[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 16]
[Senate]
[Pages 23215-23223]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. LAUTENBERG:
  S. 1657. A bill to authorize the extension of nondiscriminatory 
treatment (normal trade relations treatment) to the products of 
Albania; to the Committee on Finance.


        REMOVAL OF ALBANIA FROM JACKSON-VANIK TRADE RESTRICTIONS

  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill 
authorizing the President to grant permanent Normal Trade Relations 
status to Albania, overcoming the so-called Jackson-Vanik restrictions 
in Title IV of the Trade Act. This legislation is urgently needed so 
that when Albania joins the World Trade Organization later this year, 
the United States can enter into full WTO relations with this market-
oriented country in the Balkans.
  Mr. President, I offer this legislation and seek the support of my 
colleagues for three reasons: First, the Cold War-era Jackson-Vanik 
restrictions are no longer relevant for Albania. We should free our 
relations with Albania from restrictions applied to communist 
countries. The Jackson-Vanik restrictions applied to countries with 
non-market economies which limited emigration. Albania now has a market 
economy which some may argue needs more regulation. Albanians are now 
also free to emigrate, sometimes much to the chagrin of Albania's 
neighbors. The President certified Albania to be in compliance with the 
Jackson-Vanik requirements in January 1998 and has continued to report 
that Albania remains in compliance. The certification process is simply 
a relic of the Cold War.
  Second, granting Albania permanent Normal Trade Relations, or NTR, 
status through the WTO will encourage and support Albania's free-trade 
orientation and integration into the global trading system. Little more 
than a decade ago, Albania was closed off from the rest of the world by 
a severely Stalinist regime. Today, all major political forces in 
Albania--including the governing Socialist Party and the opposition 
Democratic Party, which led the first post-Communist government--
support democracy, free trade and integration with the West. A 
delegation from Albania's Parliament made clear the breadth and depth 
of support for Albania's WTO membership. Albania has enacted virtually 
all the necessary legislation and implementing regulations necessary to 
meet WTO standards and will implement the rest prior to its WTO 
accession. They will not even require a transition period. We should 
reward this tremendous positive change by welcoming Albania into the 
WTO and opening our markets to Albanian goods on a fair basis 
negotiated through the WTO.
  Third, this bill will benefit U.S. firms by securing Albania's 
commitment to WTO standards and giving the United States access to WTO 
dispute settlement mechanisms with regard to Albania. The annual 
certification requirement under existing law would require the United 
States to demur from entering into full WTO relations with Albania when 
that country becomes a member later this year. Thus, without the 
enactment of this legislation, we will not have access to WTO dispute 
settlement mechanisms and will only be able to engage in economic 
relations with Albania on a bilateral basis.
  Mr. President, for the reasons I have outlined--moving beyond the 
Cold War, supporting development of a market economy and democracy in 
Albania, and providing WTO protection of market access for American 
businesses--I

[[Page 23216]]

hope the Congress will enact this legislation. The United States has 
been a leading advocate for Albania's accession into the WTO. We should 
continue that support by passing this legislation. I would ask the 
Finance Committee and the full Senate to act expeditiously so this bill 
can be signed into law before Albania becomes a WTO member.
  At this point, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy 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. 1657

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

     SECTION 1. FINDINGS.

       Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) Albania has been found to be in full compliance with 
     the freedom of emigration requirements under title IV of the 
     Trade Act of 1974.
       (2) Since its emergence from communism, Albania has made 
     progress toward democratic rule and the creation of a free-
     market economy.
       (3) Albania has concluded a bilateral investment treaty 
     with the United States.
       (4) Albania has demonstrated a strong desire to build a 
     friendly relationship with the United States and has been 
     very cooperative with NATO and the international community 
     during and after the Kosova crisis.
       (5) The extension of unconditional normal trade relations 
     treatment to the products of Albania will enable the United 
     States to avail itself of all rights under the World Trade 
     Organization with respect to Albania when that country 
     becomes a member of the World Trade Organization.

     SEC. 2. TERMINATION OF APPLICATION OF TITLE IV OF THE TRADE 
                   ACT OF 1974 TO ALBANIA.

       (a) Presidential Determinations and Extensions of 
     Nondiscriminatory Treatment.--Notwithstanding any provision 
     of title IV of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2431 et 
     seq.), the President may--
       (1) determine that such title should no longer apply to 
     Albania; and
       (2) after making a determination under paragraph (1) with 
     respect to Albania, proclaim the extension of 
     nondiscriminatory treatment (normal trade relations 
     treatment) to the products of that country.
       (b) Termination of Application of Title IV.--On or after 
     the effective date of the extension under subsection (a)(2) 
     of nondiscriminatory treatment to the products of Albania, 
     title IV of the Trade Act of 1974 shall cease to apply to 
     that country.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. DASCHLE:
  S. 1658. A bill to authorize the construction of a Reconciliation 
Place in Fort Pierre, South Dakota, and for other purposes; to the 
Committee on Indian Affairs.


                  Wakpa Sica Reconciliation Place Act

  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, at the request of tribal leaders 
throughout my state, today I am introducing legislation to establish 
the Wakpa Sica Reconciliation Place in Ft. Pierre, South Dakota.
  This history of South Dakota is carved with the rich cultural 
traditions of numerous Sioux tribes who lived on the plains for 
centuries and inlaid with the stories of immigrants who came during the 
last two hundred years to settle the towns, plow the earth, shepherd 
livestock and mine gold. The story of that settlement, and the mingling 
of Indian and non-Indian people, has not always been a peaceful one, 
and today in South Dakota we continue to face the challenges of 
disparate communities of Indians and non-Indians living side-by-side, 
often imbued with misunderstanding and mistrust. As a result, there is 
a growing recognition of the need for reconciliation between Indian and 
non-Indians.
  It is my hope that through the establishment of a Reconciliation 
Place, we can promote a better understanding of the history and culture 
of the Sioux people and by doing so, achieve better relations between 
Indian and non-Indian peoples. The Reconciliation Place will provide a 
home for a center of Sioux law, history, culture, and economic 
development for the Lakota, Dakota and Nakota tribes of the upper 
Midwest, and thus will help preserve the strong and unique cultural 
heritage of the Sioux.
  The Reconciliation Place will enhance the knowledge and understanding 
of the history of the Sioux by displaying and interpreting the history, 
art, and culture of the tribes of this region. It will also provide an 
important repository for the Sioux Nation history and the family 
histories for individual members of the tribes, and other important 
historical documents. The majority of the historic documents and 
archives of this region are kept in government facilities that are 
scattered across the West and are almost inaccessible to the people of 
this area. The Reconciliation Place will provide a central repository 
for these important elements of Sioux history, allowing easy access to 
tribal members interested in exploring their past.
  By empowering the Sioux tribes to establish their own Sioux Nation 
Supreme Court, the bill will help achieve greater social and economic 
stability in Indian Country. Moreover, the court will bring the legal 
certainty and predictability to the reservations necessary for 
businesspeople to have the confidence to make investments in tribal 
enterprises. This, in turn, will generate the economic infrastructure 
needed to create more jobs on reservations.
  Finally, the legislation establishes a Native American Economic 
Development Council to assist the Sioux tribes by providing 
opportunities for economic development and job creation. Specifically, 
the council will provide expertise and technical support to Indians to 
help gain access to existing sources of federal assistance, while 
raising funds from private entities to match federal contributions. 
Funding obtained by the Council will be used to provide grants, loans, 
scholarships, and technical assistance to tribes and their members, for 
business education and job creation.
  Mr. President, the need for this Reconciliation Place is clear. It 
will provide a focal point for public and private organizations to 
better assist Native Americans to protect their past, strengthen their 
present, and build a bright economic future. The Reconciliation Place 
will respect and compliment the government-to-government relationship 
established between the tribes and the United States. I urge my 
colleagues to support the establishment of this Reconciliation Place 
and am hopeful that this legislation can be enacted in the near future. 
I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and a letter of 
support by tribal leaders from South Dakota, North Dakota and Nebraska 
to the Wakpa Sica Board of Directors be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                S. 1658

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

     SECTION 1. FINDINGS.

