[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 3]
[Senate]
[Pages 4422-4453]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. HOLLINGS:
  S. 605. A bill to solidify the off-budget status of the old-age, 
survivors, and disability insurance program under title II of the 
Social Security Act and to protect program assets; to the Committee on 
the Budget and the Committee on Governmental Affairs, jointly, pursuant 
to the order of August 4, 1977, with instructions that if one committee 
reports, the committee have 30 days to report or be discharged.


             social security fiscal protection act of 1999

  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, on tomorrow afternoon, we begin to mark 
up the budget. That is, when I say we, I mean that the Budget Committee 
on the Senate side meets to mark up the budget for the year 2000 
commencing October 1 this year, and immediately we will hear the cry, 
``Surplus.''
  I am constrained to say--as in the earliest days of the Republic when 
Patrick Henry said, ``Peace, Peace, everywhere men cry peace,'' and 
there was no peace--``surplus, surplus, everywhere men cry surplus,'' 
but there is no surplus.
  The fact is that we are spending $100 billion more than we are taking 
in already this fiscal year, and under current policy the deficit for 
next year will be right at $90 billion.
  Also, Mr. President, another thing to note is the fact that you are 
going to hear the cry, ``Saving Social Security.'' I can tell you 
categorically that neither the Republican plan, policy or approach nor 
the Democratic White House plan, policy or approach will save Social 
Security. Both spend 100 percent of the Social Security moneys coming 
in the fiscal year 2000, as is the case already this year. And 
otherwise, all the wonderful talk about paying down the debt is nothing 
more than fancy rhetoric for a flawed policy that has got us into a 
situation of fiscal cancer.
  Now let me go right to the meaning of ``Surplus.'' Yes, we are making 
progress on the budget and the deficit. At a news conference earlier 
today I was asked about this and when did we ever expect to get some 
results. Well, I see that we are beginning to understand that there is 
no surplus. Most of the nation's astute commentators on the budget see 
this, too. Allan Sloan of Newsweek said, of course, that the 
President's plan was double accounting. Paul Samuelson talks about when 
they said ``surplus,'' it was ``surplus in the sky.'' The Concord 
Coalition, made up of our former colleagues, Senators Rudman and Nunn, 
with whom I have had an on-going engagement, finally says there is no 
surplus. And only two weeks ago Barron's, the conservative financial 
newspaper--which I hold it here--said: ``Hey, Guys, There is no Budget 
Surplus.''
  But be that as it may, the White House and many members of Congress 
are going to start dealing around the so-called surplus, nonexistent 
that it is, for education, Medicare, tax cuts, anything and 
everything--everything but saving Social Security. It has been a 
constant charade on messages of the party caucuses on both sides since 
January, even during the impeachment days; we have got to get our 
message out. Unfortunately, most of the media falls right in line with 
the message. They don't look into the actual fact or the reality.
  On the matter of the so-called surplus and the $100 billion that we 
are spending now: mind you me, Mr. President, we set spending caps year 
before last, and last year we broke the caps by $12 billion, and we 
have already broken the cap in this year's budget by $21 billion, which 
would mean in marking up 2000's budget we would immediately have to cut 
spending $33 billion to conform to the fiscal year 2000 budget cap.
  Instead of doing that, we have already met in unison, almost like a 
chorus singing ``Whoopee for the military,'' and we have spent $18 
billion on the military, money which is unaccounted for. Instead of 
cutting back, the Senate has already exceeded the agreed-to caps by $18 
billion. Unless, of course, they intend to cut $18 billion in domestic 
programs or cut $18 billion in operation, maintenance and readiness 
within the defense budget.
  We are going in the wrong direction. No one should think that Social 
Security has a surplus. This fiscal year, we

