[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 2]
[Senate]
[Pages 2320-2331]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOULTIONS

      By Mr. BROWNBACK (for himself, Mr. Grams, Mr. Smith of New 
        Hampshire, Mr. Ashcroft, Mr. Inhofe, Mr. Kyl, Mr. Allard, Mr. 
        Helms, Mr. Sessions, Mr. Abraham, Mr. Nickles, Mr. Santorum, 
        and Mr. Hagel):
  S. 410. A bill to provide for offsetting tax cuts whenever there is 
an elimination of a discretionary spending program; to the Committee on 
the Budget and the Committee on Governmental Affairs, jointly, pursuant 
to order of August 4, 1977, with instructions that if one Committee 
reports, the other Committee have thirty days to report or be 
discharged.


                              paygo reform

 Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, today I am introducing a bill, 
cosponsored by several of my colleagues that would reform the current 
pay-as-you-go financing mechanism of our federal government.
  As a critical step to help reform the federal government, I believe 
that we need to change Congressional Budget Rules that make it illegal 
to use cuts in inefficient government spending to pay for tax cuts. 
Over the past century, our budget rules have been written in a way that 
favors spending over savings. We must fundamentally reform Pay-as-you-
go (PAYGO) financing this year beyond the current law understanding 
which effectively turns PAYGO off during periods of an on-budget 
surplus.
  Currently, according to PAYGO, Congress cannot make cuts in wasteful, 
even harmful government discretionary spending programs in order to 
finance tax cuts. For example, we can't cut the Advanced Technology 
Program in the Department of Commerce to pay for a capital gains tax 
cut. Rather, Congress has to make cuts in popular mandatory spending 
programs like Social Security and Medicare in order to pay for its tax 
cuts. I believe it is wrong to pit Social Security and Medicare against 
tax cuts. We need to flip the table on this false tradeoff by pitting 
tax cuts against wasteful big government spending.
  Such a change would amount to a paradigm shift in how government 
functions and would help limit the size of government while at the same 
time providing additional resources for meaningful tax relief. The 
machinery of government is constructed to spend. We need reengineering 
of government so that the machinery produces savings.
  My bill would change budget law in order to allow for tax cuts to be 
implemented in the amount of program eliminations. In practice, if we 
are able to eliminate a program during consideration of an 
appropriations measure, that money would be credited to the PAYGO 
scorecard and reserved for tax cuts.
  Therefore, should my bill be enacted, we could eliminate programs 
like the Advance Technology Program, the National Endowment for the 
Arts, the Department of Commerce, and a whole host of other government 
programs while at the same time giving the taxpayers the tax relief 
they deserve--and we can do it without making draconian cuts to 
mandatory spending programs that ultimately do little to save the 
programs and much to simply prolong the crisis.
  Mr. President, I look forward to the coming debate on budget process 
reforms. I look forward to the bill that is being considered jointly by 
the Governmental Affairs and Budget Committees, and I look forward to 
working with the chairmen of each in order to accomplish the type of 
budget reform that we truly need.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. GRASSLEY (for himself, Mr. Jeffords, Mr. Conrad, Mr. 
        Leahy, Mr. Murkowski, Mr. Smith of Oregon, Mr. Wellstone, Mr. 
        Chafee, Mr. Breaux, Mr. Graham, Mr. Mack, Mr. Daschle, Mr. 
        Dorgan, and Mr. Burns).
  S. 414. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide 
a 5-year extension of the credit for producing electricity from wind, 
and for other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.


                         wind energy tax credit

 Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce 
important tax legislation for myself and Senators Jeffords, Conrad, 
Murkowski, Leahy, Wellstone, Chafee, Smith of Oregon, Breaux, Graham, 
Mack, Daschle, and Dorgan.
  Our legislation extends the production tax credit for energy 
generated by wind. This proposed bill resembles bi-partisan legislation 
introduced in November of 1998 that, unfortunately, was not enacted.
  As original author of the Wind Energy Incentives Act of 1993, I 
strongly believe that the expansion and development of wind energy must 
be facilitated by this production tax credit.
  The Senate has previously supported wind energy production tax credit 
legislation. I would therefore like to request that Senators again 
consider this valuable initiative that would help secure this untapped 
potential for clean power.
  Wind, unlike most energy sources, is an efficient and environmentally 
safe form of energy use. Wind is renewable and does not obligate the 
United States to rely on unstable foreign states for sources of energy.
  This legislation extends the production tax credit through the month 
of June, 2004. We all know the damaging effects fossil fuels have on 
our environment. Wind energy, by contrast, is clean, safe, and abundant 
within the United States.
  Every 10,000 megawatts of wind energy can reduce carbon monoxide 
emissions by 33 million metric tons. Today, the United States produces 
only 1,700 megawatts of wind energy. However, experts estimate that 
American wind capacity can produce up to 30,000 megawatts by the year 
2010--that is enough energy to meet the demands of over 10 million 
homes, while reducing pollution in every state.
  The production tax credit has brought wind power generation costs 
almost down to the same as coal and gas energy levels. In order to 
continue this investment in America's energy future, we must extend the 
production tax credit.
  Currently, my own state of Iowa has 5 new wind power projects ready 
to go online just this year. These 5 projects, with the megawatt 
capacity of over 240, join the already existing 6 facilities in Iowa. 
Even large petroleum producing states like Texas, ranked 2nd in the 
Nation in wind energy potential, recognize the growing significance of 
wind power.
  Renewing the wind tax credit would allow for greater expansion into 
the wind energy field. These projects take a long time to develop and 
assured tax breaks would help facilitate more wind power construction 
contracts. Withhold the tax credit and investment will surely decline 
for new wind projects.

[[Page 2321]]

This is because it takes as much as 3 years to obtain financing and 
permitting to build a new facility.
  Wind is a domestic natural resource, found abundant in almost every 
state. Wind is homegrown energy, that cannot be controlled by any 
foreign state or power. American lives need not be put at risk to 
protect overseas sources of wind energy.
  Wind energy can be harnessed without the detrimental effects of 
fossil fuel pollution. Wind is a stable and reliable form of power that 
is renewable and inextinguishable. This legislation ensures that wind 
energy does not fall by the wayside as a productive alternative energy 
source. The Senate needs to extend this important legislation and I 
encourage all my colleagues to join us in this effort.
  Mr. President, I ask that the bill be printed in the Record.
  The bill follows:

                                 S. 414

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

     SECTION 1. 5-YEAR EXTENSION OF CREDIT FOR PRODUCING 
                   ELECTRICITY FROM WIND.

       (a) In General.--Paragraph (3) of section 45(c) of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (defining qualified facility) 
     is amended to read as follows:
       ``(3) Qualified facility.--The term `qualified facility' 
     means any facility owned by the taxpayer which is originally 
     placed in service--
       ``(A) in the case of a facility using wind to produce 
     electricity, after December 31, 1993, and before July 1, 
     2004, and
       ``(B) in the case of a facility using closed-loop biomass 
     to produce electricity, after December 31, 1992, and before 
     July 1, 1999.''.
       (b) Credit Not To Apply to Electricity Sold to Utilities 
     Under Certain Contracts.--Subsection (b) of section 45 of 
     such Code is amended by adding at the end the following new 
     paragraph:
       ``(4) Credit not to apply to electricity sold to utilities 
     under certain contracts.--
       ``(A) In general.--The credit determined under subsection 
     (a) shall not apply to electricity--
       ``(i) produced at a qualified facility placed in service by 
     the taxpayer after June 30, 1999, and
       ``(ii) sold to a utility pursuant to a contract originally 
     entered into before January 1, 1987 (whether or not amended 
     or restated after that date).
       ``(B) Exception.--Subparagraph (A) shall not apply if--
       ``(i) the prices for energy and capacity from such facility 
     are established pursuant to an amendment to the contract 
     referred to in subparagraph (A)(ii);
       ``(ii) such amendment provides that the prices set forth in 
     the contract which exceed avoided cost prices determined at 
     the time of delviery shall apply only to annual quantities of 
     electricity (prorated for partial years) which do not exceed 
     the greater of--
       ``(I) the average annual quantity of electricity sold to 
     the utility under the contract during calendar years 1994, 
     1995, 1996, 1997, and 1998, or
       ``(II) the estimate of the annual electricity production 
     set forth in the contract, or, if there is no such estimate, 
     the greatest annual quantity of electricity sold to the 
     utility under the contract in any of the calendar years 1996, 
     1997, or 1998; and
       ``(iii) such amendment provides that energy and capacity in 
     excess of the limitation in clause (ii) may be--
       ``(I) sold to the utility only at prices that do not exceed 
     avoided cost prices determined at the time of delivery, or
       ``(II) sold to a third party subject to a mutually agreed 
     upon advance notice to the utility.

     For purposes of this subparagraph, avoided cost prices shall 
     be determined as provided for in 18 CFR 292.304(d)(1) or any 
     successor regulation.''.

 Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I stand today with my colleague from 
Iowa, Senator Grassley and others, as an original co-sponsor of a bill, 
S. 414, that would provide alternative energy tax credits that will 
help our Nation become a leader in environmentally sound energy usages.
  As a Nation, we consume more energy per capita than any other country 
in the world. However, because of available technology and efficient 
use of our resources, we are also a leader in the use of 
environmentally-friendly practices.
  Last year, President Clinton and Vice-President Gore expressed their 
interest in ratification of the Kyoto Treaty. I am concerned about the 
implications of applying the Kyoto Treaty to the U.S. economy.
  The treaty, negotiated by 160 countries in December 1997, would 
require the United States to reduce its energy-related emissions 30-40 
percent below levels otherwise projected for the years 2008-2012.
  To enter into force, at least 55 nations representing 55 percent of 
the industrial world's 1990 emissions must ratify the agreement. The 
U.S. plays a pivotal role. If the U.S. does not ratify, neither Japan 
nor the European Union will do so.
  In July 1997, the Senate passed, 95-0, a resolution opposing any 
agreement that exempts developing countries from emission limits. The 
Treaty does so exempt such countries. Key developing countries such as 
China, India, Brazil, Mexico and South Korea have refused to limit 
their emissions. These countries create a proportionately larger share 
of emissions than developed countries.
  Therefore it would be unfair for the Congress to subject the Treaty 
on the American taxpayer. I am further concerned that the Clinton 
Administration led by Vice-President Gore signed the Kyoto Protocol 
announcing plans to launch new Kyoto-friendly federal energy 
procurement and transportation initiatives.
  If implemented, Kyoto could: Increase gasoline prices up to 53% (up 
to $1.91/gallon); Increase electricity prices up to 86%; Eliminate up 
to 16 million U.S. jobs over the next six years.
  The Department of Energy's Energy Information Administration 
concludes that natural gas market share will increase from 14% to 33% 
by 2020 and coal market share will decrease dramatically.
  Mr. President, I am very committed to reducing global emissions but I 
am also convinced that such actions must not be at the expense of U.S. 
energy consumers. We have not given proper attention to a largely 
untapped and unlimited resource--that resource being wind generated 
power and other alternative energy sources.
  If you drive through our State, you will feel the power of our 
unharnessed wind. Our Northerly wind can at times present a danger 
along the Rocky Mountain front, and certainly makes it's presence felt 
just about any time of the year.
  The vast majority of wind development has been in California. 
However, many states have a much greater wind potential than 
California. Montana has an annual wind energy potential of 1,020 
billion kilo Watt hours and little has been done to harness that 
energy. Such potential deserves exploration and that exploration needs 
to be fostered.
  Congress is also responsible to help foster such growths in other 
alternative energy sources. Last year, I was very active in efforts to 
provide for an extension of the ``placed-in-service'' date of the 
Section 29 tax credit. Although this tax credit does not expire until 
2008, it is important for Congress to allow new entrants to develop 
their technologies and build their facilities.
  I look forward to pursuing this issue again this year. It will be a 
great addition to current legislation supporting energy tax credits for 
oil and gas development. I would like to request the attached colloquy 
from last year regarding Section 29 tax credits between me and twelve 
of my colleagues be entered into the Record.
  The colloquy follows:

       Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I would like to clarify the 
     intent of Congress regarding tax incentives for alternative 
     fuels. These incentives are important tools for our Nation's 
     long-term energy policy.
       Starting with the energy crisis in the 1970s, Congress has 
     acted on numerous occasions to provide tax credits intended 
     to develop alternative fuels. Prior Congresses took these 
     steps in recognition of the need to encourage the development 
     and use of alternative fuels which promise that we as a 
     Nation will never be dependent on others for our energy 
     resources. For example, Section 29, which expired earlier 
     this year, and Section 45, which is due to expire next June, 
     were both intended to encourage the development of 
     nonconventional fuels.
       Today, our Nation not only needs to continue its efforts to 
     develop alternative fuel resources, but given our ever 
     growing energy requirements, we must consider the 
     environmental impact that conventional and nonconventional 
     fuels have on our environment, particularly in light of the 
     Clean Air Act.
       In order to maximize the most efficient use of our Nation's 
     resources, Congress needs to

[[Page 2322]]

     commit to the development of clean alternative fuels. We need 
     also to use our Nation's technologies to develop 
     environmentally clean alternative liquid fuels from coal.
       In Montana, we have vast coal reserves. There are 
     technologies that can upgrade the coal from these reserves 
     and reduce current difficulties associated with the 
     development of these fields. However, these technologies are 
     not likely to be developed, and therefore these vast natural 
     resources are not likely to be used, unless Congress provides 
     incentives to develop clean alternative fuels.
       I am concerned that we have not been able to fully discuss 
     the merits of such incentives in our budget debate this past 
     month. For example, an extension of Section 29 was included 
     in the Senate version of the tax extenders, but that 
     provision was not included in the final package.
       I would urge my colleagues to bring this debate to the 
     floor in the 106th Congress to ensure that the issue of 
     encouraging the development of clean alternative fuels is a 
     priority in our Nation's energy policy.
       Mr. LOTT. I agree with my colleague from Montana. As our 
     Nation continues to seek ways to improve environmental 
     quality and to reduce the need for imported energy, several 
     new technologies run the risk of not being developed if 
     Congress does not act to provide incentives to develop clean 
     alternative fuels.
       These technologies provide two significant benefits to our 
     Nation. First, the use of alternative fuels reduces our 
     reliance on foreign energy sources. Second, the technologies 
     provide cleaner results for our environment.
       For these reasons, I want to assure my colleague from 
     Montana that I will make a priority of addressing the need 
     for tax incentives to produce clean alternative fuels.
       Mr. GRASSLEY. I agree with my colleagues from Montana and 
     Mississippi about this very important issue. The development 
     and use of alternative fuels are important to this Nation, 
     and we must encourage their use and development.
       Wind energy has long been recognized as an abundant 
     potential source of electric power. A detailed analysis by 
     the Department of Energy's Pacific Northwest Laboratory in 
     1991 estimated the energy potential of the U.S. wind resource 
     at 10.8 trillion kilowatt hours annually, or more than three 
     times total current U.S. electricity consumption. Wind energy 
     is a clean resource that produces electricity with virtually 
     no carbon dioxide emissions. There is nothing limited or 
     controversial about this source of energy. Americans need 
     only to make the necessary investments in order to capture it 
     for power.
       The Production Tax Credit, section 45 of the Internal 
     Revenue Code was enacted as part of the Energy Policy Act of 
     1992. This tax credit is a sound low-cost investment in an 
     emerging sector of the energy industry. I introduced the 
     first bill that contained this tax credit, so you can be sure 
     that I am sincere in my belief in the need to develop this 
     resource. This tax credit currently provides a 1.5 cent per 
     kilowatt hour credit for energy produced from a new facility 
     brought on-line after December 31, 1993 and before July 1, 
     1999 for the first ten years of the facility's existence. 
     Last Fall, I introduced a bill to extend this tax credit for 
     five years. My legislation, S. 1459, currently has 22 
     cosponsors, including half of the Finance Committee. The 
     House companion legislation, introduced by Congressman 
     Thomas, currently has 90 cosponsors, including over half of 
     the Ways and Means Committee. These numbers are a strong 
     testament to the importance of the section 45, and renewable 
     fuels in general.
       In addition, I plan to work to expand this tax credit to 
     allow use of the closed-loop biomass portion of this tax 
     credit. Switchgrass from my state and other Midwestern 
     states, eucalyptus from the South, and other biomass, can be 
     grown for the exclusive purpose of producting energy. This is 
     a productive use of our land, and will be an important step 
     in our use and development of alternative and renewable 
     fuels.
       I was very pleased to see that Congress expressed its 
     understanding of the importance of alternative and renewable 
     fuels by extending the ethanol tax credit in this year's T-2 
     legislation. These tax credits are a successful way of 
     promoting alternative sources of energy. These tax credits 
     are a cheap investment with high returns for ourselves, our 
     children, our grandchildren and even their grandchildren. 
     Congress needs to again pass this important legislation to 
     ensure that these energy tax credits are extended into the 
     century.
       Mr. MURKOWSKI. I concur with my colleagues. Implementation 
     of the 1990 Clean Air Act amendments is creating a real need 
     to develop clean alternative fuels.
       For example, of the 64 remaining U.S. coke batteries, 58 
     are subject to closure as a result of the Clean Air Act. The 
     steel industry can either use limited capital to build new 
     clean coking facilities or they can choose to import coke 
     from China, which uses 50 year old highly pollutant 
     technologies. Restoring the section 29 credit to encourage 
     cleaner coker technologies will greatly reduce emissions and 
     will slow our increasing dependence on foreign coke, at the 
     same time creating jobs in the United States in both the 
     steel and coal mining industries.
       In addition, the United States has rich deposits of lignite 
     and sub-bituminous coals. There are new technologies that can 
     upgrade these coals to make them burn efficiently and 
     economically, while at the same time significantly reducing 
     air pollution.
       This is proven technology, but to make the development of 
     this technology throughout the nation feasible, the Congress 
     needs to provide tax incentives.
       Mr. ENZI. The people of Wyoming have always had very strong 
     ties to our land. That is why the words ``Livestock, Oil, 
     Grain and Mines'' appear on our state seal. Those words 
     clearly reflect the importance of our natural resources to 
     the people of my state, and our commitment to using our 
     abundant natural resources wisely and for the benefit of 
     current and future generations of Wyomingites and the people 
     of this country.
       Congress has determined the need to find newer and cleaner 
     technologies. Wyoming is blessed with an abundance of clean 
     burning coal reserves. It would seem to be a perfect match. 
     We are eager to provide what is needed for our country's 
     present and future fuel needs. But those reserves aren't 
     likely to be developed unless we provide the incentives 
     necessary to make it possible for the coal to be harvested in 
     a safe and environmentally friendly manner.
       Mr. ABRAHAM. I concur with my colleagues. The development 
     and production of alternative fuels provides a real 
     opportunity for the country to improve the environment while 
     ensuring a constant, reasonably priced fuel supply. But 
     recent efforts to provide such assurances have been hampered. 
     For example, in the Small Business Job Protection Act of 
     1996, Congress extended the placed-in-service date for 
     facilities producing synthetic fuels from coal, and gas from 
     biomass for eighteen months.
       However, progress in bringing certain facilities up to full 
     production has been hampered by the Administration's 1997 
     proposal to shorten the placed-in-service date and because, 
     in many cases, the technology used to produce the fuels is 
     new. Such delays have created uncertainty regarding the 
     facilities eligibility under the placed-in-service 
     requirement of section 29.
       While it is important that the Congress consider again this 
     issue in the 106th Congress, I would also urge the Secretary 
     to consider the facilities I mentioned qualified under 
     Section 29 if they met the Service's criteria for placed-in-
     service by June 30, 1998 whether or not such facilities were 
     consistently producing commercial quantities of marketable 
     products on a daily basis.
       Mr. CONRAD. I agree with my colleagues. Through the section 
     29 tax credit for nonconventional fuels, Congress has 
     supported the development of environmentally friendly fuels 
     from domestic biomass and coal resources. There are lignite 
     resources in my state that could compete in the energy 
     marketplace if we can find a reasonable incentive for the 
     investment in the necessary technology. As soon as possible 
     in the 106th Congress, I hope we will give this crucial 
     subject the attention it deserves.
       Mr. HATCH. I concur with my colleagues. This is a very 
     important tax credit for alternative fuels. It is an issue of 
     fairness, not one of corporate welfare.
       Earlier this year I, along with 18 of my colleagues, 
     introduced a bill that would extend for eight months the 
     placed-in-service date for coal and biomass facilities. The 
     need still exists to extend this date and I am very 
     disappointed that this was not included.
       Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I want to join my colleagues in 
     supporting tax incentives for alternative fuels. Our country 
     has assumed a leadership role in the reduction of greenhouse 
     gases because of the global importance of pollution 
     reduction. As my colleagues have also pointed out, promotion 
     of alternative fuels is not just an environmental issue, but 
     an issue important to our domestic economy and independence 
     as well. We cannot afford to slip back toward policies which 
     will leave us dependent upon foreign sources of oil for our 
     economic growth.
       With the huge reserves of coal and lignite in the United 
     States and around the world, as well as the tremendous 
     potential for use of biomass, wind energy, and other 
     alternatives, it is particularly important to our economy and 
     the world's environment that new, more environmentally 
     friendly fuels are brought to market here and in developing 
     nations.
       But bringing new technologies to market is financially 
     risky. In particular, finding investors to take a new 
     technology from the laboratory to the market is difficult 
     because so many technical problems need full-scale testing 
     and operations to resolve. Few investors are prepared to take 
     on the risks associated with bringing a first-of-a-kind, 
     full- sized alternative energy production facility on-line 
     without some level of security provided by a partnership with 
     the federal government.
       Tax incentives represent our government's willingness to 
     work with the private sector as a partner to bring new, clean 
     energy technologies to the market. These incentives 
     demonstrate our country's commitment to the future.
       Mr. GRAHAM. There are two principal reasons I support 
     extension of sections 29 and 45.