       Congress finds that--
       (1) there is a continuing need for reconciliation between 
     Indians and non-Indians;
       (2) the need may be met partially through the promotion of 
     the understanding of the history and culture of Sioux Indian 
     tribes;
       (3) the establishment of a Sioux Nation Tribal Supreme 
     Court will promote economic development on reservations of 
     the Sioux Nation and provide investors that contribute to 
     that development a greater degree of certainty and confidence 
     by--
       (A) reconciling conflicting tribal laws; and
       (B) strengthening tribal court systems;
       (4) the reservations of the Sioux Nation--
       (A) contain the poorest counties in the United States; and
       (B) lack adequate tools to promote economic development and 
     the creation of jobs; and
       (5) the establishment of a Native American Economic 
     Development Council will assist in promoting economic growth 
     and reducing poverty on reservations of the Sioux Nation by--
       (A) coordinating economic development efforts;
       (B) centralizing expertise concerning Federal assistance; 
     and
       (C) facilitating the raising of funds from private 
     donations to meet matching requirements under certain Federal 
     assistance programs.

     SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act:
       (1) Indian tribe.--The term ``Indian tribe'' has the 
     meaning given that term in section 4(e) of the Indian Self-
     Determination and Education Assistance Act (25 U.S.C. 
     450b(e)).
       (2) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
     of the Interior.
       (3) Sioux nation.--The term ``Sioux Nation'' means the 
     Indian tribes comprising the Sioux Nation.

[[Page 23217]]



                     TITLE I--RECONCILIATION CENTER

     SEC. 101. RECONCILIATION CENTER.

       (a) Establishment.--The Secretary of Housing and Urban 
     Development, in cooperation with the Secretary, shall 
     establish, in accordance with this section, a reconciliation 
     center, to be known as ``Reconciliation Place''.
       (b) Purposes.--The purposes of Reconciliation Place shall 
     be as follows:
       (1) To enhance the knowledge and understanding of the 
     history of Native Americans by--
       (A) displaying and interpreting the history, art, and 
     culture of Indian tribes for Indians and non-Indians; and
       (B) providing an accessible repository for--
       (i) the history of Indian tribes; and
       (ii) the family history of members of Indian tribes.
       (2) To provide for the interpretation of the encounters 
     between Lewis and Clark and the Sioux Nation.
       (3) To house the Sioux Nation Tribal Supreme Court.
       (4) To house the Native American Economic Development 
     Council.
       (c) Grant.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary of Housing and Urban 
     Development shall offer to award a grant to the Wakpa Sica 
     Historical Society of Fort Pierre, South Dakota, for the 
     construction of Reconciliation Place.
       (2) Grant agreement.--
       (A) In general.--As a condition to receiving the grant 
     under this subsection, the appropriate official of the Wakpa 
     Sica Historical Society shall enter into a grant agreement 
     with the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development.
       (B) Consultation.--Before entering into a grant agreement 
     under this paragraph, the Secretary of Housing and Urban 
     Development shall consult with the Secretary concerning the 
     contents of the agreement.
       (C) Duties of the wakpa sica historical society.--The grant 
     agreement under this paragraph shall specify the duties of 
     the Wakpa Sica Historical Society under this section and 
     arrangements for the maintenance of Reconciliation Place.
       (3) Authorization of appropriations.--There are authorized 
     to be appropriated to the Department of Housing and Urban 
     Development $17,258,441, to be used for the grant under this 
     section.

     SEC. 102. SIOUX NATION TRIBAL COURT.

       (a) In General.--To ensure the development and operation of 
     the Sioux National Tribal Supreme Court, the Attorney General 
     of the United States shall provide such technical and 
     financial assistance to the Sioux Nation as is necessary.
       (b) Authorization of Appropriations.--To carry out this 
     section, there are authorized to be appropriated to the 
     Department of Justice such sums as are necessary.
         TITLE II--NATIVE AMERICAN ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL

     SEC. 201. ESTABLISHMENT OF NATIVE AMERICAN ECONOMIC 
                   DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL.

       (a) Establishment.--There is established the Native 
     American Economic Development Council (in this title referred 
     to as the ``Council''). The Council shall be charitable and 
     nonprofit corporation and shall not be considered to be an 
     agency or establishment of the United States.
       (b) Purposes.--The purposes of the Council are--
       (1) to encourage, accept, and administer private gifts of 
     property;
       (2) to use those gifts as a source of matching funds 
     necessary to receive Federal assistance;
       (3) to provide members of Indian tribes with the skills and 
     resources for establishing successful businesses;
       (4) to provide grants and loans to members of Indian tribes 
     to establish or operate small businesses;
       (5) to provide scholarships for members of Indian tribes 
     who are students pursuing an education in business or a 
     business-related subject; and
       (6) to provide technical assistance to Indian tribes and 
     members thereof in obtaining Federal assistance.

     SEC. 202. BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE COUNCIL.

       (a) Establishment and Membership.--
       (1) In general.--The Council shall have a governing Board 
     of Directors (in this title referred to as the ``Board'').
       (2) Membership.--The Board shall consist of 11 directors, 
     who shall be appointed by the Secretary as follows:
       (A)(i) 9 members appointed under this paragraph shall 
     represent the 9 reservations of South Dakota.
       (ii) Each member described in clause (i) shall--
       (I) represent 1 of the reservations described in clause 
     (i); and
       (II) be selected from among nominations submitted by the 
     appropriate Indian tribe.
       (B) 1 member appointed under this paragraph shall be 
     selected from nominations submitted by the Governor of the 
     State of South Dakota.
       (C) 1 member appointed under this paragraph shall be 
     selected from nominations submitted by the most senior member 
     of the South Dakota Congressional delegation.
       (3) Citizenship.--Each member of the Board shall be a 
     citizen of the United States.
       (b) Appointment and Terms.--
       (1) Appointment.--Not later than December 31, 2000, the 
     Secretary shall appoint the directors of the Board under 
     subsection (a)(2).
       (2) Terms.--Each director shall serve for a term of 2 
     years.
       (3) Vacancies.--A vacancy on the Board shall be filled not 
     later than 60 days after that vacancy occurs, in the manner 
     in which the original appointment was made.
       (4) Limitation on terms.--No individual may serve more than 
     3 consecutive terms as a director.
       (c) Chairman.--The Chairman shall be elected by the Board 
     from its members for a term of 2 years.
       (d) Quorum.--A majority of the members of the Board shall 
     constitute a quorum for the transaction of business.
       (e) Meetings.--The Board shall meet at the call of the 
     Chairman at least once a year. If a director misses 3 
     consecutive regularly scheduled meetings, that individual may 
     be removed from the Board by the Secretary and that vacancy 
     filled in accordance with subsection (b).
       (f) Reimbursement of Expenses.--Members of the Board shall 
     serve without pay, but may be reimbursed for the actual and 
     necessary traveling and subsistence expenses incurred by them 
     in the performance of the duties of the Council.
       (g) General Powers.--
       (1) Powers.--The Board may complete the organization of the 
     Council by--
       (A) appointing officers and employees;
       (B) adopting a constitution and bylaws consistent with the 
     purposes of the Council under this Act; and
       (C) carrying out such other actions as may be necessary to 
     carry out the purposes of the Council under this Act.
       (2) Effect of appointment.--Appointment to the Board shall 
     not constitute employment by, or the holding of an office of, 
     the United States for the purposes of any Federal law.
       (3) Limitations.--The following limitations shall apply 
     with respect to the appointment of officers and employees of 
     the Council:
       (A) Officers and employees may not be appointed until the 
     Council has sufficient funds to pay them for their service.
       (B) Officers and employees of the Council--
       (i) shall be appointed without regard to the provisions of 
     title 5, United States Code, governing appointments in the 
     competitive service; and
       (ii) may be paid without regard to the provisions of 
     chapter 51 and subchapter III of chapter 53 of such title 
     relating to classification and General Schedule pay rates.
       (4) Secretary of the board.--The first officer or employee 
     appointed by the Board shall be the secretary of the Board. 
     The secretary of the Board shall--
       (A) serve, at the direction of the Board, as its chief 
     operating officer; and
       (B) be knowledgeable and experienced in matters relating to 
     economic development and Indian affairs.