[[Page 4423]]

have a surplus of the amount required to be paid out, but since we have 
been spending it each year there is a $730 billion deficit due and 
owing. Social Security is in the red.
  So there are no surpluses. Even trying to get around that to try to 
get something to politic on for this year and next year, the Campaign 
2000, they say, ``Well, wait a minute; we will start our tax cuts in 
the year 2002 when there is one document to the effect there might be a 
slight surplus in Social Security, over and above the Social Security 
amount or otherwise we can spend it on Medicare beginning in 2000''--
anything for the Campaign 2000.
  They talk in the Chamber about the Chinese. Come, come, come. It is 
not the Chinese. It is not the baby boomers in the next generation. It 
is the adults in Congress who are looting the Social Security trust 
fund. Each one of these particular plans spends 100 percent of the 
Social Security so-called surplus.
  How do I say that? Well, it is easy. You go back into the original 
law--and I have a copy of the law itself--section 201.
  I ask unanimous consent to have that printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

      The Social Security Act (Act of August 14, 1935) [H.R. 7260]


       Title II--Federal Old-Age Benefits Old-Age Reserve Account

       Section 201. (a) There is hereby created an account in the 
     Treasury of the United States to be known as the Old-Age 
     Reserve Account hereinafter in this title called the Account. 
     There is hereby authorized to be appropriated to the Account 
     for each fiscal year, beginning with the fiscal year ending 
     June 30, 1937, an amount sufficient as an annual premium to 
     provide for the payments required under this title, such 
     amount to be determined on a reserve basis in accordance with 
     accepted actuarial principles, and based upon such tables of 
     mortality as the Secretary of the Treasury shall from time to 
     time adopt, and upon an interest rate of 3 per centum per 
     annum compounded annually. The Secretary of the Treasury 
     shall submit annually to the Bureau of the Budget an estimate 
     of the appropriations to be made to the Account.
       (b) It shall be the duty of the Secretary of the Treasury 
     to invest such portion of the amounts credited to the Account 
     as is not, in his judgment, required to meet current 
     withdrawals. Such investment may be made only in interest-
     bearing obligations of the United States or in obligations 
     guaranteed as to both principal and interest by the United 
     States. For such purpose such obligations may be acquired (1) 
     on original issue at par, or (2) by purchase of outstanding 
     obligations at the market price. The purposes for which 
     obligations of the United States may be issued under the 
     Second Liberty Bond Act, as amended, are hereby extended to 
     authorize the issuance at par of special obligations 
     exclusively to the Account. Such special obligations shall 
     bear interest at the rate of 3 per centum per annum. 
     Obligations other than such special obligations may be 
     acquired for the Account only on such terms as to provide an 
     investment yield of not less than 3 per centum per annum.
       (c) Any obligations acquired by the Account (except special 
     obligations issued exclusively to the Account) may be sold at 
     the market price, and such special obligations may be 
     redeemed at par plus accrued interest.
       (d) The interest on, and the proceeds from the sale or 
     redemption of, any obligations held in the Account shall be 
     credited to and form a part of the Account.
       (e) All amounts credited to the Account shall be available 
     for making payments required under this title.
       (f) The Secretary of the Treasury shall include in his 
     annual report the actuarial status of the Account.

  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I will send that momentarily to the 
desk, section 201 of the Social Security Act. Under section 201 of 
Social Security, we required at this moment--and have been doing so for 
years--under law to invest only and immediately in T-bills, Treasury 
bills, these special securities of the Federal Government. Once we do 
that, of course, we get a bond or IOU; the Government gets the money, 
and immediately all of those moneys are transferred to the Government 
account and it is spent, allocated, or used to pay down the so-called 
public debt.
  The one way to stop that is a bill, which I will send to the desk and 
for which I request proper referral. Mr. President, this bill simply 
says, amongst other things--and I will read section 5--that:

       Notwithstanding any other provision of law, throughout each 
     month that begins after October 1, 1999, the Secretary of 
     Treasury shall maintain, in a secure repository or 
     repositories, cash in a total amount equal to the total 
     redemption value of all obligations issued to the Federal 
     Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund and the Federal 
     Disability Insurance Trust Fund pursuant to section 201(d) of 
     the Social Security Act that are outstanding on the first day 
     of each month.