[[Page 2323]]

     First, in a period where America is continuing to increase 
     its dependence on foreign oil, we need to develop alternative 
     fuel technologies to prepare for the day when foreign supply 
     of oil is reduced. These tax credits have spurred the 
     production of fuel from sources as diverse as biomass, coal, 
     and wind. America will desperately need fuel from these 
     domestic sources when foreign producers reduce imports. 
     Second, the alternative fuels that earn these tax credits are 
     clean fuels. For example, the capture and reuse of landfill 
     methane prevents the methane from escaping into the 
     atmosphere. I will support my colleagues in an effort next 
     year to extend these provisions.
       Mr. THURMOND. I join my colleagues in support of extending 
     the tax credit for Fuel Production from Nonconventional 
     Sources. Through this credit, Congress has emphasized the 
     importance of establishing alternative energy sources, 
     furthering economic development, and protecting the 
     environment. The alternative fuels credit strikes a proper 
     balance between each of these objectives. I support efforts 
     to bring this issue to a satisfactory conclusion, early in 
     the next Congress.
       Mr. THOMAS. I strongly agree with my colleagues regarding 
     the importance of the Section 29 tax credit. Wyoming has some 
     of the Nation's largest coal reserves and this tax credit 
     gives producers an incentive to develop new and innovative 
     technologies for the use of coal. I am disappointed that an 
     extension of the Section 29 tax credit was not included in 
     the Omnibus Appropriations package and urge my colleagues to 
     make this matter a top priority during the 106th Congress.
       Mr. ROTH. I understand my colleagues' concerns. For some 
     time now I have been studying how to provide targeted 
     incentives to develop clean alternative fuels. It is 
     essential for Congress to develop sound tax policy for 
     alternative energy to help protect our environment. Several 
     weeks ago, I introduced legislation to provide such 
     incentives for facilities that produce energy from poultry 
     waste. I look forward to working with my colleagues on these 
     issues early in the 106th Congress.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. KYL (for himself and Mr. McCain):
  S. 415. A bill to protect the permanent trust funds of the State of 
Arizona from erosion due to inflation and modify the basis on which 
distributions are made from those funds; to the Committee on Energy and 
Natural Resources.


             ARIZONA STATEHOOD AND ENABLING ACT AMENDMENTS

 Mr. KYL. Mr. President, this Sunday, February 14, 1999, marks 
the eighty-seventh anniversary of the granting of statehood to the 
great state of Arizona. On this historic occasion, I propose to amend, 
with the attached bill, the act of Congress which in 1910 set in motion 
Arizona's entry into the Union. The proposed amendment makes two small 
but important modifications to the Arizona Enabling Act relating to the 
administration of state trust funds. These changes have been requested 
by Governor Hull, the state legislature, and the citizens of Arizona.
  Mr. President, the Arizona Enabling Act required the state to 
establish a permanent fund collecting the proceeds of the sale of trust 
land and the land's mineral and other natural products. The principal 
of the fund is not expendable for any purpose. Instead, it is invested 
in interest-bearing securities, and the interest is used to support the 
financial needs of the beneficiaries.
  Mr. President, Arizona is currently prevented from maximizing the 
benefits of the permanent fund. The state could improve management, and 
generate more revenues for the beneficiaries, by gaining authorization 
to invest part of the fund in stocks, and to reinvest some earnings to 
offset inflation. This amendment would allow the state treasurer to 
preserve the real value of the fund by reinvesting an amount equal to 
the rate of inflation, thereby providing higher payments to 
beneficiaries over time. This amendment is similar to the change that 
was granted to New Mexico in 1997. It was approved by Arizona voters on 
November 3, 1998.
  Mr. President, the second modification to the Arizona Enabling Act 
contained in this bill would allow the state to expend monies from the 
Miners' Hospital Endowment Fund to benefit the Arizona Pioneers' Home. 
Current law prohibits the commingling of funds associated with state-
trust lands. Insufficient funds exist in the Miners' Hospital Endowment 
Fund to build and operate a separate hospital for disabled miners, but 
disabled miners have been cared for at the Arizona Pioneers' Home since 
1929. Miners who meet the statutory admission requirements for the 
Hospital for Disabled Miners will continue to be admitted to the 
Arizona Pioneers' Home on a priority basis.
  Mr. President, I ask that the bill be printed in the Record.
  The bill follows:

                                 S. 415

       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 ``Arizona Statehood and 
     Enabling Act Amendments of 1999''.

     SEC. 2. PROTECTION OF TRUST FUNDS OF STATE OF ARIZONA.

       (a) In General.--Section 28 of the Act of June 20, 1910 (36 
     Stat. 574, chapter 310) (as amended by section 2 of Public 
     Law 85-180 (71 Stat. 457)) is amended in the first paragraph 
     by adding at the end the following: ``The trust funds 
     (including all interest, dividends, other income, and 
     appreciation in the market value of assets of the funds) 
     shall be prudently invested on a total rate of return basis. 
     Distributions from the trust funds shall be made as provided 
     in Article 10, Section 7 of the Constitution of the State of 
     Arizona.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendments.--
       (1) Section 25 of the Act of June 20, 1910 (36 Stat. 573, 
     chapter 310), is amended in the proviso of the second 
     paragraph by striking ``the income therefrom only to be 
     used'' and inserting ``distributions from which shall be made 
     in accordance with the first paragraph of section 28 and 
     shall be used''.
       (2) Section 27 of the Act of June 20, 1910 (36 Stat. 574, 
     chapter 310), is amended by striking ``the interest of which 
     only shall be expended'' and inserting ``distributions from 
     which shall be made in accordance with the first paragraph of 
     section 28 and shall be expended''.

     SEC. 3. USE OF MINERS' HOSPITAL ENDOWMENT FUND FOR ARIZONA 
                   PIONEERS' HOME.

       (a) In General.--Section 28 of the Act of June 20, 1910 (36 
     Stat. 574, chapter 310) (as amended by section 2 of Public 
     Law 85-180 (71 Stat. 457)) is amended in the second paragraph 
     by inserting before the period at the end the following: ``, 
     except that amounts in the Miners' Hospital Endowment Fund 
     may be used for the benefit of the Arizona Pioneers' Home''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) 
     takes effect on June 20, 1910.

     SEC. 4. CONSENT OF CONGRESS TO AMENDMENTS TO CONSTITUTION OF 
                   STATE OF ARIZONA.

       Congress consents to the amendments to the Constitution of 
     the State of Arizona proposed by Senate Concurrent Resolution 
     1007 of the 43rd Legislature of the State of Arizona, Second 
     Regular Session, 1998, entitled ``Senate Concurrent 
     Resolution requesting the Secretary of State to return Senate 
     Concurrent Resolution 1018, Forty-Third Legislature, First 
     Regular Session, to the Legislature and submit the 
     Proposition contained in Sections 3, 4, and 5 of this 
     Resolution of the proposed amendments to Article IX, Section 
     7, Article X, Section 7, and Article XI, Section 8, 
     Constitution of Arizona, to the voters; relating to 
     investment of State monies'', approved by the voters of the 
     State of Arizona on November 3, 1998.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. SMITH of Oregon (for himself and Mr. Wyden):
  S. 416. A bill to direct the Secretary of Agriculture to convey the 
city of Sisters, Oregon, a certain parcel of land for use in connection 
with a sewage treatment facility; to the Committee on Energy and 
Natural Resources.


                         a solution for sisters

 Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, today I am proud to 
introduce legislation that will enable the city of Sisters, Oregon, to 
obtain Federal lands for the purpose of constructing a sewage treatment 
facility. The federal government will benefit directly from this 
facility, and we have the opportunity to show that we can be good 
neighbors and help solve local problems. This legislation, and the 
approach I have taken to provide a funding mechanism to benefit natural 
resources in the area, has broad support in the local community and the 
surrounding region.
  The city of Sisters, Oregon, is facing both environmental and public 
health problems due to the lack of a sewer system. Currently, all of 
the homes and businesses inside the city limits must use septic 
systems. In the summer, in order to accommodate tourists who often 
recreate in the surrounding federal lands, the city must place 
approximately sixty portable toilets throughout the town. Deschutes 
County has

[[Page 2324]]

 had to develop alternatives to established regulations for septic 
systems in order to continue use of some properties.
  There are ongoing concerns about a possible outbreak of infectious 
diseases from failed and leaking septic systems, and of groundwater 
contamination. Obviously, this is a situation that cannot continue.
  Fortunately, the city has risen to the challenge. In 1998, the 775 
residents of Sisters voted to issue up to seven million dollars in 
bonds to construct a sewer system and a wastewater treatment facility 
to service their municipality. This vote was noteworthy because Sisters 
is the fourth most economically depressed city in Oregon. Sixty-one 
percent of the town's residents are considered low to moderate income 
and the average annual income is $17,188.
  While the city has put together a financing package of approximately 
twelve million dollars, this financing package does not include funds 
for land acquisition. Additional funds to acquire the land for the 
treatment facility and for the disposition of the treated wastewater 
are beyond the resident's ability to pay, and pose a huge financial 
burden. There is a long-standing recognition in federal law, both in 
the Townsite Act and in the Recreation and Public Purposes Act, that in 
some instances the transfer of land out of federal ownership to serve 
community objectives outweighs the goals of maintaining such a tract in 
federal ownership.
  This is definitely one of those cases. The city of Sisters is 
literally surrounded by land managed by the Forest Service. After 
examining numerous other non-federal sites in or near the city, it was 
determined that this parcel is large enough, and has the proper soil 
conditions for disposing of the treated wastewater.
  I am proud to sponsor legislation that will not only resolve the 
city's public health threat, but will benefit all the parties involved. 
My bill calls for the Forest Service to convey land for the facilities 
at no cost to the city of Sisters. The legislation also stipulates 
that, at the option of the United States, the land would revert to the 
Forest Service upon termination of the specified uses.
  In return, the Forest Service will benefit from the treatment 
facilities themselves, as well as from improved environmental 
conditions. The Forest Service currently maintains eleven separate 
septic systems in the city to serve existing administrative buildings. 
Since the Forest Service administers seventy-seven acres of land within 
the city limits, the federal government will benefit from the expected 
increase in land values directly attributable to the sewer system.
  In order to capture some of this enhanced value for the benefit of 
the environment, the Forest Service will also be required to sell no 
less than six acres of the unimproved administrative lands within the 
city limits. The bill stipulates that the sale be at fair market value 
within three years of the enactment of the Act.
  Most of the revenue from this sale will be used for activities which 
are directly related to improving the long-term conditions in the 
watershed of Squaw Creek, a tributary of the Deschutes River. The 
remainder, not to exceed twenty-five percent, may be used for 
administrative improvements by the Sisters Ranger District.
  My legislation makes sense. It is a win-win solution that helps both 
the community of Sisters and the environment. I urge my colleagues to 
support its early consideration by the Senate.
  Mr. President, I ask that the text of the bill be included in the 
Record.
  The bill follows:

                                 S. 416

       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) the city of Sisters, Oregon, faces a public health 
     threat from a major outbreak of infectious diseases due to 
     the lack of a sewer system;
       (2) the lack of a sewer system also threatens groundwater 
     and surface water resources in the area;
       (3) the city is surrounded by Forest Service land and has 
     no reasonable access to non-Federal parcels of land large 
     enough, and with the proper soil conditions, for the 
     development of a sewage treatment facility;
       (4) the Forest Service currently must operate, maintain, 
     and replace 11 separate septic systems to serve existing 
     Forest Service facilities in the city of Sisters; and
       (5) the Forest Service currently administers 77 acres of 
     land within the city limits that would increase in value as a 
     result of construction of a sewer system.

     SEC. 2. CONVEYANCE.