     SEC. 203. POWERS AND OBLIGATIONS OF THE COUNCIL.

       (a) Corporate Powers.--To carry out its purposes under 
     section 201(b), the Council shall have, in addition to the 
     powers otherwise given it under this Act, the usual powers of 
     a corporation acting as a trustee in South Dakota, including 
     the power--
       (1) to accept, receive, solicit, hold, administer, and use 
     any gift, devise, or bequest, either absolutely or in trust, 
     of real or personal property or any income therefrom or other 
     interest therein;
       (2) to acquire by purchase or exchange any real or personal 
     property or interest therein;
       (3) unless otherwise required by the instrument of 
     transfer, to sell, donate, lease, invest, reinvest, retain, 
     or otherwise dispose of any property or income therefrom;
       (4) to borrow money and issue bonds, debentures, or other 
     debt instruments;
       (5) to sue and be sued, and complain and defend itself in 
     any court of competent jurisdiction, except that the 
     directors shall not be personally liable, except for gross 
     negligence;
       (6) to enter into contracts or other arrangements with 
     public agencies and private organizations and persons and to 
     make such payments as may be necessary to carry out its 
     function; and
       (7) to carry out any action that is necessary and proper to 
     carry out the purposes of the Council.
       (b) Other Powers and Obligations.--
       (1) In general.--The Council--
       (A) shall have perpetual succession;
       (B) may conduct business throughout the several States, 
     territories, and possessions of the United States and abroad;
       (C) shall have its principal offices in South Dakota; and
       (D) shall at all times maintain a designated agent 
     authorized to accept service of process for the Council.
       (2) Service of notice.--The serving of notice to, or 
     service of process upon, the agent required under paragraph 
     (1)(D), or mailed to the business address of such agent, 
     shall be deemed as service upon or notice to the Council.
       (c) Seal.--The Council shall have an official seal selected 
     by the Board, which shall be judicially noticed.

[[Page 23218]]

       (d) Certain Interests.--If any current or future interest 
     of a gift under subsection (a)(1) is for the benefit of the 
     Council, the Council may accept the gift under such 
     subsection, even if that gift is encumbered, restricted, or 
     subject to beneficial interests of 1 or more private persons.

     SEC. 204. ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES AND SUPPORT.

       (a) Provision of Services.--The Secretary may provide 
     personnel, facilities, and other administrative services to 
     the Council, including reimbursement of expenses under 
     section 202, not to exceed then current Federal Government 
     per diem rates, for a period ending not later than 5 years 
     after the date of enactment of this Act.
       (b) Reimbursement.--
       (1) In general.--The Council may reimburse the Secretary 
     for any administrative service provided under subsection (a). 
     The Secretary shall deposit any reimbursement received under 
     this subsection into the Treasury to the credit of the 
     appropriations then current and chargeable for the cost of 
     providing such services.
       (2) Continuation of certain assistance.--Notwithstanding 
     any other provision of this section, the Secretary is 
     authorized to continue to provide facilities, and necessary 
     support services for such facilities, to the Council after 
     the date specified in subsection (a), on a space available, 
     reimbursable cost basis.

     SEC. 205. VOLUNTEER STATUS.

       (a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law, the Secretary may accept, without regard to the civil 
     service classification laws, rules, or regulations, the 
     services of the Council, the Board, and the officers and 
     employees of the Board, without compensation from the 
     Secretary, as volunteers in the performance of the functions 
     authorized under this Act.
       (b) Incidental Expenses.--The Secretary is authorized to 
     provide for incidental expenses, including transportation, 
     lodging, and subsistence to the officers and employees 
     serving as volunteers under subsection (a).

     SEC. 206. AUDITS, REPORT REQUIREMENTS, AND PETITION OF 
                   ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR EQUITABLE RELIEF.

       (a) Audits.--The Council shall be subject to auditing and 
     reporting requirements under section 10101 of title 36, 
     United States Code, in the same manner as is a corporation 
     under part B of that title.
       (b) Report.--As soon as practicable after the end of each 
     fiscal year, the Council shall transmit to Congress a report 
     of its proceedings and activities during such year, including 
     a full and complete statement of its receipts, expenditures, 
     and investments.
       (c) Relief With Respect to Certain Council Acts or Failure 
     To Act.--If the Council--
       (1) engages in, or threatens to engage in, any act, 
     practice, or policy that is inconsistent with the purposes of 
     the Council under section 201(b); or
       (2) refuses, fails, or neglects to discharge the 
     obligations of the Council under this Act, or threatens to do 
     so;

     then the Attorney General of the United States may petition 
     in the United States District Court for the District of 
     Columbia for such equitable relief as may be necessary or 
     appropriate.

     SEC. 207. UNITED STATES RELEASE FROM LIABILITY.

       The United States shall not be liable for any debts, 
     defaults, acts, or omissions of the Council. The full faith 
     and credit of the United States shall not extend to any 
     obligation of the Council.

     SEC. 208. GRANTS TO COUNCIL; TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE.

       (a) Grants.--
       (1) In general.--Not less frequently than annually, the 
     Secretary shall award a grant to the Council, to be used to 
     carry out the purposes specified in section 201(b) in 
     accordance with this section.
       (2) Grant agreements.--As a condition to receiving a grant 
     under this section, the secretary of the Board, with the 
     approval of the Board, shall enter into an agreement with the 
     Secretary that specifies the duties of the Council in 
     carrying out the grant and the information that is required 
     to be included in the agreement under paragraphs (3) and (4).
       (3) Matching requirements.--Each agreement entered into 
     under paragraph (2) shall specify that the Federal share of a 
     grant under this section shall be 80 percent of the cost of 
     the activities funded under the grant. No amount may be made 
     available to the Council for a grant under this section, 
     unless the Council has raised an amount from private persons 
     and State and local government agencies equivalent to the 
     non-Federal share of the grant.
       (4) Prohibition on the use of federal funds for 
     administrative expenses.--Each agreement entered into under 
     paragraph (2) shall specify that no Federal funds made 
     available to the Council (under the grant that is the subject 
     to the agreement or otherwise) may be used by the Council for 
     administrative expenses of the Council, including salaries, 
     travel and transportation expenses, and other overhead 
     expenses.
       (b) Technical Assistance.--
       (1) In general.--Each agency head listed in paragraph (2) 
     shall provide to the Council such technical assistance as may 
     be necessary for the Council to carry out the purposes 
     specified in section 201(b).
       (2) Agency heads.--The agency heads listed in this 
     paragraphs are as follows:
       (A) The Secretary of Housing and Urban Development.
       (B) The Secretary of the Interior.
       (C) The Commissioner of Indian Affairs.
       (D) The Assistant Secretary for Economic Development of the 
     Department of Commerce.
       (E) The Administrator of the Small Business Administration.
       (F) The Administrator of the Rural Development 
     Administration.