  Advisedly, Mr. President, this was worked out by none other than my 
Social Security friends. At one time, I had the distinction of being 
the chairman of the Budget Committee. We had an outstanding staffer 
then named Ken Apfel. He is now the Social Security Administrator. I 
called over there and I said: Let's stop this roundabout dance about 
surpluses and spending all the money and everything else; I want you to 
write a provision whereby we can do exactly what we said when Congress 
passed the Social Security Act.
  Remember old John Mitchell, under the Nixon administration? He said, 
``Watch what we do, not what we say.'' I am afraid on budget matters we 
have arrived exactly at that point. But, in any event, to do what we 
say, we have prepared this bill and now it has been introduced and, if 
passed by the Congress, yes, we will save Social Security.
  Immediately, one of the distinguished Senators said, ``Wait a minute. 
Is the money going to just sit there?''
  No. Mr. President, that money will be invested in T-bills, just as it 
has been all these years. Or, if there is an additional plan, like the 
Kerrey-Moynihan plan, like our Thrift Savings Plan--a certain 
percentage invested in the market in order to make more money but take 
on more risk--we can debate that. What this particular bill really does 
is save Social Security. Social Security funds will not be spent, save 
and excepting on Social Security purposes.
  This is exactly what was intended by Mr. Greenspan when he headed the 
Greenspan Commission in 1983. In 1983, section 21 of the Greenspan 
Commission report said to take Social Security outside of the unified 
budget, outside of the unified deficit, and set it aside in trust. I 
struggled from 1983 until 1990 to translate Chairman Greenspan's 
recommendations into law. I thought we had done it in 1990, when we 
passed the Budget Act by a vote of 98 Senators here on the floor of the 
Senate and almost an equal majority, overwhelming as it was, over on 
the House side. President Bush, on November 5, 1990, signed the bill 
into law, including section 13301 of the Budget Act, which stated 
Congress could not spend Social Security moneys on anything other than 
the Social Security program; you had it outside of the unified budget 
and the deficit.
  Unfortunately, Mr. President, that has been ignored. That is why I 
have to reword it this way. But the contemplation at the particular 
time, the law itself, the policy of the U.S. Government with respect to 
corporate America--we passed the Pension Reform Act of 1994 saying: 
Thou shalt not, in corporate America, spend your pension fund to pay 
off the company debt.
  The most interesting and ironic thing is, when Denny McLain, the 
former great pitcher for the Detroit Tigers, became the head of a 
corporation and paid off its debt with the pension fund, he was sent to 
jail for 8 years. If you can find what jail poor Denny is in, say to 
him, ``Denny, next time, run for the U.S. Senate. Instead of a jail 
term, they will give you the good government award.''
  That is exactly what we are doing. We violate our own policy. We pay 
off the debt with the Social Security Trust Fund and have been doing it 
for 15 years.
  That gets me immediately to the point of so-called paying off the 
public debt. You know, they have these euphemisms and different 
expressions that come around budget time and make you think you have a 
real policy on board. That has been the policy.
  Admittedly, if you had a stagnant economy, if you had a dormant stock 
market, you could welcome paying off the public debt to get the economy 
and the stock market moving and everything else. But to do it, not over 
just a year or 2, but to do it for the last 15 years to the tune of in 
excess of $100

[[Page 4424]]