       (a) In General.--Not later than 1 year after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Agriculture shall 
     convey to the city of Sisters, Oregon, at no cost to the city 
     except the cost of preparation of any documents required by 
     any environmental law in connection with the conveyance, the 
     parcel of land described in subsection (b).
       (b) Land Description.--The land described in this 
     subsection is the parcel of land located in--
       (1) the SE quarter of section 09, township 15 south, range 
     10 west, W.M., Deschutes, Oregon, and the portion of the SW 
     quarter of section 09, township 15 south, range 10 west, 
     W.M., Deschutes, Oregon, that lies east of Three Creeks Lake 
     Road, but not including the westernmost 500 feet of that 
     portion; and
       (2) the portion of the SW quarter of section 09, township 
     15 south, range 10 west, W.M., Deschutes County, Oregon, 
     lying easterly of Three Creeks Lake Road.
       (c) Condition.--The conveyance under subsection (a) shall 
     be made on the condition that the city agree to conduct a 
     public process before the final determination is made 
     regarding land use for the disposition of treated effluent.
       (d) Special Use Permit.--Not later than 120 days after the 
     date of enactment of this Act, in compliance with applicable 
     environmental laws (including regulations), the Secretary 
     shall issue a special use permit for the land conveyed under 
     subsection (a) that allows the city access to the land for 
     the purpose of commencing construction of the sewage 
     treatment plant.
       (e) Use of Land.--
       (1) In general.--The land conveyed under subsection (a) 
     shall be used by the city for a sewage treatment facility and 
     for the disposal of treated effluent.
       (2) Optional reverter.--If at any time the land conveyed 
     under subsection (a) ceases to be used for a purpose 
     described in paragraph (1), at the option of the United 
     States, title to the land shall revert to the United States.

     SEC. 3. SALE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAND.

       (a) In General.--Not later than 3 years after the date of 
     enactment of the Act, and notwithstanding any other provision 
     of law, the Secretary shall sell, at fair market value, not 
     less than a total of 6 acres of unimproved land in the city 
     that is currently designated for administrative use. There 
     are authorized to be appropriated such sums as are necessary 
     to prepare the sale.
       (b) Deposit of Proceeds.--The Secretary shall deposit the 
     proceeds of a sale under subsection (a) in the fund 
     established by Public Law 90-171 (commonly known as the 
     ``Sisk Act'') (16 U.S.C. 484a).
       (c) Use of Proceeds.--
       (1) In general.--Funds deposited under subsection (b) shall 
     be available for expenditure, without further Act of 
     appropriation, as follows:
       (A) Not more than 25 percent shall be available for 
     administrative improvements at the Sisters Ranger District.
       (B) The remainder shall be available for purposes that are 
     directly related to improving the long-term condition of the 
     watershed of Squaw Creek, a tributary of the Deschutes River, 
     Oregon.
       (2) Method of expenditure.--The supervisor of the Deschutes 
     National Forest may expend funds deposited under subsection 
     (b) directly or may provide the funds in the form of grants 
     to local watershed councils, including the Working Group (as 
     defined in section 1025(a) of division I of the Omnibus Parks 
     and Public Lands Management Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 
     4226)).
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. MOYNIHAN:
  S. 417. A bill to amend title 28 of the United States Code to bar any 
civil trial involving the President until after the President vacates 
office, but to allow for sealed discovery during the time the President 
is in office; to the Committee on the Judiciary.


  LEGISLATION TO LIMIT FUTURE PRESIDENTS' EXPOSURE TO CIVIL LAWSUITS 
                          WHILE HOLDING OFFICE

 Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce a bill 
that is aimed at averting much of what has happened over nearly two 
months of this year and all of the last by amending Title 28 of the 
United States Code. Modeled on our existing Soldiers and Sailors Civil 
Relief Act of 1940 that forbids civil lawsuits being filed by or 
against our men and women while they are in uniform, my bill seeks to 
protect future sitting Presidents from the ravages of civil litigation 
arising from acts taken or deeds done before they assumed office.

[[Page 2325]]

  I do not do this to insulate our current President but to accept an 
invitation Justice Stevens and his colleagues extended to us nearly two 
years ago in the case of Jones versus Clinton when the Supreme Court 
held that a sitting President could be sued civilly for acts he 
allegedly committed before assuming office. In that opinion, Justice 
Stevens wrote that it was up to Congress, not the Supreme Court, to 
afford a sitting President more protection from civil lawsuits.
  But this bill is not about President Clinton. For as Edmund Burke 
observed when analyzing the causes of the political discontents of the 
1760s in England ``this system has not arisen soley from the ambitions 
of Lord Butte . . . we should have been tried with it if the Earl of 
Butte had never existed.''
  As Justice Robert Jackson pointed out over forty years ago, the 
Presidency concentrates this Nation's Executive authority in a single 
person whose choice the entire Nation has a part, making him the force 
of public hope and expectations and whose decisions so far overshadow 
any other that ``almost alone he fills the public eye and ear.'' The 
Founders fashioned this kind of Presidency because they wanted to 
focus, not spread, executive responsibility in the hands of a single, 
constitutionally indispensable, individual. They realized that any 
interference with a President's ability to carry out his public 
responsibilities is constitutionally equal to interfering with the 
ability of the entire Congress or the whole Judiciary to carry out 
their public obligations.
  Moreover, the Presidency is the only office that the Constitution 
requires to be always functioning. It knows no recesses or terms. 
Because of this and the singular import of a President's duties, the 
diversion of his energies by litigation raises unique risks to the 
effective functioning of our government.
  As Thomas Jefferson warned in a June 20, 1807, letter to George Hay 
in the midst of Aaron Burr's trial in Richmond, unfettered litigation 
can pull a sitting President from pillar to post and keep him 
constantly trudging from north to south and east to west, withdrawing 
him from his constitutional duties.
  On the other hand, I do not believe in the ancient prerogatives of 
the monarchs who asserted ``the King can do no wrong.'' We rejected 
this when we formed our republic over 200 years ago. Under my bill, a 
litigant can still file his or her claim and exercise his or her 
discovery rights. This will preserve the litigant's claims and evidence 
but stay his or her ability to conduct a full-blown trial. This can be 
done after a sitting President leaves office. Then, like any other 
citizen, he will be subject to the full sway of our courts and their 
processes.
  I do not want to truncate anyone's legal rights or privileges, and my 
bill does not do so. Rather, it aims to balance these rights with our 
country's vital need for a focused Chief Executive not being dragged 
from pillar to post.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Ms. SNOWE (for herself and Ms. Collins):
  S. 418. A bill for the relief of Nancy B. Wilson; to the Committee on 
Finance.


                          private relief bill

 Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I am pleased to join the 
distinguished senior Senator from the State of Maine, Senator Snowe, in 
introducing private relief legislation for Nancy B. Wilson.
  By way of background, Al Wilson worked for Liberty Mutual Insurance 
Company, and he and his wife Edna had two children. In 1945, tragedy 
struck the family when Edna suffered a severe mental breakdown and was 
permanently placed in a mental institution, leaving Al to care for the 
children.
  Five years later, Al met Nancy Butler, who immediately began caring 
for Al's two young children, as well as her son. Nancy took residence 
with Al and soon began to raise the children as her own. The eldest 
child has written that Nancy ``is the person who brought me up in place 
of my biological mother, who was institutionalized. I think of Nancy as 
my real mother.''
  Al and Nancy wanted to get married, but Al was prohibited from 
divorcing Edna by a Massachusetts state law. The law barred a divorce 
for reasons of insanity or institutionalization for insanity. The 
Congressional Research Service confirmed that a ``divorce could not 
have been granted under Massachusetts law during the 1960's and 1970's 
solely because one spouse was insane.''
  On April 12, 1969, Edna Wilson died. Twenty days later, on May 2, 
1969, Nancy and Al were married. Al died of cancer seven months later 
on December 5, 1969. Nancy had lived with Al for 19 years.
  Upon turning sixty-four years old on March 21, 1991, Nancy applied to 
the Social Security Administration for survivor insurance benefits from 
Al's wage earnings. She was refused benefits based upon the limited 
term of her legal marriage. According to Social Security regulations, a 
couple must be married for at least nine months for a spouse to collect 
survivor benefits.
  Nancy has exhausted the available legal remedies, taking full 
advantage of the administrative appeals process. Nancy filed a request 
for reconsideration and appeared at a hearing before an administrative 
law judge. On January 28, 1992, the Social Security Administration 
issued its final decision denying her claim for benefits.
  The private relief bill we are introducing would allow Nancy to 
receive widow's benefits from her husband's earnings. Nancy Wilson was, 
for all practical purposes, married to Al Wilson. She cohabited with 
him for nineteen years prior to their marriage. She raised his 
children, allowing him to work and accumulate a Social Security 
benefit. Nancy and Al were legally prevented from marrying by 
Massachusetts state law, even though his marriage with his first wife 
had essentially ended.
  Mr. President, the unique circumstances of Mrs. Wilson epitomize why 
Congress has the power to enact private relief legislation. Her 
situation fulfills the intent of the Social Security Act. Al and Nancy 
were prohibited from marrying; clearly they would have if the law 
allowed them to do so. This unique situation is an exception that will 
not be repeated. Since their marriage, a no-fault divorce statute has 
been enacted in Massachusetts, which prevents this situation from 
occurring again. Mrs. Wilson's case is a compelling one which we 
believe the Senate should alleviate.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Ms. SNOWE:
  S. 420. A bill to provide a mandatory minimum sentence for State 
crimes involving the use of a firearm, impose work requirements for 
prisoners, and prohibit the provision of luxury items to prisoners; to 
the Committee on the Judiciary.


 Legislation to establish mandatory minimum sentences for State crimes 
                    involving the use of a firearm.

 Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill 
which will establish a mandatory minimum sentence for State crimes 
involving the use of a firearm. This bill also imposes work 
requirements for prisoners and prohibits the government from providing 
such amenities as televisions, stereos, or other amenities in the cell 
of any inmate.
  As a staunch supporter of the 2nd Amendment, I believe laws are 
needed to punish criminals, without imposing on a law-abiding person's 
right to own a firearm. This legislation would not apply to individuals 
who use a firearm in self-defense. It applies only to criminals who are 
convicted of committing a crime of violence which is punishable for a 
year in jail. Because it is not illegal to defend oneself, individuals 
who use firearms in self-defense are not subject to the provisions of 
this bill, nor would they be incarcerated for a year or more for 
properly defending themselves. This bill states clearly that the 
sentences apply only after a criminal is convicted of a crime. As such, 
this bill poses absolutely no threat to individuals who use firearms 
legally, including as a means to defend themselves.
  The most important domestic function of the Federal government is the 
protection of the personal security of individual Americans through the 
enactment and enforcement of laws

[[Page 2326]]

against criminal behavior. Tough Federal laws, such as mandatory 
minimum prison sentences for violent crimes committed with a firearm 
and truth-in-sentencing, would serve as deterrents to persons who might 
be disposed to commit violent crimes.
  It is also important to keep in mind, the penalties of this bill 
apply only after a criminal has been convicted, they are not available 
to a prosecutor until after the state investigation has been completed 
and the case is closed. Therefore, federal law enforcement agencies are 
given no role in the state's investigation and no authority in state 
jurisdictions. This prevents Federal Agencies from imposing itself on 
the jurisdictions of the states. In addition, my bill clearly states 
that the bill is not intended to supplant the efforts of states to 
curtail violent crime and that the Attorney General must give ``due 
deference'' to state and local prosecutors in their work.
  This legislation is also needed to ensure prisons remain punitive and 
do not digress further into vacation locations. With passage of this 
legislation, the Attorney General will implement and enforce 
regulations mandating prison work for all able-bodied inmates in 
Federal correctional institutions. These regulations will also prohibit 
the Federal Government from providing televisions, radios, stereos, and 
other similar amenities in the cell of any inmate.
  I would encourage my colleagues, who are serious about combating 
crime, to join me as a co-sponsor of this important 
legislation.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. KYL (by request):
  S. 421. A bill to approve a mutual settlement of the Water Rights of 
the Gila River Indian Community and the United States, on behalf of the 
Community and the Allottees, and Phelps Dodge Corporation, and for 
other purposes; to the Committee on Indian Affairs.