     SEC. 209. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       (a) Authorization.--There are authorized to be appropriated 
     to the Department of the Interior, $10,000,000 for each of 
     fiscal years 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, and 2004, to be used in 
     accordance with section 208.
       (b) Additional Authorization.--The amounts authorized to be 
     appropriated under this section are in addition to any 
     amounts provided or available to the Council under any other 
     provision of Federal law.
                                  ____

                                                       March 1998.
     To: Wakpa Sica Historical Society; Board of Directors.

       Ladies and Gentlemen: In my years of experience as a Tribal 
     Leader, I have encountered few projects that hold as much 
     promise for building understanding between Tribal and non-
     Tribal people as the Wakpa Sica Reconciliation Center 
     project.
       Lakota, Dakota and Nakota Sioux people in North Dakota, 
     South Dakota and Nebraska are the third largest Indian 
     population in the nation and our reservations are within easy 
     driving distance of the Reconciliation Center project site. 
     The Reconciliation Center will include a theater, 
     repatriation area, Tribal court judges' chambers, gift shop, 
     museum area, story circle, educational center, genealogical 
     center, Law library and staff offices.
       As Tribal Chairman, I would like to extend my endorsement 
     as a member of the United Sioux Organization.
       Tribal Chairman Signatures: We the undersigned elected 
     leadership are representative of our Indian Reservations do 
     hereby support this Wakpa Sica Project.

         Charlie Murphy, Chairman, Standing Rock Sioux 
           Reservation; Michael B. Jandreau, Chairman, Lower Brule 
           Sioux Reservation; Norm Wilson, Chairman, Rosebud Sioux 
           Reservation; Steve Cournoyer, Chairman, Yanton Sioux 
           Reservation; Mura Pearson, Chairperson, Spirit Lake 
           Sioux Reservation; John Steele, Chairman, Oglala Sioux 
           Reservation; Richard Allen, Chairman, Flandreau Santee 
           Sioux Reservation; Arthur Denny, Chairman, Santee Sioux 
           Reservation; Duane Big Eagle, Chairman, Crow Creek 
           Sioux Reservation; Andrew Grey, Sr., Chairman, Sisseton 
           Wahpeton Sioux Reservation.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. BURNS:
  S. 1659. A bill to convey the Lower Yellowstone Irrigation Project, 
the Savage Unit of the Pick-Sloan Missouri Basin Program, and the 
Intake Irrigation Project to the appurtenant irrigation districts; to 
the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.


          Lower Yellowstone Irrigation Projects title Transfer

 Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a piece of 
legislation that helps a large number of family farms on the border of 
Montana and North Dakota. The Lower Yellowstone Irrigation Projects 
Title Transfer moves ownership of these irrigation projects from 
federal control to local control. Both the Bureau of Reclamation and 
those relying on the projects for their livelihood agree that there is 
little value in having the federal government retain ownership.
  The history of these projects dates to the early 1900's with the 
original Lower Yellowstone project being built by the Bureau of 
Reclamation between 1906 and 1910. Later, the Savage Unit was added in 
1947-48. The end result was the creation of fertile, irrigated land to 
help spur economic development in the area. To this day, agriculture is 
the number one industry in the area.
  The local impact of the projects is measurable in numbers, but the 
greatest impacts can only be seen by visiting the area. About 500 
family farms rely on these projects for economic substance, and the 
entire area relies on them to create stability in the local economy. In 
an area that has seen booms and busts in oil, gas, and other 
commodities, these irrigated lands continued producing and offering a 
foundation for the businesses in the area.
  As we all know, agriculture prices are extremely low right now, but 
these

[[Page 23219]]

irrigated lands offer a reasonable return over time and are the 
foundation for strong communities based upon the ideals that have made 
this country successful. The 500 families impacted are hard working, 
honest producers, and I can think of no better people to manage their 
own irrigation projects.
  Everyday, we see an example of where the federal government is taking 
on a new task. We can debate the merits of those efforts on an 
individual basis, but I think we can all agree that while the 
government gets involved in new projects there are many that we can 
safely pass on to state or local control. The Lower Yellowstone 
Projects are a prime example of such an opportunity, and I ask my 
colleagues to join me in seeing this legislation passed as quickly as 
possible.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mrs. HUTCHISON (for herself and Mr. Lott):
  S. 1661. A bill to amend title 28, United States Code, to provide 
that certain voluntary disclosures of violations of Federal law made as 
a result of a voluntary environmental audit shall not be subject to 
discovery or admitted into evidence during a judicial or administrative 
proceeding, and for other purposes; to the Committee on the Judiciary.


          the environmental protection partnership act of 1999

 Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, today, along with Senator Lott, 
I am introducing the Environmental Protection Partnership Act of 1999. 
By introducing this bill, I am suggesting that the Federal Government 
take a cue from the States regarding environmental protection. Many 
State governments have passed laws that allow for voluntary audits of 
environmental compliance. These laws encourage a company to conduct an 
audit of its compliance with environmental laws. By conducting the 
audit, the company determines whether it is in compliance with all 
environmental laws. If it is not, these state laws allow the company, 
without penalty, to correct any violations it finds so it will come 
into compliance.
  What the bill does is let the Federal Government do the same thing. 
It lets the Federal Government say to companies all over America, if 
you want to do a voluntary audit for environmental compliance, we are 
going to let you do that. We will encourage you but not force you to do 
it. And we are not going to come in and threaten you with the hammer of 
the EPA if you, in fact, move swiftly to come into compliance when you 
find that you are not in compliance.
  I believe this is the most effective way to clean up the air and 
water. Our air and water are invaluable natural resources. They are 
cleaner than they have been in 25 years, and we want to keep improving 
our efforts to guarantee their protection. This bill will ensure this 
protection, in the same fashion as many States have done. It does not 
preempt State law. If State laws are on the books, then the State laws 
prevail. But this offers companies all over our country the ability to 
comply with Federal standards in a voluntary way, to critically assess 
their compliance and not be penalized if they then take action to 
immediately come into compliance.
  My bill will ensure that we continue to increase the protection of 
our environment in the United States through providing incentives for 
companies to assess their own environmental compliance. Rather than 
playing a waiting game for EPA to find environmental violations, 
companies will find--and stop--violations. Many more violations will be 
corrected, and many others will be prevented.
  Under the bill, if a company voluntarily completes an environmental 
audit--a thorough review of its compliance with environmental laws--the 
audit report may not be used against the company in court. The report 
can be used in court, however, if the company found violations and did 
not promptly make efforts to comply. By extending this privilege, a 
company that looks for, finds, and remedies problems will continue this 
good conduct, and protect the environment.
  In addition, if a company does an audit, and promptly corrects any 
violations, the company may choose to disclose the violation to EPA. If 
the company does disclose the violation, the company will not be 
penalized for the violations. By ensuring companies that they will not 
be dragged into court for being honest, the bill encourages companies 
to find and fix violations and report them to EPA.
  This does not mean that companies that pollute go scot-free. Under 
this bill, there is no protection for: willful and international 
violators; companies that do not promptly cure violations; companies 
asserting the law fraudulently; or companies trying to evade an 
imminent or ongoing investigation. Further, the bill does not protect 
companies that have policies that permit ongoing patterns of violations 
of environmental laws. And where a violation results in a continuing 
adverse public health or environmental effect, a company may not use 
the protections of this law.
  Nor does this bill mean that EPA loses any authority to find 
violations and punish companies for polluting. EPA retains all its 
present authority.
  At the same time that EPA retains full authority to enforce 
environmental laws, I propose to engage every company voluntarily in 
environmental protection by creating the incentive for those companies 
to find and cure their own violations. This frees EPA to target its 
enforcement dollars on the bad actors--the companies that intentionally 
pollute our water and air.
  Mr. President, I look forward to working with Senator Lott, Senator 
Hatch, chairman of the Judiciary Committee, as well as the rest of my 
colleagues in the Senate on this bill, which will pave the way to 
increased environmental compliance.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. BAUCUS (for himself, Mr. Grams, Mrs. Murray, and Mr. 
        Wyden):
  S. 1662. A bill to grant the President authority to proclaim the 
elimination or staged rate reduction of duties on certain environmental 
goods; to the Committee on Finance.