billion, what it has really done is given us fiscal cancer. We have 
gone up, up, and away with the national debt, and the interest costs 
are killing us.
  Let me dwell a minute on the interest costs on the national debt. The 
interest cost, when President Lyndon Johnson last balanced the budget, 
was $16 billion. Today the interest cost is projected to be $357 
billion, almost a billion dollars a day. What it says to me is, this 
year I have to spend--and next year I have to spend--$357 billion for 
nothing. If I had been fiscally prudent, I could have had $80 billion 
for tax cuts plus $80 billion for spending increases plus $80 billion 
to pay down the debt plus $80 billion to save Social Security. That is 
$320 billion. I would have had $37 billion for you to have a party out 
here on the west front when I jump off the Capitol dome.
  Since 1995, I have been telling Chairman Domenici, trying to bring 
sense to this entire budget debate by talking in the extreme, that by 
the year 2002, if he had a balanced budget, truly balanced--if we were 
paying out less than what we were bringing in or just at that amount--I 
would jump off the Capitol dome. And I reiterate the pledge. Let's make 
the bets--``Get old Hollings to jump off the dome.'' Because under 
current policies, no one can possibly balance the budget while 
exceeding revenue by over $100 billion. Nobody is cutting $100 billion. 
They are spending $18 billion more unaccounted for, breaking the caps. 
Nobody is spending less than $90 billion. So we know with all of this 
spending for tax cuts, Medicare, education, housing, and everything 
else of that kind, that we are in deep trouble.
  We have fiscal cancer. What we really should do, probably, as Mr. 
Greenspan, the head of the Federal Reserve, finally came around to 
saying, is do nothing: take this year's budget for next year. I did 
that as the Governor of South Carolina. I capped the debt. By the way, 
that would bring truth in budgeting to this crowd, if they are right. 
Let's plead guilty: They are right, I am wrong, there is a surplus and 
we are going to pay down the debt. If that occurs, we can cap the debt 
as of October 1 of this year, the beginning of the next fiscal year. 
Whatever it is, since there is a surplus and since we are going to pay 
down the debt, let's cap it so it does not exceed that particular 
amount.
  You cannot get the White House--I faced them down in one of these 
briefings--to go along with it. I will make the motion and we will see 
how many people vote for that.
  I am trying to bring truth to our federal budget. I am trying to 
avoid the fiscal cancer. The Republicans talk about an $80 billion 
across-the-board tax cut. I want a $357 billion tax cut this year, next 
year, and right along the line. I want, in that 10-year period, $3.5 
trillion in tax cuts, not just this $800 billion tax cut. I want to get 
rid of this waste in Government.
  I served on the Grace Commission to Eliminate Waste. I know what 
waste is. I speak advisedly. Before long, if those interest rates go 
up, instead of $357 billion, we will be up around $500 billion in 
interest costs. It is the largest item in the domestic budget for 
spending at this minute.
  What we ought to do is get a hold of ourselves, start talking sense 
to each other, work out a plan to take care of the needs of Government, 
but quit using the Social Security surplus and trust fund as a 
political slush fund for any and every idea on the media message. And 
the media are going along with this nonsense and act like we actually 
are doing it. My particular bill will bring sobriety to the entire 
process and debate.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in 
the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 605

       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 ``Social Security Fiscal 
     Protection Act of 1999''.

     SEC. 2. OFF BUDGET STATUS OF SOCIAL SECURITY TRUST FUNDS.

       Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the receipts 
     and disbursements of the Federal Old-Age and Survivors 
     Insurance Trust Fund and the Federal Disability Insurance 
     Trust Fund shall not be counted as new budget authority, 
     outlays, receipts, or deficit or surplus for purposes of--
       (1) the budget of the United States Government as submitted 
     by the President,
       (2) the congressional budget, or
       (3) the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act 
     of 1985.

     SEC. 3. EXCLUSION OF RECEIPTS AND DISBURSEMENTS FROM SURPLUS 
                   AND DEFICIT TOTALS.

       The receipts and disbursements of the old-age, survivors, 
     and disability insurance program established under title II 
     of the Social Security Act and the revenues under sections 
     86, 1401, 3101, and 3111 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 
     related to such program shall not be included in any surplus 
     or deficit totals required under the Congressional Budget Act 
     of 1974 or chapter 11 of title 31, United States Code.

     SEC. 4. CONFORMITY OF OFFICIAL STATEMENTS TO BUDGETARY 
                   REQUIREMENTS.

       Any official statement issued by the Office of Management 
     and Budget or by the Congressional Budget Office of surplus 
     or deficit totals of the budget of the United States 
     Government as submitted by the President or of the surplus or 
     deficit totals of the congressional budget, and any 
     description of, or reference to, such totals in any official 
     publication or material issued by either of such Offices, 
     shall exclude all receipts and disbursements under the old-
     age, survivors, and disability insurance program under title 
     II of the Social Security Act and the related provisions of 
     the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (including the receipts and 
     disbursements of the Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance 
     Trust Fund and the Federal Disability Insurance Trust Fund).

     SEC. 5. REPOSITORY REQUIREMENT.