The Gila River Indian Community--Phelps Dodge Corporation Water Rights 
                         Settlement Act of 1999

 Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill to 
authorize an Indian water rights settlement agreement that was entered 
into on May 4, 1998 by the Gila River Indian Community of Arizona and 
the Phelps Dodge Corporation.
  This bill is identical to the legislation I introduced in the last 
session of Congress. As I said upon introduction last year, this 
particular settlement is part of a much larger, comprehensive 
settlement process that will eventually settle all claims of the Gila 
River Indian Community. I strongly endorse the settlement process and 
want to encourage all parties to continue their negotiations. Although 
I am introducing this measure today as free-standing legislation, it is 
inextricably linked to the outcome of the rest of the negotiations. So 
while I am encouraged by the settlement process, I am not yet 
comfortable with pieces of it moving independently.
  As I did last session, I put this bill on the table so that all 
interested parties may have a document around which to gather and 
continue their conversations. While this particular piece of the 
settlement may be further along than others, I do not want to see 
pieces move separately. My preference is that the parties arrive at a 
comprehensive settlement that fully and finally addresses all aspects 
of the Gila River Indian Community's claim.
  Mr. President, I ask that the text of the bill be printed in the 
Record.
  The bill follows:

                                 S. 421

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This title may be cited as the ``Gila River Indian 
     Community-Phelps Dodge Corporation Water Rights Settlement 
     Act of 1999'' and is herein referred to as ``this Act.''

     SEC. 2. PURPOSE.

       It is the purpose of this Act--
       (a) to ratify, approve and confirm the Settlement Agreement 
     among the Gila River Indian Community, Phelps Dodge 
     Corporation, and the United States of America;
       (b) to authorize and direct the Secretary of the Interior 
     to execute and perform his duties under the Settlement 
     Agreement and this Act; and
       (c) to authorize and direct the Secretary to perform 
     certain actions which will assist in achieving a settlement 
     of the water rights claims of certain Indian tribes in the 
     Little Colorado River Basin in Arizona.

     SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

       As used in this Act, the following terms have the following 
     meaning--
       (a) ``Allottees'' shall mean the owners of beneficial 
     interests in allotted land within the Gila River Indian 
     Reservation.
       (b) ``Blue Ridge Reservoir'' means that Reservoir in Navajo 
     County, Arizona, owned by Phelps Dodge, as more fully 
     described in the Settlement Agreement.
       (c) ``CAP'' shall mean the Central Arizona Project, a 
     reclamation project constructed by the United States pursuant 
     to the Colorado River Basin Project Act of September 30, 
     1968, 82 Stat. 885, as amended.
       (d) ``CAWCD'' shall mean the Central Arizona Water 
     Conservation District, a political subdivision of the State 
     of Arizona, which has executed a contract to repay to the 
     United States the reimbursable costs of the CAP.
       (e) ``Community'' shall mean the Gila River Indian 
     Community, an Indian community organized under Section 6 of 
     the Indian Reorganization Act of June 18, 1934, 48 Stat. 987, 
     duly recognized by the Secretary, and its members.
       (f) ``Community's CAP Contract'' shall mean that contract 
     between the Gila River Indian Community as the United States, 
     dated October 22, 1992, providing for the delivery to the 
     Gila River Indian Community of up to 173,100 acre-feet per 
     annum of CAP water.
       (g) ``Globe Equity No. 59'' shall mean the decree entered 
     June 29, 1935, in that action styled as The United States of 
     America v. Gila Valley Irrigation District, et al., Globe 
     Equity No. 59 in the District Court of the United States in 
     and for the District of Arizona, as amended and supplemented.
       (h) ``Hopi Tribe'' shall mean the federally recognized 
     Indian tribe of that name.
       (i) ``Navajo Nation'' shall mean the federally recognized 
     Indian tribe of that name.
       (j) ``Phelps Dodge'' shall mean Phelps Dodge Corporation, a 
     New York corporation, its subsidiaries, affiliates, 
     predecessors, successors and assigns.
       (k) ``Pueblo of Zuni'' shall mean the federally recognized 
     Indian tribe of that name.
       (l) ``Reservation'' shall mean the Gila River Indian 
     Reservation, as it existed on the Initial Effective Date of 
     the Settlement Agreement, as shown on the map attached to the 
     Settlement Agreement as Exhibit ``B'' thereto.
       (m) ``San Juan Southern Paiute Tribe'' shall mean the 
     federally recognized Indian tribe of that name.
       (n) ``Secretary'' shall mean the Secretary of the Interior 
     or his lawful designee.
       (o) ``Settlement Agreement'' shall mean that agreement 
     dated as of May 4, 1998, among Phelps Dodge, the Community 
     and the United States.
       (p) ``SRP'' shall mean the Salt River Project Agricultural 
     Improvement and Power District, a political subdivision of 
     the State of Arizona, and the Salt River Valley Water Users' 
     Association, an Arizona corporation.
       (q) ``United States'' shall mean the United States of 
     America, in its capacity as trustee for the Community and of 
     the Reservation; as trustee for the Allottees and of allotted 
     lands on the Reservation; and, with respect to Section 5.2 of 
     the Settlement Agreement, in all other capacities required in 
     order to execute the agreements and other instruments and to 
     take the actions referred to in Section 5.2 of the Settlement 
     Agreement, including acting for the part of Defense Plant 
     Corporation.

     SEC. 4. APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT.

       The Settlement Agreement is ratified, approved and 
     confirmed. The Secretary shall execute the Settlement 
     Agreement within sixty days of the enactment of this Act and 
     shall perform all of the Secretary's duties thereunder as 
     provided herein and in the Settlement Agreement.

     SEC. 5. TRANSFER OF RESERVOIRS.

       The Secretary shall take all actions specified in Section 
     5.0 of the Settlement Agreement necessary on the Secretary's 
     part to obtain title to Blue Ridge Reservoir from Phelps 
     Dodge. The title to Blue Ridge Reservoir, once acquired by 
     the Secretary, shall be held by the Secretary in trust for 
     the benefit of the Navajo Nation. In connection with the 
     Secretary's performance of his obligations under Section 5.0 
     of the Settlement Agreement, the Navajo Nation, the Hopi 
     Tribe, the San Juan Southern Paiute Tribe, the Pueblo of 
     Zuni, and the United States, on behalf of each of them, are 
     authorized to execute waivers of claims against Phelps Dodge 
     and agreements not to object to certain uses of water by 
     Phelps Dodge in substantially the form of Exhibits ``E'' and 
     ``J'' to the Settlement Agreement, which waivers and 
     agreements are hereby ratified, approved and confirmed. The 
     Navajo Nation, and the United States on behalf of the Navajo 
     Nation, is further authorized to enter into an agreement with 
     the Arizona Game & Fish Department confirming a minimum pool 
     of water in Blue Ridge Reservoir and for other purposes in 
     substantially the form of Exhibits ``G'' and ``I'' to the 
     Settlement Agreement, which agreements are hereby ratified, 
     approved and confirmed.

[[Page 2327]]



     SEC. 6. REALLOCATION OF CAP WATER.

       Simultaneously with the transfer of Blue Ridge Reservoir to 
     the United States as provided for in Section 5 of this Act, 
     the Secretary shall: (i) reallocate to the Community 12,000 
     acre-feet of the CAP water available to the Secretary 
     pursuant to Section 406(b) of Title IV of Public Law 101-628, 
     104 Stat. 4483; (ii) amend the Community's CAP Contract to 
     include the CAP water reallocated to the Community pursuant 
     to this Section 6; and, (iii) amend the Community's CAP 
     Contract to extend the term thereof to 100 years, plus such 
     additional term as may result from the exercise of the option 
     provided for in, or other extension of, the Lease referred to 
     in Section 7 of this Act.
       (a) All water service capital charges and other capital 
     charges of any nature associated with the CAP water 
     reallocated to the Community pursuant to this Section 6 shall 
     be non-reimbursable to the United States by the Community.
       (b) All water service capital charges and other capital 
     charges of any nature associated with 10,000 acre-feet of 
     that CAP water currently available to the Community under the 
     Community's CAP Contract which shares a priority with 510,000 
     acre-feet of non-Indian municipal and industrial CAP water 
     shall be non-reimbursable to the United States by the 
     Community.
       (c) For purposes of determining the allocation and 
     repayment of costs of the CAP as provided in Article 9.3 of 
     Contract Number 14-0906-09W-09245, Amendment No. 1, between 
     the United States and CAWCD dated December 1, 1988, and any 
     amendment or revision thereof, all of the water service 
     capital charges and other capital charges of any nature 
     associated with the water described in Subsections 6(a) and 
     5(b) hereof shall be non-reimbursable and shall be excluded 
     from CAWCD's repayment obligation.
       (d) The United States shall either:
       (1) not charge operation, maintenance, and replacement 
     (OM&R) charges to the Community on the first 8,000 acre-feet 
     of CAP water made available to the Community pursuant to this 
     Act, and shall itself pay any such charges as are associated 
     with such 8,000 acre-feet of CAP water; or
       (2) charge the Community only that portion of the OM&R 
     charges associated with electrical energy pumping for the 
     entire 12,000 acre-feet of CAP water made available to the 
     Community pursuant to this Section 6, and shall itself pay 
     all other OM&R charges associated with such 12,000 acre-feet 
     of CAP water.
       (e) In the event the CAP water made available to the 
     Community pursuant to this Act is leased to Phelps Dodge as 
     provided for in Section 7 hereof, the charges by the United 
     States to Phelps Dodge for such water when delivered under 
     the Lease shall be as provided in subsections (d)(1) or 
     (d)(2) of this Section 6.
       (f) In the event the exchange provided for in Section 8 of 
     this Act is not approved, the Secretary shall reallocate to 
     Phelps Dodge 8,000 acre-feet of the CAP water referred to in 
     subsection 6(b) hereof, shall amend the Community's CAP 
     contract to reflect such reallocation, and shall enter into a 
     contract with Phelps Dodge for permanent service for the 
     delivery of such water to Phelps Dodge through the works of 
     the CAP. The CAP water shall be free of all capital charges 
     as provided in subsections 6(b) and 6(c) of this Act. The 
     United States shall charge Phelps Dodge OM&R charges for such 
     water only as provided in either subsections 6(d)(1) or 
     6(d)(2) hereof and shall itself pay such portions of the OM&R 
     charges as are not paid by Phelps Dodge.
       (g) the provisions of Section 226 of Public Law 97-293, 96 
     Stat. 1273, 43 U.S.C. Sec. 485h(f) shall not apply to actions 
     taken by the Secretary pursuant to Sections 6, 7 or 8 of this 
     Act.

     SEC. 7. CAP WATER LEASE.