                     tariffs on environmental goods

 Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, since the end of the Second World 
War, the United States has led the world in establishing an open, rule-
based trade system. I believe it is very important that we continue to 
provide this leadership. We can only do this if we maintain a domestic 
consensus on trade policy.
  The United States has also provided strong international leadership 
on environmental protection. I have long been a strong proponent of 
both open trade and environmental protection. I have a foot in both 
camps. So today I am proud to introduce a bill which addresses both 
trade and the environment. I am joined in this effort by Senators 
Grams, Murray, and Wyden.
  I know people in the trade community who assume that anything good 
for the environment must be bad for business. They believe that 
protecting the environment means more government restrictions, higher 
costs, and lower profits. This logic is flawed.
  I also know people in the environmental community who assume that 
anything good for trade must be bad for the environment. They believe 
that more trade means more growth, and that more growth means more 
damage to the environment. This logic is flawed, too.
  We can take measures which benefit both trade and the environment. I 
am proposing one such measure today: eliminating import duties on 
environmental products as part of a multilateral agreement. This enjoys 
wide support from American environmental technology companies, as well 
as from members of the environmental community.
  Mr. President, let me recall a bit of recent trade history. During 
the Uruguay Round of trade negotiations, the United States participated 
in a number of sectoral tariff initiatives. They were known as ``zero-
for-zero.'' Countries agreed to reciprocal tariff elimination, saying 
``I'll put my tariff at zero, if you'll do the same.''
  The Uruguay Round Act gave the President the authority to eliminate 
U.S. tariffs in these ``zero-for-zero''

[[Page 23220]]

sectors. But in several sectors, the negotiators did not reach 
agreement. The President retains tariff authority in these sectors. 
Examples are products like furniture and paper. Some of these sectors 
are once again under discussion in the WTO.
  In addition to these unfinished Uruguay Round sectors, the United 
States launched other zero-for-zero initiatives. This work began in the 
Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) forum, and then moved to the 
WTO. One of the sectors under discussion is environmental goods.
  Environmental goods cover a wide range of products made in America to 
control air, water and noise pollution, as well as solid and hazardous 
waste. These products include equipment for recycling and for renewable 
energy. They include technology for remediation and cleanup. 
Environmental goods also include scientific equipment for monitoring 
and analysis. All told, U.S. firms sell somewhere between $20 and $40 
billion abroad annually. They could sell more if other countries would 
eliminate trade barriers, including tariffs.
  In my home state of Montana, businesses which export environmental 
equipment could expand their operations if they faced fewer foreign 
barriers. I have heard from one company, SRS Crisafulli, which is 
working in Latin America markets. Tariffs on their dredging equipment 
raise their sales price substantially. The inexorable law of the market 
is that higher sales prices mean lower sales.
  As my colleagues know, the United States maintains the world's most 
open market. Our tariffs are generally low. They are especially low on 
environmental goods, where U.S. import duties average less than 2%. 
This bill I am introducing today would eliminate these small tariffs--
nuisance tariffs, really. In return, other countries would abolish 
their import duties on American-made products. Their tariffs can be 
three or four times higher than ours. That's a good deal for us, and a 
good deal for world trade.
  It's also a good deal for the environment. The biggest importers of 
these products are the emerging markets of Asia, Africa and Latin 
America. Expanding the use of environmental technology will help limit 
or remedy environmental damage. It will have a positive impact on 
public health and the quality of life.
  Mr. President, the bill I am introducing preserves Congress' 
constitutional role in foreign trade. It requires the President to 
consult with us before implementing any environmental tariff cuts. And 
I would like to put our trade negotiators on notice that we expect them 
to bring to us a proposal with broad coverage, rapid staging and 
limited exceptions.
  I am particularly concerned about the scope of the agreement now 
being negotiated. I understand that some of our trading partners in 
APEC were unwilling to classify certain products as ``environmental 
goods'' because they are ``dual use.'' A hydraulic pump, for instance, 
can be used for either a sewage treatment plant or a microchip plant. 
We should press other countries to adopt a broad definition of 
``environmental goods'' to encourage dissemination of technology.
  Mr. President, ever since environmental tariff elimination surfaced, 
the U.S. told our trading partners not to worry that the President 
lacks tariff-cutting authority in the sector. When the time comes, we 
said, Congress will grant the necessary authority. I believe this 
effort merits the same kind of support from the Senate that it has 
gained support among the trade and environmental communities. It is 
particularly important that we show this support now, as the United 
States prepares to host the WTO Trade Ministers Meeting in Seattle. I 
encourage all of my colleagues to provide this support.
                                 ______
                                 

                            By Mr. BENNETT:

  S. 1664. A bill to clarify the legal effect on the United States of 
the acquisition of a parcel of land in the Red Cliffs Desert Reserve in 
the State of Utah; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.


         red cliffs desert reserve land acquisition legislation

  S. 1665. A bill to direct the Secretary of the Interior to release 
reversionary interests held by the United States in certain parcels of 
land in Washington County, Utah, to facilitate an anticipated land 
exchange; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.


                 land exchange facilitation legislation

 Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I am introducing two bills which 
address minor technical issues in Washington County, Utah. Given the 
non-controversial nature of these bills, I am hopeful they will be 
given quick consideration.
  The first bill deals with a land exchange between the city of St. 
George and the BLM to facilitate a Washington County, Utah habitat 
conservation plan for the desert tortoise. The parcel of land at issue 
was once used as a landfill. The BLM is interested in acquiring the 
land in an exchange, but it is reluctant to accept liability for any 
unknown toxic materials that may be in the landfill. The bill would 
leave liability for the landfill in the hands of the city. Both the BLM 
and the city of St. George are in favor of this legislation.
  The next bill deals with an exchange between the State of Utah and a 
private party. This exchange would facilitate additional protection for 
the endangered desert tortoise. The parcels of land that the State 
wants to trade were given to them pursuant to the Recreation and Public 
Purposes Act and consequently have a BLM reversionary clause clouding 
title to the property. This bill would remove those reversionary 
clauses so that the State could pass clear title in the land exchange.
  I appreciate once again the leadership of Chairman Hansen on the 
House Committee on Resources in taking the lead on these bills in the 
other body and I look forward to working with my colleagues on the 
Senate Energy Committee to move these bills quickly.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. LUGAR (for himself, Mr. McConnell, Mr. Fitzgerald, and Mr. 
        Helms):
  S. 1666. A bill to provide risk education assistance to agricultural 
producers, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Agriculture, 
Nutrition, and Forestry.