       Notwithstanding any other provision of law, throughout each 
     month that begins after October 1, 1999, the Secretary of the 
     Treasury shall maintain, in a secure repository or 
     repositories, cash in a total amount equal to the total 
     redemption value of all obligations issued to the Federal 
     Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund and the Federal 
     Disability Insurance Trust Fund pursuant to section 201(d) of 
     the Social Security Act that are outstanding on the first day 
     of such month.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. NICKLES (for himself, Mr. Hatch, Mr. Mack, and Mrs. 
        Feinstein):
  S. 606. A bill for the relief of Global Exploration and Development 
Corporation, Kerr-McGee Corporation, and Kerr-McGee Chemical, LLC 
(successor to Kerr-McGee Chemical Corporation), and for other purposes; 
to the Committee on the Judiciary.


                          private relief bill

  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, today I introduce S. 606 for Senator 
Mack, Senator Feinstein, Senator Hatch, and myself. This bill is 
intended to resolve litigation between the federal government and Kerr-
McGee Corporation and Kerr-McGee Chemical, LLC (successor to Kerr-McGee 
Chemical Corporation) and Global Exploration and Development 
Corporation. This legislation embodies an agreement that has been 
reviewed and accepted by the Hearing Officer and a three judge 
reviewing panel. The Department of Justice has no objection to this 
legislation. In addition, this legislation would also make it a 
criminal act to distribute certain information relating to explosives, 
destructive devices, and weapons of mass destruction. This bill was 
reported by the Committee on the Judiciary in this form during the 
105th Congress.
  As background to this relief for Kerr-McGee and Global Exploration, 
in 1964, they first filed applications for phosphate prospecting 
permits in Osceola National Forest. Under Sec. 211(a) of the Mineral 
Lands Leasing Act, the Secretary can only grant prospecting permit 
applications following a determination that the public interest will be 
served by doing so. The U.S. Forest Service must also consent to the 
issuance of the prospecting permits. The permits were granted, and the 
plaintiffs subsequently discovered phosphate deposits.
  The plaintiffs then filed applications with the Department of 
Interior for leases to mine the deposits in January of 1969. Whether 
the plaintiffs are entitled to leases is governed by the Mineral Lands 
Leasing Act (30 U.S.C. sec. 181 et. seq.) which requires the Secretary 
of Interior to issue leases to a permittee that has discovered a 
``valuable deposit'' of mineral. The U.S. Geological Survey, the Bureau 
of Mines and the Office of Minerals Policy Department all confirmed 
that valuable

[[Page 4425]]