       The Lease referred to in Section 7.0 of the Settlement 
     Agreement and attached thereto as Exhibit ``M'' is hereby 
     ratified, approved and confirmed. Notwithstanding the 
     preceding sentence, the Lease shall not be effective as to 
     the United States, and the Secretary shall not execute the 
     Lease, until all environmental compliance associated with the 
     Secretary's execution of the Lease has been completed and the 
     exchange referred to in section 8 of this Act has been 
     approved as provided in that Section. In the event the Lease 
     becomes effective, the Secretary and the Community may renew 
     or extend the Lease at the end of the initial term, or any 
     extended term of the Lease provided for in the initial Lease, 
     upon such terms as the Community, the Secretary and Phelps 
     Dodge may agree, provided that any such renewal or extension 
     shall not exceed 100 years in term. Subject to the completion 
     of environmental compliance, CAP water made available 
     pursuant to the Lease may be used in the manner and at the 
     locations provided for therein, including exchange for use in 
     any county in Arizona outside the CAWCD service area.

     SEC. 8. EXCHANGE AGREEMENT.

       The Secretary and the Community are authorized to enter 
     into an exchange agreement with Phelps Dodge pursuant to 
     which the CAP water leased to Phelps Dodge by the Community 
     under the Lease authorized under Section 7 hereof is 
     delivered by Phelps Dodge to the Community in return for the 
     right to divert water from the Gila River upstream of the 
     Reservation. The term of any such exchange agreement, if 
     approved as required by this Section 8, shall be for 100 
     years, plus any additional term occasioned by the exercise of 
     the option contained in the Lease or other extension 
     authorized in the Lease or this Act. The Secretary shall 
     commence negotiations with respect to the exchange agreement 
     forthwith upon the enactment of this Act and shall process 
     all environmental compliance associated with the exchange 
     agreement and the Lease in an expeditious manner. The 
     Secretary shall not executive the exchange agreement until 
     all such environmental compliance has been finally concluded 
     as provided in the Settlement Agreement and any necessary 
     order approving the exchange, or any aspect of the exchange, 
     has been obtained from the United States District Court in 
     Globe Equity No. 59 and the order is final and subject to no 
     further appeal.

     SEC. 9. APPROVAL OF WAIVERS.

       The waivers set forth in Section 9.0 of the Settlement 
     Agreement shall be effective, and shall be binding upon, the 
     Community, and the United States, on behalf of the Community 
     and the Allottees, from and after the date either of the 
     conditions set forth in Section 4(c) of the Settlement 
     Agreement occurs. The United States is authorized and 
     directed to execute the Settlement Agreement on behalf of the 
     Allottees in its capacity as trustee for the Allottees and of 
     allotted lands on the Reservation, and the Settlement 
     Agreement shall be binding upon the Allottees.

     SEC. 10. MISCELLANEOUS.

       (a) Execution of the Settlement Agreement by the Secretary 
     as required by this Act, and the Secretary's performance of 
     the actions necessary to acquire title to Blue Ridge 
     Reservoir for the benefit of the Navajo Nation pursuant to 
     Section 5.0 of the Settlement Agreement shall not constitute 
     major federal actions under the National Environmental Policy 
     Act (42 U.S.C. Sec. 4321 et seq.). The Secretary shall carry 
     out all environmental compliance required by Sections 7 and 8 
     of this Act. Nothing in this Act shall be construed as 
     exempting the United States from carrying out environmental 
     compliance associated with the use of water from Blue Ridge 
     Reservoir by the United States for the benefit of the Navajo 
     Nation in the Little Colorado River Basin in Arizona.
       (b) The Navajo Nation, and the United States on behalf of 
     the Navajo Nation, are authorized to enter into an agreement 
     with the Town of Payson, Arizona, and the unincorporated 
     communities of Pine and Strawberry, Arizona (``the Towns'') 
     or any one of them, to subordinate water rights held in Blue 
     Ridge Reservoir by the United States for the benefit of the 
     Navajo Nation to rights to the use of not of exceed a 
     cumulative total of 3,000 acre-feet per annum of water in 
     Blue Ridge Reservoir acquired by the Towns pursuant to the 
     law of the State of Arizona.
       (c) The Navajo Nation, and the United States on behalf of 
     the Navajo Nation, are authorized to enter into an agreement 
     with Phelps Dodge to subordinate water rights held in Blue 
     Ridge Reservoir by the United States on behalf of the Navajo 
     Nation to water rights acquired by Phelps Dodge in Blue Ridge 
     Reservoir subsequent to the date of the enactment of this Act 
     pursuant to the law of the State of Arizona for use on land 
     owned by Phelps Dodge around Blue Ridge Reservoir identified 
     in the Settlement Agreement. The term of any such agreement 
     and the consideration to be paid therefor shall be as agreed 
     to among the Navajo Nation and Phelps Dodge.
       (d) With regard to the environmental compliance required 
     for the actions contemplated in Sections 7 and 8 of this Act, 
     the Bureau of Reclamation shall be designated as the lead 
     agency, and shall coordinate and cooperate with the other 
     affected federal agencies as required under applicable 
     federal environmental laws.
       (e) The Secretary and the Community are authorized to 
     execute any amendments of the Settlement Agreement and to 
     perform any action required by any amendments to the 
     Settlement Agreement which may be mutually agreed upon by the 
     parties.
       (f) Except for the waivers authorized by Section 5 of this 
     Act, nothing in this Act or the Settlement Agreement shall be 
     construed to quantify or otherwise affect the water rights, 
     claims or entitlement to water of any Arizona tribe, band or 
     community or of any claimant in the Gila River Adjudication, 
     other than the Community, the United States on behalf of the 
     Community and the Allottees, and Phelps Dodge.
       (g) Any party to the Settlement Agreement, and to the Lease 
     and the exchange agreement referred to in Sections 7 and 8 
     hereof, respectively, if the same are approved, may bring an 
     action or actions exclusively in the United States District 
     Court for the District of Arizona for the interpretation and 
     enforcement of this Act, the Settlement Agreement, the Lease 
     and the exchange agreement, naming the United States and the 
     Community as parties, and in any such action or actions, any 
     claim by the United States or the Community to sovereign 
     immunity from suit is hereby waived.

[[Page 2328]]


                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. MURKOWSKI:
  S. 422. A bill to provide for Alaska state jurisdiction over small 
hydroelectric projects; to the Committee on Energy and Natural 
Resources.


                           Energy Legislation

 Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I am today introducing 
legislation to allow the State of Alaska to take responsibility for 
regulating small (5 megawatts or less) hydroelectric projects located 
in Alaska. This legislation is identical to section 1 of S. 439 in the 
105th Congress, which was reported unanimously by the Committee on 
Energy and Natural Resources and was passed unanimously by the Senate. 
Unfortunately, because the Senate passed the legislation late in the 
session, the House did not have time to act before Congress adjourned.
  Let me describe why this legislation is needed. Simply put, FERC's 
licensing process is too expensive and too cumbersome for many small 
hydroelectric projects in Alaska. For a large project costing tens or 
hundreds of millions of dollars the burden of obtaining a FERC license 
is large, but relatively small as compared to the total cost. However, 
for a small project located in a remote region of Alaska, FERC's 
licensing process is a major problem. All too often, the burden of the 
licensing process alone dooms an otherwise economically viable and 
environmentally beneficial project. And those small hydro projects it 
does not doom, FERC's process increases significantly their cost--which 
is just passed on to consumers in terms of higher electricity rates.
  For other States this may not be very significant, but it is for 
Alaska. Alaska already has the most expensive electricity in the United 
States. Alaska's average residential price of electricity is 36 percent 
higher than the U.S. average, and in some parts of Alaska the 
residential price reaches a stunning 43 cents per kilowatt hour--5 
times the U.S. average. Why so expensive? Primarily because it is 
produced by diesel generators, which are both relatively inefficient 
and use expensive fuel. Compared to diesel generators, hydroelectric 
power is much less expensive.
  It is important to note that hydroelectric power is much more 
environmentally benign as compared to diesel-fired generation: 
Hydroelectric generation produces no air emissions as does diesel-fired 
generation. Thus, anything we can do to promote the construction of 
hydroelectric projects will also help the environment of Alaska.
  In this connection, it is also important to note that this 
legislation does not exempt Alaska's small hydro projects from 
regulation. Instead, it allows the State of Alaska to regulate in lieu 
of FERC. I ask: Who is more interested in the environment of Alaska--
Alaskans or a distant FERC? Moreover, the legislation allows Alaska to 
regulate only after FERC has determined that the State has in place a 
regulatory program which ``protects the public interest . . . and the 
environment to the same extent provided by . . . [the FERC].'' Finally, 
the legislation specifically requires the full application of all 
``Federal environmental, natural resources, or cultural resources 
protection laws. . . . '' Thus, enactment of this legislation will 
fully protect the environment and the public interest.
  In summary, if enacted this legislation will benefit both Alaska's 
environment and its economy.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. McCAIN:
  S. 423. A bill to prohibit certain Federal payments for certain 
methadone maintenance programs, and for other purposes; to the 
Committee on finance.


                      addiction free treatment act

 Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, today I am introducing the 
Addiction Free Treatment Act which reforms our Nation's drug policy 
regarding the treatment of heroin addiction.
  This bill would restrict Medicaid reimbursements and funding through 
the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration for 
methadone and LAM maintenance programs. Maintenance programs would be 
limited to six months. The bill requires that such programs conduct 
regular drug testing, report all results, and terminate methadone 
treatment to any patient testing positive for any illegal drugs. The 
legislation directs the National Institute of Drug Abuse to study the 
methods and effectiveness of nonpharmacological, and methadone-to-
abstinence heroin rehabilitation programs, and requires the Center for 
Substance Abuse Treatment to provide an annual report to Congress on 
the relative effectiveness of heroin treatment programs in achieving 
freedom from chemical dependency.
  Mr. President, few crises represent a more fundamental threat to the 
basic institutions of our society then substance abuse and addiction, 
and there are few drugs that do more harm than heroin. Heroin use in 
the United States continues to rise. Drug use among teenagers is 
increasing and the number of teenagers using heroin for the first time 
is higher than at any other point in our history. Between 1992 and 
1996, heroin use among college-age students increased an estimated 10 
percent. Currently, there are an estimated 810,000 chronic heroin 
addicts living in the United States with over 115,000 heroin addicts 
participating in methadone programs.
  Drug addiction undermines family, work, friendships, and communities. 
The drug trade, which feeds the addict, undermines the security and 
stability of our neighborhoods through violence and other crime-related 
phenomena.
  At its core, drug addiction does violence to the basic humanity of 
the addict, robbing him or her of the most fundamental element of their 
existence--their freedom. The addict is enslaved by the need to get a 
fix; all other needs become secondary to the physical and psychological 
drive to feed the hunger of addiction. This enslavement goes to the 
core of the debate surrounding the use of methadone maintenance as a 
solution to heroin addiction: What have we done to restore the human 
condition if we have not freed the addict of chemical dependency?
  Methadone maintenance programs simply transfer addiction from one 
narcotic to another. The methadone patient is every bit as dependent on 
methadone as he or she was with heroin. Patients who attempt to free 
themselves from their addiction to methadone experience withdrawal 
symptoms that are as violent, if not more than, those they would 
experience coming off of heroin. What is more, even the promise of 
freedom from illegal drug use is an illusion. For many methadone 
patients regularly test positive for other illegal drugs. And yet, for 
some 30 years, the only hope that U.S. policy has offered to our 
citizens addicted to heroin is an Orwellian addiction swap.
  In the 105th Congress, I, along with Senator Coats and Senator 
Coverdell, introduced a Senate Resolution addressing the topic of 
methadone treatment. The resolution was a response to an emerging 
Clinton Administration policy designed to dramatically increase the 
federal government's activities in the area of methadone treatment. 
Barry McCaffrey, the so-called Drug Czar, proposed that ONDCP would 
double the number of heroin addicts in methadone treatment. Mr. 
President, this sounds less like the policy of a Drug Czar, and more 
like the policy of a drug bazaar--a bazaar where the federal government 
trades places with the street dealer, swapping heroin for methadone and 
feeding the addiction with taxpayer dollars.
  This is disgusting and it is immoral. It does serious harm to the 
humanity of those people who have mustered the courage to walk into a 
clinic seeking help to free themselves from addiction. It is the 
ultimate in cruel irony that our government's first response should be 
to trade the shackles of heroin for the shackles of methadone.
  The fundamental flaw of methadone treatment as a national anti-drug 
policy is that it is not an anti-drug policy at all. As I have said, 
methadone simply transfers addiction from one drug to another. To say 
that this is effective, because the symptoms of methadone addiction are 
more tolerable to society and less dramatic for the addict, is to miss 
the most fundamental point--that is that addiction enslaves the 
individual. That slavery is no less onerous to the basic humanity, to 
the