                      farmers' risk management act

  Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to 
help our nation's farmers cope with the risks inherent in production 
agriculture.
  My colleagues are familiar with the challenges facing American 
farmers. Prices are down world-wide. Exports are lower than expected, 
in large part due to the economic problems in Asia. Weather problems, 
from droughts to floods, have plagued large portions of our country.
  The Senate has passed, and a conference committee is considering, an 
agricultural appropriations bill that contains emergency provisions to 
deal with these immediate needs. For the intermediate and long term, 
the Congressional budget resolution contains $6 billion for use in 
fiscal years 2001-2004 that can be used as direct payments or to help 
farmers manage risk. Given these available funds, the question for 
policymakers is how best to help farmers manage the risks that they 
face.
  Some suggest that the entire $6 billion should be used to alter the 
subsidy structure of the federal crop insurance program. I believe that 
risk management is broader than crop insurance alone. To keep U.S. 
agriculture competitive, farmers will have to consider a variety of 
practices including: engaging in sophisticated marketing practices; 
reducing debt; considering alternative crops; and purchasing crop 
insurance. An approach to risk management that focuses on the crop 
insurance program's subsidy structure is too narrow to address the many 
risks faced by farmers.
  In crafting my own risk management bill, I was guided by four 
principles. First, the greatest possible amount of the $6 billion 
should go directly to farmers. In the crop insurance program, private 
insurers receive substantial compensation for selling and servicing 
multi-peril policies on the government's behalf. Overall, the insurance 
companies receive about one-third

[[Page 23221]]

of the federal financial support of the program. Farmers get the 
remaining two-thirds. In my view, farmers should receive more of the 
new federal spending.
  Second, the $6 billion should be provided in such a manner so that it 
does not distort planting decisions. Leading economists believe that 
crop insurance encourages the planting of crops on marginal and 
environmentally challenged acreage. Federal risk management spending 
should not inadvertently subsidize overproduction when world-wide 
agricultural stocks are already large. Subsidizing overproduction 
postpones the day when agricultural prices will rebound.
  Third, the $6 billion should be distributed equitably among farmers 
and among regions. In terms of eligible 1998 acres insured, farmers' 
participation by state ranges from a low of 4 percent to a high of 93 
percent. Clearly, farmers in some parts of the country do not view crop 
insurance as a useful risk management tool. By spending the bulk of the 
increased federal assistance on crop insurance, we are denying farmers 
in some parts of the country risk management help.
  Fourth, farmers should be encouraged to pursue a variety of risk 
management strategies, including, but not limited to, crop insurance. 
Within broad parameters, farmers should be able to choose the risk 
management strategy that best meets their needs.
  Mr. President, the bill I am introducing today complies with my four 
principles. First, of the $6 billion in available new spending, over $5 
billion is sent directly to farmers. Second, because the money is sent 
directly to farmers and is based on historical production, it is far 
less likely to distort planting decisions. Third, because it is not 
limited only to one form of risk management--crop insurance, it is more 
equitable among regions. Fourth, in order to better meet farmers' 
individual needs, it lets farmers choose risk management strategies 
from a menu of options.
  The bill directs the Secretary of Agriculture, for the 2001-2004 
crops, to offer to enter into a contract with a producer in which the 
producer receives a risk management payment if the producer performs at 
least 2 of the following risk management practices each applicable 
year:
  1. Purchase Federal or private crop insurance (e.g., private crop 
hail) that is equivalent to at least catastrophic risk protection, for 
at least one principal agricultural commodity produced on the farm for 
which federal crop insurance is available.
  2. Hedge price, revenue, or production risk by entering into at least 
one standard exchange-traded contract for a future or option on a 
principal agricultural commodity (crops or livestock) produced on the 
farm.
  3. Hedge price, revenue, or production risk on at least 10% of the 
value of a principal agricultural commodity produced on the farm by 
purchasing an agricultural trade option.
  4. Cover at least 20% of the value of a principal agricultural 
commodity (crops or livestock) produced on the farm with a cash forward 
or other type of marketing contract.
  5. Attend an agricultural marketing or risk management class. This 
includes, but is not limited to, a seminar or class conducted by a 
broker licensed by a futures exchange.
  6. Deposit at least 25% of the risk management payment into a FARRM 
account, or a similar tax deductible account.
  7. Reduce farm financial risk by reducing debt in an amount that 
reduces leverage, or by increasing liquidity.
  8. Reduce farm business risk by diversifying the farm's production by 
producing at least one new commodity on the farm, or by significantly 
increasing the diversity of enterprises on the farm.
  A producer's annual risk management payment will be based on his or 
her Federal Crop Insurance Corporation (FCIC) average actual production 
history (APH) established for the 2000 crop for each Federally 
insurable agricultural commodity grown by the producer. Under existing 
FCIC procedures, the average APH for a commodity for crop year 2000 is 
based on a producer's documented production and acreage history from at 
least 4 of the 10 immediately preceding crop years.
  Let me give a hypothetical example of how this would work at the farm 
level. Suppose a farmer produces corn, soybeans, and apples for the 
fresh apple market on a total of 525 acres somewhere, let's say, in the 
eastern half of the country. Corn and soybeans are federally insurable 
throughout the country and apples are federally insurable in most areas 
that have significant apple production. Let's further suppose that this 
hypothetical producer has never purchased federal crop insurance 
before.
  Under my bill, this grain and apple farmer would be eligible for risk 
management payments for each of the 2001 through 2004 crops based on 
his average actual production history for corn, soybeans, and apples 
for the four crop years covering 1996, 1997, 1998, and 1999. He could 
document more than four years of production history, but FCIC 
procedures require a minimum of four consecutive years. Let's suppose 
the producer's average production is 30,000 bushels of corn based on 
250 acres; 10,000 bushels of soybeans based on 250 acres; and 11,548 
bushels of apples based on 25 acres. The producer's average APH would 
be valued at the 1997-1999 average FCIC established price level for 
each crop. This price is $2.38 per bushel for corn and $5.80 per bushel 
for soybeans. The apple price varies by region. For this example, I 
will use a fresh apple price of $4.17 per bushel (42 pounds/bushel) 
which would be the applicable price for fresh apples in one of the 
eastern region's major apple-producing states. At these prices, the 
value of the producer's average APH across all crops (rounded to the 
nearest dollar) would be $177,554.
  The amount of the producer's annual risk management payment would be 
based on a percentage payment rate determined by the Secretary of 
Agriculture based on $1.275 billion for each of the 2001 through 2004 
crops for a cumulative total of $5.1 billion. Preliminary estimates 
suggest that the payment rate will be somewhere between 1 percent and 2 
percent of production value if 100 percent of the eligible farmers sign 
up for risk management payments. Thus, a reasonable estimate is that 
the percentage payment rate will come out at 1.5 percent of production 
value. If this estimate turns out to be correct, our hypothetical grain 
and apple farmer's annual risk management payment (rounded to the 
nearest dollar) would be $2,663. The 2001 payment would be available to 
the farmer on or after October 1, 2000, approximately one year from 
today.
  In order to qualify for his risk management payment each year, the 
farmer would have to certify with the Agriculture Department that he 
had obtained or used 2 of the 8 risk management practices each year. He 
could do this in a large number of ways. For example, he could qualify 
by purchasing crop multi-peril crop insurance on his 2001 corn or 
soybean production and cash forward contract at least 20 percent of the 
2001 corn or soybean crop. Alternatively, he could qualify by entering 
into a marketing contract with a buyer for at least 20 percent of his 
2001 apple production and purchase exchange-traded options to hedge 
price risk on his 2001 corn or soybean crop.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a section-by-section 
summary of my bill be printed in the Record. I encourage my colleagues 
to study my bill and to talk it over with farmers in their own states.
  There being no objection, the summary was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

    Farmers' Risk Management Act of 1999--Section by Section Summary


                   TITLE I--RISK MANAGEMENT PAYMENTS

     Section 101. Definitions
       Defines terms used in this title.
     Section 102. Risk management contract
       Subsection (a) Offer and Consideration. Directs the 
     Secretary of Agriculture, for the 2001-2004 crops, to offer 
     to enter into a contract with a producer in which the 
     producer receives a risk management payment if the producer 
     performs at least 2 qualifying risk management practices in 
     an applicable year.