deposits had in fact been discovered (valued at $100 to $300 million in 
1970's dollars).
  Kerr-McGee filed suit in 1973 and Global filed suit in 1978 seeking 
the immediate issuance of the leases. In 1981, the U.S. Forest Service 
began setting out the requirements for reclamation. The Department of 
Interior concluded the reclamation technology did not exist based on an 
Environmental Assessment (``EA'') prepared by Interior and issued in 
January of 1983. Based on that conclusion, the plaintiffs' applications 
for leases to mine the deposits were rejected.
  Agency personnel had told plaintiffs that they would be able to 
comment on the EA findings before their final issuance. By law, the 
government was required to permit the applicants to participate in the 
EA process by submitting comments and expert analysis on the 
feasibility of reclamation. Plaintiffs were never given a chance to 
participate in the EA process, to show feasibility of reclamation, or 
to comment on the draft EA.
  In 1984, the Florida Wilderness Act (Pub. L. 98-430, 98 Stat. 1665) 
was enacted which prevented the issuance of phosphate mining leases in 
Osceola, effectively foreclosing a legal remedy since plaintiffs could 
no longer ask for reversal of the prior decision or for relief for 
damages incurred. The House Committee Report accompanying the Act 
stated that ``in the event the courts ultimately determined that 
applicants have established lease rights, [the Act] provides that 
leases will not be issued. The applicants would instead be compensated 
as required in accordance with constitutional principles.'' H. Rpt. 98-
102 Part I, 97th Cong., 1st Sess., at 7.
  The plaintiffs pursued their case in federal district court and the 
Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. The Court of Appeals vacated the 
district court's judgment and remanded the case with instructions to 
dismiss the suit as moot in light of Florida Wilderness Act. The U.S. 
Court of Federal Claims then questioned whether or not it had 
jurisdiction to hear the case, leaving plaintiffs without a forum to be 
heard.
  Under 28 U.S.C. 2509, a congressional reference empowers a judge of 
the Court of Federal Claims to sit as a Hearing Officer, hold a hearing 
and determine the facts of the case. The Hearing Officer's findings and 
conclusions are then reviewed by a three-judge panel. The panel then 
adopts or modifies the findings and conclusions and submits its report 
to the Chief Judge who then transmits the recommendations to the house 
of Congress which referred the case.
  On Jan. 10, 1991, H. Res. 29 and H.R. 477 were introduced during the 
102nd Congress to refer the case to the U.S. Court of Federal Claims in 
order to compensate plaintiffs for any damages incurred on account of 
the failure of the Secretary of the Interior to grant and permit mining 
operations pursuant to phosphate leases in the Osceola National Forest. 
On July 10, 1991, the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Administrative 
Law and Government Relations held hearings on H.R. 477 and H. Res. 29. 
On October 3, 1991, the Subcommittee reported the resolution, with a 
technical amendment, to full Committee. On July 21, 1992, the House of 
Representatives passed H. Res. 29, referring H.R. 477 to Court of 
Claims. The formal Congressional reference confirmed jurisdiction for 
the plaintiffs' suit in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims.
  In the Court of Federal Claims, the Government moved for summary 
judgement. The Court ruled that plaintiffs did not have a legal claim 
but did have an equitable claim since the government failed to comply 
with the legal requirement of the EA. The court ruled that the 
Secretary of Interior had made an error in denying phosphate mining 
leases on the basis of an EA without allowing plaintiffs the 
opportunity to comment. The court concluded that the error was not 
harmless.
  Remaining was the question of fact whether reclamation was feasible, 
according to Forest Service standards as of January of 1983. A 6 week 
evidentiary hearing was held on that issue from October 13 to December 
14, 1995. Plaintiffs presented leading experts in reclamation who 
showed they could have successfully reclaimed the land, that the 
analysis in the EA was scientifically incorrect, and that EA members 
who concluded successful reclamation had their conclusions omitted.
  Before the court issued its opinion, the parties agreed to a joint 
stipulation of settlement and submitted this stipulation to the Court: 
Global is to received $9.5 million; Kerr-McGee is to receive $10 
million, which it will return to the government as partial payment for 
a Superfund cleanup site in Louisiana; and Kerr-McGee Chemical LLC is 
to receive $0. Global, Kerr-McGee and the Department of Justice 
accepted the report of the Hearing Officer, dated November 18, 1996, 
and the Review Panel endorsed the decision.
  On November 18, 1996, the court published its recommendations to 
Congress that the disputes be settled for the amounts set forth in the 
joint stipulation of settlement. The court's recommendation was based 
on a finding that the settlement was fair, just, equitable and 
supported by the evidence. As noted in the Hearing Officer's report, 
``if the case were to proceed to final disposition and plaintiffs to 
prevail, then the Government would face a potential liability 
substantially in excess of the proposed settlement amounts. Conversely, 
however, a victory for the Government would not assure it of protection 
against all future liability.''
  This legislation would implement this settlement, and we urge its 
prompt consideration and approval by the Senate.
  For the information of all Senators, I have included the House 
Committee Report from the 105th Congress which provides a very clear 
background and the need for this provision.
  In addition, the bill includes language related to the prohibition of 
distribution of information related to destructive devices, explosives, 
and weapons of mass destruction in furtherance of a violent crime. This 
language was added to this legislation during markup of H.R. 1211 
during the 105th Congress in the Senate Judiciary Committee by Senator 
Feinstein  and is a reasonable resolution of an issue pushed by Senator 
Feinstein for several years.
  I urge quick consideration and passage of this overdue and important 
legislation.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 606

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

     SECTION 1. SATISFACTION OF CLAIMS AGAINST THE UNITED STATES.