[[Page 2329]]

dignity of the addict simply because the drug has been endorsed by the 
FDA, prescribed by a physician and paid for with taxpayer dollars.
  After 30 years of methadone, is there nothing better to offer to the 
heroin addict? The answer is an emphatic yes. Drug addiction is a 
complicated condition. It has behavioral, social/environmental, and 
physical characteristics. If we are to free individuals from heroin 
addiction, we must adopt policies supporting programs that address, in 
an intensive and comprehensive way, each of these areas of concern.
  Throughout society, in our homes, neighborhoods, communities, and in 
public policy fora, there has been much debate surrounding the decay of 
our civil society. A certain consensus has emerged regarding how best 
to address this crisis. That consensus centers around the need to 
rebuild the mediating structures of our society--family, neighborhood, 
church, and volunteer associations.
  If we are to free the addict from the slavery of drug addiction--be 
it heroin or methadone--rebuilding or, in many cases, introducing for 
the first time these same mediating structures into the life of the 
addict must play a central role.
  There are models for success. Just ask Rev. Sam McPherson. Rev. 
McPherson has spent his life tending to the needs of drug addicts. He 
now runs a Ready, Willing, and Able rehabilitation center on Florida 
Avenue here in Washington. It is an extraordinary and inspiring place.
  Founded on a drug-free principle, Ready, Willing, and Able embraces 
the addict, first demanding detoxification, and then dealing in a 
sustained and comprehensive way with the bundle of needs that 
contributed to the participant's drug use and addiction, and that 
result in recidivism if left unresolved.
  Dr. Robert Woodson, in his recent book ``The Triumphs of Joseph'', 
describes the many examples of community-based organizations that have 
succeeded in healing the scourge of drug addiction, lifting people up 
from the slavery of dependency--people like Freddie and Nina Garcia, 
who run the Victory Fellowship, based out of San Antonio.
  Some thirty years ago, Freddie Garcia and his wife began their 
operation in a tiny one-bedroom house, at one point moving all their 
furniture under a make-shift awning outside the house to make room for 
eleven recovering addicts who slept on their living room floor. Today, 
the Victory Fellowship has freed more than 13,000 men and women from 
their addictions and has spread to 65 satellite centers in California, 
Texas, New Mexico, Peru, Puerto Rico, Columbia and Venezuela.
  Dr. Woodson puts it this way: ``In contrast with psychiatric therapy 
and treatment that relies on medication, the goal of grassroots 
programs is not rehabilitation but transformation. Their end is not to 
modify behavior but to engender a change in the values and vision of 
the people they work with which will, in turn affect behavior . . . 
they do not simply curb deviant behavior but offer something more--a 
fulfilling life that eclipses the power of temptation.''
  These community-based institutions possess certain common 
characteristics that can serve as a model for all who seek to address 
the challenges of addiction:
  (1) Their programs are open to all comers. Often, these programs take 
the worst cases, the long-term, homeless addicts that the ``system'' 
has abandoned as hopeless.
  (2) They have the same zip code as the people they serve. They do 
their work in the same neighborhoods, on the same streets as the 
addicts they serve. Reverend McPherson points out one of the pleasant 
benefits of Ready, Willing and Able: When they come into a 
neighborhood, the drug dealers go away. They leave because there is an 
unwritten code. If these guys are trying to get off of heroin, the 
dealers go somewhere else, taking their trade out of sight of the very 
addicts they have enslaved.
  (3) Their approach is flexible to the needs of the individual. The 
many behavioral, social/environmental, and physical challenges that 
contribute to drug addiction are unique to each individual. These 
organizations develop individualized programs for each individual.
  (4) They contain a central element of reciprocity. As Dr. Woodson 
says: ``They do not practice blind charity but require something in 
return from the individuals they serve.''
  (5) Clear behavioral guidelines and discipline are critical.
  (6) These healers fulfill the role of parent, providing authority and 
structure, but also love and support.
  (7) They are committed for the long haul, not just for the duration 
of funding.
  (8) They are on-call 24 hours a day, 7 days a week for as long as the 
participant needs them.
  (9) The healing offers immersion in an environment of care and mutual 
support with a community of individuals who are trying to accomplish 
the same changes in their lives.
  (10) They are united in their cause, providing mutual support in 
their struggles, and celebration in their accomplishments.
  These concepts are not new. But combined and sustained, they offer 
hope and success in freeing the addict from a life of chemical 
dependency. That freedom should be the policy of the United States 
Government, and the relentlessly pursued goal of everyone concerned 
with the scourge of heroin addiction.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. COVERDELL (for himself, Mr. Thurmond, Mr. Smith of New 
        Hampshire, Mr. Grassley, and Mr. Helms):
  S. 424. A bill to preserve and protect the free choice of individuals 
and employees to form, join, or assist labor organizations, or to 
refrain from such activities; to the Committee on Health, Education, 
Labor, and Pensions.


                 THE NATIONAL RIGHT TO WORK ACT OF 1999

 Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce along 
with my distinguished colleagues Senators Thurmond, Smith of New 
Hampshire, Grassley, and Helms the National Right to Work Act of 1999.
  This bill does not add a single word to Federal law. Rather, it 
repeals those sections of the National Labor Relations Act and Railway 
Labor Act that authorize the imposition of forced-dues contracts on 
working Americans. I believe that every worker must have the right to 
join or support a labor union. This bill protects that right. But no 
worker should ever be forced to join a union.
  I am happy to say that my own state of Georgia is among the 21 states 
that is a ``Right to Work'' state and has been since 1947. According to 
U.S. News and World Report, 7 of the strongest 10 state economies in 
the Nation have Right-to-Work laws. Workers who have the freedom to 
choose whether or not to join a union have a higher standard of living 
than their counterparts in non Right-to-Work states. According to Dr. 
James Bennet, a prominent economist at George Mason University's highly 
respected economic program, urban families in Right-to-Work states have 
approximately $2,852 more annual purchasing power than urban families 
in non-Right to Work states; particularly when the lower taxes, housing 
and food costs are taken into consideration.
  According to a poll by the respected Marketing Research Institute, 77 
percent of Americans support Right to Work, and over 50 percent of 
union households believe that workers should have the right to choose 
whether or not to join or pay dues to a labor union. That should be no 
surprise. This is about freedom. The Right to Work expands every 
working American's personal freedom.
  Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. It 
expands the freedom of hard working Americans and ensures them the 
choice of whether to accept or reject union representation and union 
dues without coercion, violence or work-place harassment.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. ASHCROFT (for himself, Mr. Brownback, Mr. Baucus, and Mr. 
        Kerrey):
  S. 425. A bill to require the approval of Congress for the imposition 
of any new unilateral agricultural sanction, or any new unilateral 
sanction with respect to medicine, medical supplies, or

[[Page 2330]]

medical equipment, against a foreign country; to the Committee on 
Foreign Relations.


              Food and Medicine for the World Act of 1999

 Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, today, I am introducing, with 
Senators Brownback, Baucus, and Kerrey, the Food and Medicine for the 
World Act of 1999. It's a bill that will help America's farmers, 
ranchers, and related industries, keep on selling their food and 
medicine to the world.
  For over 200 years, farmers and ranchers have been vital to the 
growth and economic prosperity of the United States--always responding 
to the challenges of our competitive free-market system with efficient 
production methods. The agricultural industry is one of the Nation's 
largest employers. Missouri is the Nation's second leading state in its 
number of farms. Clearly, the agricultural industry is a backbone to 
Missouri's economy, accounting for more than $4 billion annually.
  The United States has the best farmers in the world--first class in 
their production, storage, transportation, processing, and marketing. 
We can produce more food than any other country, yet the United States 
only accounts for five percent of the world's consuming population. 
That leaves 95 percent of the world's consumers outside of our borders. 
And because of our farmers' efficiency and ability to meet U.S. 
domestic demand, they rely increasingly on their ability to sell 
products in foreign markets.
  Exports now account for 30 percent of gross cash receipts for 
America's farmers, and nearly 40 percent of all U.S. agricultural 
production is exported. Therefore, it is imperative that we ensure that 
our farmers have ample export opportunities.
  Our farmers and ranchers need our help in opening markets abroad and 
keeping those markets open. Once farmers jump through all the hoops of 
foreign trade barriers and red tape to establish trusted relationships 
with foreign buyers, the U.S. government should be extremely cautious 
about sanctioning their sales and forcing them to lose their markets. 
Many farmers' livelihood depends on sales overseas. In 1997, more than 
one-fourth of Missouri's farm marketing came from sales overseas.
  We know that sanctions hurt America's farmers and ranchers. And we 
know that sanctions against agriculture and medicine are detrimental to 
the world's poor that have to live under the rule of tyrants. That is 
why I am introducing the Food and Medicine for the World Act. This bill 
tries to ensure that farmers don't get sanctioned for the bad acts of 
foreign governments, and the health and welfare of the world's poor are 
not damaged further by their leader's indiscretions.
  Under the Food and Medicine for the World Act, whenever any new 
unilateral sanction is announced by the President, the sanctions he 
imposes will not affect agriculture or medicine unless he tells 
Congress why it is necessary to sanction these products and unless 
Congress approves the sanction. If the Food and Medicine for the World 
Act is passed, there will not be any more sanctions against U.S. 
agricultural exports without agreement between the Administration and 
Congress and without serious deliberation about the effects on 
America's farmers and ranchers. Our farms should not be sanctioned 
without the consent of Congress.
  The Food and Medicine for the World Act sends a message to customers 
overseas that U.S. farmers and ranchers will be reliable. People around 
the world depend on our farm products and on U.S. produced medical 
supplies. When tyrants challenge U.S. foreign policy, we must not 
respond by cutting off the supply of food and medicine to their poor. 
The health and welfare needs of those abroad will be best served if we 
ensure that our farmers and producers are a continuous source of food 
and medical supplies.
  The Food and Medicine for the World Act also sends a message to U.S. 
farmers and ranchers that their livelihood will not be used as a 
foreign policy tool without due deliberation and involvement of both 
the President and Congress.
  Farmers and ranchers are twice as reliant on foreign trade as the 
U.S. economy as a whole. It is time for us to enact policy that 
reflects our support for their efforts to reach their competitive 
potential internationally.
  Mr. President, I ask that the text of the bill be printed in the 
Record.
  The bill follows:

                                 S. 425

       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 ``Food and Medicine for the 
     World Act of 1999''.