[[Page 23222]]

     A producer's annual risk management payment will based be on 
     his or her FCIC average actual production history (APH) 
     established for the 2000 crop for each Federally insurable 
     agricultural commodity grown by the producer. Under existing 
     FCIC procedures, the APH for a commodity for crop year 2000 
     is based on a producer's documented production and acreage 
     history from at least 4 of the 10 immediately preceding years 
     (1990-1999). A producer may elect to receive a risk 
     management payment directly or have an equivalent amount 
     credited to the premium owed by the producer for Federal crop 
     insurance coverage.
       Subsection (b) Qualifying Risk Management Practices. 
     Describes the 8 qualifying risk management practices:
       1. Purchase Federal or private crop insurance (e.g. private 
     crop hail) that is equivalent to at least catastrophic risk 
     protection, for at least one principal agricultural commodity 
     produced on the farm for which federal crop insurance is 
     available.
       2. Hedge price, revenue, or production risk by entering 
     into at least one standard exchange-traded contract for a 
     future or option on a principal agricultural commodity (crops 
     or livestock) produced on the farm.
       3. Hedge price, revenue, or production risk on at least 10% 
     of the value of a principal agricultural commodity produced 
     on the farm by purchasing an agricultural trade option.
       4. Cover at least 20% of the value of a principal 
     agricultural commodity (crops or livestock) produced on the 
     farm with a cash forward or other type of marketing contract.
       5. Attend an agricultural marketing or risk management 
     class. This includes, but is not limited to, a seminar or 
     class conducted by a broker licensed by a futures exchange.
       6. Deposit at least 25% of the risk management payment into 
     a FARRM account, or a similar tax deductible account.
       7. Reduce farm financial risk by reducing debt in an amount 
     that reduces leverage, or by increasing liquidity.
       8. Reduce farm business risk by diversifying the farm's 
     production by producing at least one new commodity on the 
     farm, or by significantly increasing the diversity of 
     enterprises on the farm.
       Subsection (c) Determination of Risk Management Payment. 
     The amount that is available for risk management payments for 
     each of the 2001 through 2004 crops is $1.275 billion (a 
     total of $5.1 billion). A producer's risk management payment 
     is calculated (for each Federally insurable commodity of a 
     producer) by multiplying:
       (1) the average APH established for the 2000 crop (meaning 
     documented production and acreage history from at least 4 of 
     the 10 immediately preceding years covering 1990-1999) for 
     each Federally insurable commodity of a producer;
       (2) the 1997-1999 average of the FCIC price level 
     established for each commodity (i.e., $2.38/bu. for corn, 
     $5.80/bu. for soybeans, $3.60/bu. for wheat, 68 cents/lb. for 
     upland cotton and $9.50/cwt. for rice); and
       (3) a payment rate determined by the Secretary in 
     accordance with the total amount available for the year.
     Section 103. Administrative provisions
       Risk management payments for each of the 2001 through 2004 
     crops will be paid in one or more amounts as of October 1 of 
     the crop year. A payment for the 2001 crop could be paid as 
     early as October 1, 2000. A producer must certify with the 
     Secretary which qualifying risk management practices were 
     used on the farm by filing a form with the local FSA office. 
     Qualifying risk management practices used for the 2001 crop 
     would have to be reported by April 15, 2002. A producer 
     choosing to receive a credit for a crop insurance premium 
     will receive the benefit at the time payment of the premium 
     is due (after harvest). Should a producer accept a risk 
     management payment but not perform at least 2 qualifying risk 
     management practices in the applicable year, the producer 
     will be required to repay the full amount of the risk 
     management payment with interest.
     Section 104. Termination of authority; funding
       Terminates the authority and funding for risk management 
     payments and qualifying risk management practices as of 
     September 30, 2004.


                        title ii--crop insurance

     Section 201. Sanctions for program compliance and fraud
       A producer who provides false or misleading information 
     about a crop insurance policy may be assessed a $10,000 civil 
     penalty for each violation, or debarred from all USDA 
     financial assistance programs for up to 5 years, depending on 
     the severity of the violation. Agents, loss adjusters, and 
     approved insurance providers who provide false or misleading 
     information about a policy or the administration of a policy 
     or claim under this Act may be subject to civil fines up to 
     $10,000 per violation, or debarred from participating in 
     insurance programs under this Act for up to 5 years, 
     depending on the severity of the violation. The same 
     penalties may apply to agents, loss adjusters, and approved 
     insurance providers who have recurrent compliance problems.
     Section 202. Oversight of loss adjustment
       Requires the Corporation to develop procedures for annual 
     reviews of loss adjusters by the approved insurance provider, 
     and to consult with the approved insurance provider about 
     each annual evaluation.
     Section 203. Revenue insurance pilot program
       Extends the authority for certain revenue insurance pilot 
     programs through the 2004 crop.
     Section 204. Reduction in CAT underwriting gains and losses
       Reduces the potential for underwriting gains or losses 
     associated with catastrophic crop insurance (CAT) policies 
     for the 2001 through 2004 reinsurance years.
     Section 205. Whole farm revenue insurance pilot program
       Establishes a pilot program for the 2001 through the 2004 
     reinsurance years that guarantees farm revenue based on the 
     average adjusted gross income of the producer for the 
     previous 5 years. Covers crops and livestock.
     Section 206. Product innovation and rate competition pilot 
         program
       Establishes a pilot program for the 2001 through 2004 
     reinsurance years that allows private insurance companies to 
     develop and market innovative insurance products, to compete 
     with other companies regarding rates of premium, and to allow 
     a company that has developed a new insurance product to 
     charge a fee to other companies that want to market the 
     product.
     Section 207. Limitation on double insurance
       Prohibits purchasing insurance for more than 1 crop for the 
     same acreage in a year, except where there is an established 
     history of double-cropping on the acreage.


                         title iii--regulations

     Section 301. Regulations
       Requires the Secretary to promulgate regulations within 180 
     days of enactment.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. KERRY (for himself, Mr. Brownback, Mr. Lieberman, Mr. 
        Hutchinson, and Ms. Mikulski):
  S. 1668. A bill to amend title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to 
establish provisions with respect to religious accommodation in 
employment, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Health, 
Education, Labor, and Pensions.