       (a) Payment of Claims.--The Secretary of the Treasury shall 
     pay, out of money not otherwise appropriated--
       (1) to the Global Exploration and Development Corporation, 
     a Florida corporation incorporated in Delaware, $9,500,000;
       (2) to Kerr-McGee Corporation, an Oklahoma corporation 
     incorporated in Delaware, $10,000,000; and
       (3) to Kerr-McGee Chemical, LLC, a limited liability 
     company organized under the laws of Delaware, $0.
       (b) Condition of Payment.--
       (1) Global exploration and development corporation.--The 
     payment authorized by subsection (a)(1) is in settlement and 
     compromise of all claims of Global Exploration and 
     Development Corporation, as described in the recommendations 
     of the United States Court of Federal Claims set forth in 36 
     Fed. Cl. 776.
       (2) Kerr-mcgee corporation and kerr-mcgee chemical, llc.--
     The payment authorized by subsections (a)(2) and (a)(3) are 
     in settlement and compromise of all claims of Kerr-McGee 
     Corporation and Kerr-McGee Chemical, LLC, as described in the 
     recommendations of the United States Court of Federal Claims 
     set forth in 36 Fed. Cl. 776.

     SEC. 2. CRIMINAL PROHIBITION ON THE DISTRIBUTION OF CERTAIN 
                   INFORMATION RELATING TO EXPLOSIVES, DESTRUCTIVE 
                   DEVICES, AND WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION.

       (a) Unlawful Conduct.--Section 842 of title 18, United 
     States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(p) Distribution of Information Relating to Explosives, 
     Destructive Devices, and Weapons of Mass Destruction.--
       ``(1) Definitions.--In this subsection--
       ``(A) the term `destructive device' has the same meaning as 
     in section 921(a)(4);

[[Page 4426]]

       ``(B) the term `explosive' has the same meaning as in 
     section 844(j); and
       ``(C) the term `weapon of mass destruction' has the same 
     meaning as in section 2332a(c)(2).
       ``(2) Prohibition.--It shall be unlawful for any person--
       ``(A) to teach or demonstrate the making or use of an 
     explosive, a destructive device, or a weapon of mass 
     destruction, or to distribute by any means information 
     pertaining to, in whole or in part, the manufacture or use of 
     an explosive, destructive device, or weapon of mass 
     destruction, with the intent that the teaching, 
     demonstration, or information be used for, or in furtherance 
     of, an activity that constitutes a Federal crime of violence; 
     or
       ``(B) to teach or demonstrate to any person the making or 
     use of an explosive, a destructive device, or a weapon of 
     mass destruction, or to distribute to any person, by any 
     means, information pertaining to, in whole or in part, the 
     manufacture or use of an explosive, destructive device, or 
     weapon of mass destruction, knowing that such person intends 
     to use the teaching, demonstration, or information for, or in 
     furtherance of, an activity that constitutes a Federal crime 
     of violence.''.
       (b) Penalties.--Section 844 of title 18, United States 
     Code, is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a), by striking ``person who violates 
     any of subsections'' and inserting the following: ``person 
     who--
       ``(1) violates any of subsections'';
       (2) by striking the period at the end and inserting ``; 
     and''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(2) violates subsection (p)(2) of section 842, shall be 
     fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 20 years, or 
     both.''; and
       (4) in subsection (j), by striking ``and (i)'' and 
     inserting ``(i), and (p)''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. CRAIG (for himself and Mr. Murkowski):
  S. 607. A bill reauthorize and amend the National Geologic Mapping 
Act of 1992; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.