     SEC. 2. REQUIREMENT OF CONGRESSIONAL APPROVAL OF ANY NEW 
                   UNILATERAL AGRICULTURAL SANCTION.

       (a) Definitions.--
       (1) Agricultural commodity.--The term ``agricultural 
     commodity'' has the meaning given the term in section 402 of 
     the Agricultural Trade Development and Assistance Act of 1954 
     (7 U.S.C. 1732).
       (2) Agricultural program.--The term ``agricultural 
     program'' means--
       (A) any program administered through the Agricultural Trade 
     Development and Assistance Act of 1954 (Public Law 480; 7 
     U.S.C. 1701 et. seq.);
       (B) any program administered through section 416 of the 
     Agricultural Act of 1949 (7 U.S.C. 1431);
       (C) any commercial sale of agricultural commodities or 
     agricultural products, including plant nutrient materials; or
       (D) any export financing (including credits or credit 
     guarantees) for agricultural commodities or agricultural 
     products.
       (3) New unilateral agricultural sanction.--The term ``new 
     unilateral agricultural sanction'' means any prohibition, 
     restriction, or condition on carrying out an agricultural 
     program with respect to a foreign country or foreign entity 
     that is imposed by the United States on or after the date of 
     enactment of this Act for reasons of foreign policy or 
     national security, except in a case in which the United 
     States imposes the measure pursuant to a multilateral regime 
     and the other member countries of that regime have agreed to 
     impose substantially equivalent measures.
       (4) New unilateral sanction with respect to medicine, 
     medical supplies, or medical equipment.--The term ``new 
     unilateral sanction with respect to medicine, medical 
     supplies, or medical equipment'' means any prohibition, 
     restriction, or condition on trade in, or the provision of 
     assistance consisting of, medicine, medical supplies, or 
     medical equipment with respect to a foreign country or 
     foreign entity that is imposed by the United States on or 
     after the date of enactment of this Act for reasons of 
     foreign policy or national security, except in a case in 
     which the United States imposes the measure pursuant to a 
     multilateral regime and the other member countries of that 
     regime have agreed to impose substantially equivalent 
     measures.
       (5) Session day of Congress.--The term ``session day of 
     Congress'' means any day on which a House of Congress is in 
     session.
       (b) Restriction.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law and subject to subsection (c), the President may not 
     impose a new unilateral agricultural sanction against a 
     foreign country, or a new unilateral sanction with respect to 
     medicine, medical supplies, or medical equipment against a 
     foreign country, unless--
       (1) not less than 60 days before the sanction is proposed 
     to be imposed, the President submits a report to Congress 
     that--
       (A) describes the activity proposed to be prohibited, 
     restricted, or conditioned; and
       (B) describes the actions by the foreign country that 
     justify the sanction; and
       (2) Congress enacts a joint resolution stating the approval 
     of Congress for the report submitted under paragraph (1).
       (c) Exception.--Notwithstanding subsection (b), the 
     President may impose a sanction described in that 
     subsection--
       (1) against a foreign country with respect to which--
       (A) Congress has enacted a declaration of war; or
       (B) the President has proclaimed a state of national 
     emergency; or
       (2) to the extent that the sanction would prohibit, 
     restrict, or condition the provision or use of any commodity, 
     product, medicine, supply, or equipment that is controlled on 
     the United States Munitions List under section 38 of the Arms 
     Export Control Act or the Commerce Control List under the 
     Export Administration Act of 1979.
       (d) Congressional Priority Procedures.--
       (1) Joint resolution defined.--For the purpose of 
     subsection (b)(2), ``joint resolution'' means only a joint 
     resolution introduced within 10 session days of Congress 
     after the date on which the report of the President under 
     subsection (b)(1) is received by Congress, the matter after 
     the resolving clause of which is as follows: ``That Congress 
     approves the report of the President pursuant to section 
     2(b)(1) of the Food and Medicine for the World Act of 1999, 
     transmitted on _______.'', with the blank completed with the 
     appropriate date.''.
       (2) Referral of report.--The report described in subsection 
     (b)(1) shall be referred

[[Page 2331]]

     to the appropriate committee or committees of the House of 
     Representatives and to the appropriate committee or 
     committees of the Senate.
       (3) Referral of joint resolution to committee.--A joint 
     resolution introduced in the House of Representatives shall 
     be referred to the Committee on International Relations of 
     the House of Representatives. A joint resolution introduced 
     in the Senate shall be referred to the Committee on Foreign 
     Relations of the Senate. Such a joint resolution may not be 
     reported before the eighth session day of Congress after its 
     introduction.
       (4) Discharge from committee.--If the committee of either 
     House to which a joint resolution is referred has not 
     reported the joint resolution (or an identical joint 
     resolution) at the end of 30 session days of Congress after 
     its introduction, the committee shall be discharged from 
     further consideration of the joint resolution and the joint 
     resolution shall be placed on the appropriate calendar of the 
     House in which it was introduced.
       (5) Floor consideration.--
       (A) Motion to proceed.--When the committee to which a joint 
     resolution is referred has reported, or has been deemed to be 
     discharged (under paragraph (4)) from further consideration 
     of, a joint resolution, notwithstanding any rule or precedent 
     of the Senate, including Rule 22, it is at any time 
     thereafter in order (even though a previous motion to the 
     same effect has been disagreed to) for any Member of the 
     respective House to move to proceed to the consideration of 
     the joint resolution, and all points of order against the 
     joint resolution (and against consideration of the joint 
     resolution) are waived. The motion is highly privileged in 
     the House of Representatives and is privileged in the Senate 
     and is not debatable. The motion is not subject to amendment, 
     or to a motion to postpone, or to a motion to proceed to the 
     consideration of other business. A motion to reconsider the 
     vote by which the motion is agreed to or disagreed to shall 
     not be in order. If a motion to proceed to the consideration 
     of the joint resolution is agreed to, the joint resolution 
     shall remain the unfinished business of the respective House 
     until disposed of.
       (B) Debate on the joint resolution.--Debate on the joint 
     resolution, and on all debatable motions and appeals in 
     connection therewith, shall be limited to not more than ten 
     hours, which shall be divided equally between those favoring 
     and those opposing the joint resolution. A motion further to 
     limit debate is in order and not debatable. An amendment to, 
     or a motion to postpone, or a motion to proceed to the 
     consideration of other business, or a motion to recommit the 
     joint resolution is not in order. A motion to reconsider the 
     vote by which the joint resolution is agreed to or disagreed 
     to is not in order.
       (C) Vote on final passage.--Immediately following the 
     conclusion of the debate on a joint resolution, and a single 
     quorum call at the conclusion of the debate if requested in 
     accordance with the rules of the appropriate House, the vote 
     on final passage of the joint resolution shall occur.
       (D) Appeals of rulings.--Appeals from the decisions of the 
     Chair relating to the application of the rules of the Senate 
     or the House of Representatives, as the case may be, to the 
     procedure relating to a joint resolution described in 
     paragraph (1) shall be decided without debate.
       (6) Treatment of other house's joint resolution.--If, 
     before the passage by one House of Congress of a joint 
     resolution of that House, that House receives from the other 
     House a joint resolution, then the following procedures shall 
     apply:
       (A) Referral of joint resolutions of sending house.--The 
     joint resolution of the sending House shall not be referred 
     to a committee in the receiving House.
       (B) Procedures in receiving house.--With respect to a joint 
     resolution of the House receiving the joint resolution--
       (i) the procedure in that House shall be the same as if no 
     joint resolution had been received from the sending House; 
     but
       (ii) the vote on final passage shall be on the joint 
     resolution of the sending House.
       (C) Disposition of joint resolutions of receiving house.--
     Upon disposition of the joint resolution received from the 
     other House, it shall no longer be in order to consider the 
     joint resolution originated in the receiving House.
       (7) Procedures after action by both the house and senate.--
     If the House receiving a joint resolution from the other 
     House after the receiving House has disposed of a joint 
     resolution originated in that House, the action of the 
     receiving House with regard to the disposition of the joint 
     resolution originated in that House shall be deemed to be the 
     action of the receiving House with regard to the joint 
     resolution originated in the other House.
       (8) Status of procedures.--This subsection is enacted by 
     Congress--
       (A) as an exercise of the rulemaking power of the Senate 
     and House of Representatives, respectively, and as such it is 
     deemed a part of the rules of each House, respectively, but 
     applicable only with respect to the procedure to be followed 
     in that House in the case of a joint resolution described in 
     paragraph (1), and it supersedes other rules only to the 
     extent that it is inconsistent with such rules; and
       (B) with full recognition of the constitutional right of 
     either House to change the rules (so far as relating to the 
     procedure of that House) at any time, in the same manner and 
     to the same extent as in the case of any other rule of that 
     House.

 Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleagues 
in introducing the Food and Medicine for the World Act.
  For years the United States has enacted economic sanctions to punish 
foreign governments, often without regard for the effects of those 
sanctions back home. Under a bill that I am introducing jointly with 
Senators Ashcroft, Brownback and Kerrey, we can make more sense of our 
confusing sanctions policy. We can put an end to the practice of making 
our agricultural producers shoulder most of the blame when we impose 
sanctions.
  The exchange of goods and ideas worldwide has never been freer; it is 
now axiomatic to say that we live in a global economy. It follows that 
as the rules governing economics have changed, so too should those 
related to economic sanctions. Unilateral economic action is less 
effective than it used to be, simply because it's rarely possible for 
one country or company to corner the market on a good or service.
  Moreover, we often hurt ourselves with unilateral actions that 
disproportionately affect one sector of our economy over another. Our 
agricultural producers, for example, have long borne the brunt of 
American unilateral action. It is estimated that 10% of the world wheat 
market is put out of reach of U.S. producers by economic sanctions.
  That's why I became a member of the Senate Sanctions Task Force last 
year, and it's why I am joining my colleagues in introducing the Food 
and Medicine for the World Act. Under this legislation, when any new 
unilateral sanction is announced by the President, the sanctions he 
imposes will not affect agriculture or medicine unless: the President 
submits a report to Congress asking that the sanction include 
agriculture; and Congress approves of his request. The process must be 
complete within 60 days before the sanctions against agriculture are 
supposed to go into effect. This bill would not take effect in the 
event that Congress has declared war or in the case of national 
emergency.
  Mr. President, while I believe sanctions can be a legitimate tool of 
foreign policy, I don't think that American producers should be 
punished for the actions of unscrupulous foreign governments. Nor do I 
think it is fair to put an abrupt end to the supply of medicine based 
on the behavior of a dictator. We must send a message to the world that 
our producers are reliable and that those abroad who rely on U.S. 
products will not be put at risk by a sanction on U.S. food and 
medicine.
  The Food and Medicine for the World Act sends that message, and I 
urge my colleagues to lend their support to the bill.

                          ____________________