                    WORKPLACE RELIGIOUS FREEDOM ACT

 Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I am introducing today a bipartisan 
bill, together with Senator Brownback of Kansas. This is the Workplace 
Religious Freedom Act of 1999.
  This bill would protect workers from on-the-job discrimination 
related to religious beliefs and practices. It represents a milestone 
in the protection of the religious liberties of all workers.
  In 1972, Congress amended the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to require 
employers to reasonably accommodate an employee's religious practice or 
observance unless doing so would impose an undue hardship on the 
employer. This 1972 amendment, although completely appropriate, has 
been interpreted by the courts so narrowly as to place little restraint 
on an employer's refusal to provide religious accommodation. The 
Workplace Religious Freedom Act will restore to the religious 
accommodation provision the weight that Congress originally intended 
and help assure that employers have a meaningful obligation to 
reasonably accommodate their employees' religious practices.
  The restoration of this protection is no small matter. For many 
religiously observant Americans the greatest peril to their ability to 
carry out their religious faiths on a day-to-day basis may come from 
employers. I have heard accounts from around the country about a small 
minority of employers who will not make reasonable accommodation for 
employees to observe the Sabbath and other holy days or for employees 
who must wear religiously-required garb, such as a yarmulke, or for 
employees to wear clothing that meets religion-based modesty 
requirements.
  The refusal of an employer, absent undue hardship, to provide 
reasonable accommodation of a religious practice should be seen as a 
form of religious discrimination, as originally intended by Congress in 
1972. And religious discrimination should be treated fully as seriously 
as any other form of discrimination that stands between Americans and 
equal employment opportunities. Enactment of the Workplace Religious 
Freedom Act will constitute an important step toward ensuring that all 
members of society, whatever their religious beliefs and practices, 
will be protected from an invidious form of discrimination.
  It is important to recognize that, in addition to protecting the 
religious freedom of employees, this legislation

[[Page 23223]]

protects employers from an undue burden. Employees would be allowed to 
take time off only if their doing so does not pose a significant 
difficulty or expense for the employer. This common sense definition of 
undue hardship is used in the ``Americans with Disabilities Act'' and 
has worked well in that context.
  We have little doubt that this bill is constitutional because it 
simply clarifies existing law on discrimination by private employers, 
strengthening the required standard for employers. This bill does not 
deal with behavior by State or Federal Governments or substantively 
expand 14th amendment rights.
  I believe this bill should receive bipartisan support. This bill is 
endorsed by wide range of organizations including the American Jewish 
Committee, Christian Legal Society, Family Research Council, General 
Conference of Seventh-day Adventists, National Council of the Churches 
of Christ in the U.S.A., and the Southern Baptist Convention.
  I want to thank Senator Brownback for joining me in this effort. I 
look forward working with him to pass this legislation so that all 
American workers can be assured of both equal employment opportunities 
and the ability to practice their religion.
 Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, today I am pleased to stand with 
concerned colleagues, both Republicans and Democrats, as well as 
concerned citizens, including Christians, Jews, Muslims, and Sikhs 
among many other faiths. We come together in support of a simple 
proposition. America is distinguished internationally as a land of 
religious freedom. It should be a place where no person is forced to 
choose between keeping their faith and keeping their job. That is why I 
am joining with Senators Kerry, Hutchinson, Lieberman and Mikulski in 
introducing the Workplace Religious Freedom Act.
  This legislation provides a skilled reconciling of religion in the 
workplace. It recognizes that work and religion can be reconciled 
without undue hardship. Americans continue to be a religious people, 
with a deep personal faith commitment. With this commitment comes 
personal religious standards which govern personal activity. For 
example, some Americans don't work on Saturdays, while others don't 
work on Sundays. Not because they're lazy or frivolous, but because 
their faith convictions call for a Sabbath day, requiring a day to be 
set aside as holy.
  Similarly, some Americans need to wear a skullcap to work, or a head 
covering, or a turban. As a nation whose great strength rests in 
diversity, surely we can protect such diverse yet simple and 
unobtrusive expressions of personal faith. Surely we're still generous 
enough, and God-respecting enough as a nation, to support others in the 
genuine expressions of their faith. I am particularly anxious for the 
religious minorities, for the Muslims and the Jews and the others who 
are very small in number but great in conviction. In our increasingly 
secular society, many remain among us who still hold by ancient, heart-
felt principles governed by a deep personal belief. I submit to you 
they deserve the decency of respect which includes our protection in 
preserving their peaceful religious expressions. This is a core 
principle which cannot be compromised, because it speaks to the essence 
of who we are as a people committed to preserving freedom.
  In this land of religious freedom, one would hope that employers 
would spontaneously accommodate the religious needs of their employees 
whenever reasonable. That is, after all, what we do here in Congress. 
For example, we don't conduct votes or hearings on certain holidays so 
that Members and staff can observe their religious holy days. While 
most private employers also extend this simple but important decency to 
their workers, others unfortunately do not.
  Historically, title VII of the Civil Rights Act was meant to address 
conflicts between religion and work. On its face it requires employers 
to ``reasonably accommodate'' the religious needs of their employees as 
long as this does not impose an ``undue hardship'' on the employer. The 
problem is that our federal courts have essentially read these lines 
out of the law by ruling that any hardship is an undue hardship. This 
is not right, nor does it hold with the spirit of this great nation 
which was founded as a refuge for religious freedom.
  Thus, a Maryland trucking company can try to force a devout Christian 
truck driver to take a Sunday shift. A local sheriff's department in 
Nevada can tell a Seventh Day Adventist that she must work a Saturday 
shift if she wants to continue with them.
  The Workplace Religious Freedom Act will re-establish the principle 
that employers must reasonably accommodate the religious needs of 
employees such as these. This legislation is carefully crafted and 
strikes an appropriate balance between religious accommodation, while 
ensuring that an undue burden is not forced upon American businesses. 
It is flexible and case-oriented on an individual basis. Thus, a 
smaller business with less resources and personnel would not be asked 
to accommodate religious employees in exactly the same fashion as would 
a large manufacturing concern.
  I am proud of the fact that this is a bi-partisan effort, I am proud 
that this legislation is supported by such a broad spectrum of groups 
ranging from the Christian Legal Society and the Union of Orthodox 
Jewish Congregations, to the Family Research Council, the National 
Council of Churches, the North American Council for Muslim Women, and 
the American Jewish Committee.
  America is a great nation because we honor the free exercise of 
belief, which includes the very precious, fundamental freedom of 
religion. This liberty, known as the ``first freedom,'' is worthy of 
our continued vigilance. it properly demands support from all quarters, 
both the public and private sectors. It properly finds it here in this 
legislation which re-establishes the right balance between the 
competing concerns of business and faith.
 Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I am proud to join Senators 
Brownback, Kerry, and others in introducing this important legislation 
today. America is a deeply religious nation, and fostering a society in 
which all Americans can worship according to the dictates of their 
conscience has been of prominent importance to this country since its 
beginning. Indeed, the Founders of this great Nation saw preserving 
Americans' ability to worship freely as so important that they 
enshrined it in the Bill of Rights' very first amendment.
  Unfortunately, a number of Americans today are not able to take full 
advantage of America's promise of religious freedom. They are instead 
being forced to make a choice no American should face: one between the 
dictates of their faith and the demands of their job. Whether by being 
forced to work on days their religion requires them to refrain from 
work or by being denied the right to wear clothing their faith mandates 
they wear, too many Americans of faith are facing an unfair choice 
between their job and their religion.
  This legislation would provide much needed help for those confronted 
with that choice. It would require employers to provide reasonable 
accommodations to an employee's religious observance or practice, 
unless doing so would impose an undue hardship on the employer. The 
bill would not, it is worth emphasizing, give employees a right to 
dictate the conditions of their job, because it does not demand that 
employers accede to unreasonable requests. Instead, it requires only 
that an employer grant a religiously based request for an accommodation 
to an employee's religious belief or practice if the accommodation 
would not impose significant difficulty or expense on the employer.
  Mr. President, this legislation is long overdue. I hope that we can 
see it enacted into law soon.

                          ____________________