the information in a timely manner. But because of the
Christmas holidays they simply forgot to turn/mail in the form to the
BLM Anchorage office until after Jan. 1, missing the BLM's required
Dec. 31 deadline. Because of a holiday delay, they lost their claims
and 38 years of work.
This legislation, supported in the past by the Alaska Miners
Association, will simply reinstate the two sets of claims, claims that
have been held by the government over the past decade. In response to
complaints by the Department of the Interior that past versions of my
legislation improperly would have resulted in the patenting of the
claims by the granting of a first half final certificate in the
Trautner case, I have modified this bill simply to reinstate the
claims, but not to take steps to confirm patents. By this bill Mr.
Trautner will have to wait like many other miners for Congress to
reconsider the merits of the moratorium on patent issuance first
imposed on the Mining Law of 1872 by Congress in 1995.
It is simple justice that Mr. Trautner and the Thurneau family
receive their claims back, since Congress clearly thought it was giving
miners a guaranteed opportunity to remedy claim defects when it created
the small miner waiver provisions in 1993. Return of the claims will
cost the government nothing and likely will result in added federal
revenues, hopefully preventing this bill from facing any procedural
issues. I hope that justice will finally prevail in these cases this
Congress, even though I regret that I see no means to fix the larger
inequity in the interpretation of the small miner waiver statute for
the foreseeable future.
______
By Mr. CORNYN:
S. 1397. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to require
that ITIN applicants submit their application in person at taxpayer
assistance centers, and for other purposes; to the Committee on
Finance.
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of
the bill be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be
printed in the Record, as follows:
S. 1397
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 ``ITIN Reform Act of 2015''.
SEC. 2. REQUIREMENTS FOR THE ISSUANCE OF ITINS.
(a) In General.--Section 6109 of the Internal Revenue Code
of 1986 is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(i) Special Rules Relating to the Issuance of ITINs.--
``(1) In general.--The Secretary may issue an individual
taxpayer identification number to an individual only if the
requirements of paragraphs (2) and (3) are met.
``(2) In-person application.--The requirements of this
paragraph are met if, with respect to an application for an
individual taxpayer identification number--
``(A) the applicant submits an application in person, using
Form W-7 (or any successor thereof) and including the
required documentation, at a taxpayer assistance center of
the Internal Revenue Service, or
``(B) in the case of an applicant who resides outside of
the United States, the applicant submits the application in
person to an employee of the Internal Revenue Service or a
designee of the Secretary at a United States diplomatic
mission or consular post, together with the required
documentation.
``(3) Initial on-site verification of documentation.--The
requirements of this paragraph are met if, with respect to
each application, an employee of the Internal Revenue Service
at the taxpayer assistance center, or
[[Page S3187]]
the employee or designee described in paragraph (2)(B), as
the case may be, conducts an initial verification of the
documentation supporting the application submitted under
paragraph (2).
``(4) Required documentation.--For purposes of this
subsection--
``(A) required documentation includes such documentation as
the Secretary may require that proves the individual's
identity and foreign status, and
``(B) the Secretary may only accept original documents.
``(5) Exceptions.--
``(A) Military spouses.--Paragraph (1) shall not apply to
the spouse, or the dependents, without a social security
number of a taxpayer who is a member of the Armed Forces of
the United States.
``(B) Treaty benefits.--Paragraph (1) shall not apply to a
nonresident alien applying for an individual taxpayer
identification number for the purpose of claiming tax treaty
benefits.
``(6) Term.--
``(A) In general.--An individual taxpayer identification
number issued after the date of the enactment of this
subsection shall be valid only for the 5-year period which
includes the taxable year of the individual for which such
number is issued and the 4 succeeding taxable years.
``(B) Renewal of itin.--Such number shall be valid for an
additional 5-year period only if it is renewed through an
application which satisfies the requirements under paragraphs
(2) and (3).
``(C) Special rule for existing itins.--In the case of an
individual with an individual taxpayer identification number
issued on or before the date of the enactment of this
subsection, such number shall not be valid after the earlier
of--
``(i) the end of the 3-year period beginning on the date of
the enactment of this subsection, or
``(ii) the first taxable year beginning after--
``(I) the date of the enactment of this subsection, and
``(II) any taxable year for which the individual (or, if a
dependent, on which the individual is included) did not make
a return.''.
(b) Interest.--Section 6611 of the Internal Revenue Code of
1986 is amended by redesignating subsection (h) as subsection
(i) and by inserting after subsection (g) the following new
subsection:
``(h) Special Rule Relating to ITINs.--Notwithstanding any
other provision of this section, no interest shall be allowed
or paid to or on behalf of an individual with respect to any
overpayment until 45 days after an individual taxpayer
identification number is issued to the individual.''.
(c) Audit by TIGTA.--Not later than two years after the
date of the enactment of this Act, and every 2 years
thereafter, the Treasury Inspector General for Tax
Administration shall conduct an audit of the program of the
Internal Revenue Service for the issuance of individual
taxpayer identification numbers pursuant to section 6109(i)
of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986. The report required by
this subsection shall be submitted to the Congress.
(d) Effective Date.--
(1) Subsection (a).--The amendment made by subsection (a)
shall apply to requests for individual taxpayer
identification numbers made after the date of the enactment
of this Act.
(2) Subsection (b).--The amendment made by subsection (b)
shall apply to returns due, claims filed, and refunds paid
after the date of the enactment of this Act.
______
By Mr. DURBIN:
S. 1400. A bill to amend the Small Business Act to direct the task
force of the Office of Veterans Business Development to provide access
to and manage the distribution of excess or surplus property to
veteran-owned small businesses; to the Committee on Small Business and
Entrepreneurship.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of
the bill be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be
printed in the Record, as follows:
S. 1400
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 ``Veterans Small Business
Enhancement Act of 2015''.
SEC. 2. ACCESS TO EXCESS OR SURPLUS PROPERTY FOR VETERAN-
OWNED SMALL BUSINESSES.
Section 32(c)(3)(B) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C.
657b(c)(3)(B)) is amended--
(1) in clause (v), by striking ``; and'' and inserting a
semicolon;
(2) in clause (vi), by striking the period at the end and
inserting ``; and''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following new clause:
``(vii) providing access to and managing the distribution
of excess or surplus property owned by the United States to
small business concerns owned and controlled by veterans,
pursuant to a memorandum of understanding between the task
force and the head of the applicable state agency (as defined
in section 549 of title 40, United States Code).''.
______
By Mr. TILLIS (for himself and Mr. Burr):
S. 1401. A bill to provide for the annual designation of cities in
the United States as an ``American World War II City''; to the
Committee on Armed Services.
Mr. TILLIS. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce legislation to
direct the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to designate one city each
year as a World War II city, beginning with Wilmington, NC, as
America's first World War II City.
The names of the 10,000 Tarheels, who paid the ultimate price in
World War II are memorialized on the bulkhead of the battleship USS
North Carolina in downtown Wilmington.
During World War II, the USS North Carolina, known affectionately
throughout the Navy as the ``Showboat'', ``participated in every major
naval offensive in the Pacific area of operations and earned 15 battle
stars. She steamed over 300,000 miles. Although Japanese radio claimed
six times that North Carolina had been sunk, she survived.
After serving as a training vessel for midshipmen, North Carolina was
decommissioned June 27, 1947 and placed in the Inactive Reserve Fleet
in Bayonne, New Jersey, for the next 14 years. In 1958 the announcement
of her impending scrapping led to a statewide campaign by citizens of
North Carolina to save the ship and bring her back to her home state.
The Save Our Ship, SOS, campaign was successful and the battleship
arrived in her current berth on October 2, 1961. She was dedicated on
April 29, 1962, as the State's memorial to its World War II veterans
At home, North Carolina's coast was a war zone. On April 13-14, 1942,
the first U-boat, German U-85, was sunk off the North Carolina Coast.
Mr. President, 397 ships were sunk or damaged and nearly 5,000 people
were killed within sight of our shores. For 6 months at the beginning
of America's war, 65 German U-boats hunted Allied merchant vessels
practically unopposed. The greatest concentration of these attacks came
off North Carolina.
During World War II, Wilmington was the home of the North Carolina
Shipbuilding Company. The shipyard was created as part of the U.S.
Government's Emergency Shipbuilding Program. Workers built 243 ships in
Wilmington during the five years the company operated.
The city was the site of three prisoner-of-war, POW, camps from
February 1944 through April 1946. At their peak, the camps held 550
German prisoners. The first camp was located on the corner of Shipyard
Boulevard and Carolina Beach Road; the old Confederate post Fort Fisher
housed German prisoners and also served as a training site for the
Coastal Artillery and anti-aircraft units. A smaller contingent of
prisoners was assigned to a smaller site, working in the officers' mess
and doing grounds keeping at Bluethenthal Army Air Field, which is now
Wilmington International Airport. Bluethenthal Army Air Field was used
by the United States Army Air Forces' Third Air Force for antisubmarine
patrols and training.
I want to thank my colleague Senator Burr for bringing this idea to
establish a process to recognize Wilmington and other American cities
for their efforts during the war years, to the Senate. But I also wish
to single out Wilbur Jones, a Wilmington native and military historian
who has poured so much of his time and soul into ensuring that the
people of southeastern North Carolina never forget the contributions of
our state to victory in the Atlantic and the Pacific.
______
By Mr. LEAHY (for himself and Mr. Grassley):
S. 1402. A bill to allow acceleration certificates awarded under the
Patents for Humanity Program to be transferable; to the Committee on
the Judiciary.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, the American intellectual property system
is rightly held as the global standard for promoting innovation and
driving economic growth. This is particularly true of our patent
system. The fundamental truth that our Founders recognized more than
200 years ago, that limited exclusive rights for inventors incentivize
research and development, continues to benefit consumers and the
American economy at large.
[[Page S3188]]
A healthy patent system should do more than drive economic
development; it should incentivize research and discoveries that
advance humanitarian needs. I have worked to promote policies that
encourage intellectual property holders to apply their work to address
global humanitarian challenges. Today, I continue that effort by
joining with Senator Grassley to introduce the bipartisan Patents for
Humanity Program Improvement Act.
This bipartisan legislation strengthens a program created by the
United States Patent and Trademark Office, PTO, in 2012. The PTO's
Patents for Humanity Program provides rewards to selected patent
holders who use their invention to address a humanitarian issue that
significantly affects the public health or quality of life of an
impoverished population. Those who receive the award are given a
certificate to accelerate certain PTO processes, as described in the
program rules.
The innovations that have been recognized by this program help
underserved people throughout the world. Award winners have worked to
improve the treatment and diagnosis of devastating diseases, improve
nutrition and the environment, and combat the spread of dangerous
counterfeit drugs. These are innovations that will make a real
difference in the lives of people who are not always the beneficiaries
of cutting-edge technology.
Following a Judiciary Committee hearing in 2012, I asked then-PTO
Director Kappos whether the Patents for Humanity program would be more
effective, and more attractive to innovators, if the acceleration
certificates awarded were transferable to a third party. He responded
that it would, and that it would be particularly beneficial to small
businesses that win the award. Since that time, other small start-ups
and global health groups have emphasized that making the certificates
transferable would improve their usability and increase the incentives
of the Patents for Humanity Award. The Patents for Humanity Program
Improvement Act makes this enhancement to the program. It is a
straightforward, cost-neutral bill that will strengthen this award and
encourage innovations to be used for humanitarian goods.
When Congress can establish policies that provide business incentives
for humanitarian endeavors, it should not hesitate to act. I urge the
Senate to work swiftly to pass this legislation.
____________________