       THE NATIONAL GEOLOGIC MAPPING REAUTHORIZATION ACT OF 1999

  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I am today introducing along with Senator 
Murkowski, the National Geologic Mapping Reauthorization Act of 1999. 
This is an act that has been very beneficial to the Nation and deserves 
to be reauthorized.
  The National Cooperative Geologic Mapping Act (NCGMA) was originally 
signed into law in 1992. The purpose of this geologic mapping program 
is to provide the nation with urgently needed geologic maps that can be 
and are used by a diverse clientele. These maps are vital to 
understanding groundwater regimes, mineral resources, geologic hazards 
such as landslides and earthquakes, geology essential for all types of 
land use planning, as well as providing basic scientific data. The 
NCGMA contains three parts; FedMap--the U.S. Geological Survey's 
geologic mapping program, StateMap--the state geological survey's part 
of the act, and EdMap--a program to encourage the training of future 
geologic mappers at our colleges and universities.
  StateMap is a competitive program wherein the states submit proposals 
for geologic mapping that are critiqued by a peer review panel. A 
requirement of this section of the legislation is that each federal 
dollar be matched one-for-one with state funds. Each participating 
state has a StateMap Advisory Committee to insure that its proposal 
addresses priority areas and needs. The success of this program insured 
reauthorization of similar legislation in 1997 with widespread 
bipartisan support in both the House and Senate.
  According to a recent poll conducted by the Association of American 
State Geologists, the 50 states have produced over 1,900 new geologic 
maps since the program authorized by this legislation started. There 
are an additional 300 maps currently being completed. Also, the states 
have digitized 650 existing geologic maps (1:24,000 scale) so they can 
be used as a computer data base. All of these maps have been submitted 
to the U.S. Geological Survey for inclusion in a national geologic map 
database. One of the purposes of this database is to eventually provide 
a digital geologic map of the entire nation at a scale of 1:100,000. 
This national database will assure that future maps will be easy to use 
by anyone.
  The Edmap and Fedmap sections of the legislation support mapping 
projects led by Universities and regional mapping projects that address 
needs for geologic information to deal with land, water, mineral 
resource, natural hazard mitigation and environmental protection 
issues. Fed map projects are coordinated with State and university 
mapping portions of the program, through regional meetings, liaison 
groups and national reviews of ongoing projects.
  Mr. President, the National Geologic Mapping Reauthorization Act 
benefits numerous citizens every day by assuring there is accurate and 
usable geologic information available to communities and individuals so 
better and safer resource use decisions can be made. I encourage my 
colleagues to support this legislation and am committed to its timely 
consideration.
  Thank you, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the 
bill be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 607

       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 ``National Geologic Mapping 
     Reauthorization Act of 1999''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       Section 2(a) of the National Geologic Mapping Act of 1992 
     (43 U.S.C. 31a(a)) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (7), by striking ``and'' at the end;
       (2) by redesignating paragraph (8) as paragraph (10);
       (3) by inserting after paragraph (7) the following:
       ``(8) geologic map information is required for the 
     sustainable and balanced development of natural resources of 
     all types, including energy, minerals, land, water, and 
     biological resources;
       ``(9) advances in digital technology and geographical 
     information system science have made geologic map databases 
     increasingly important as decision support tools for land and 
     resource management; and''; and
       (4) in paragraph (10) (as redesignated by paragraph (2)), 
     by inserting ``of surficial and bedrock deposits'' after 
     ``geologic mapping''.

     SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

       Section 3 of the National Geologic Mapping Act of 1992 (43 
     U.S.C. 31b) is amended--
       (1) by redesignating paragraphs (4), (5), (6), and (7) as 
     paragraphs (6), (7), (8), and (10), respectively;
       (2) by inserting after paragraph (3) the following:
       ``(4) Education component.--The term `education component' 
     means the education component of the geologic mapping program 
     described in section 6(d)(3).
       ``(5) Federal component.--The term `Federal component' 
     means the Federal component of the geologic mapping program 
     described in section 6(d)(1).''; and
       (3) by inserting after paragraph (8) (as redesignated by 
     paragraph (1)) the following:
       ``(9) State component.--The term `State component' means 
     the State component of the geologic mapping program described 
     in section 6(d)(2).''.

     SEC. 4. GEOLOGIC MAPPING PROGRAM.

       Section 4 of the National Geologic Mapping Act of 1992 (43 
     U.S.C. 31c) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (b)(1)--
       (A) in the first sentence, by striking ``priorities'' and 
     inserting ``national priorities and standards for'';
       (B) in subparagraph (A)--
       (i) by striking ``develop a geologic mapping program 
     implementation plan'' and inserting ``develop a 5-year 
     strategic plan for the geologic mapping program''; and
       (ii) by striking ``within 300 days after the date of 
     enactment of the National Geologic Mapping Reauthorization 
     Act of 1997'' and inserting ``not later than 1 year after the 
     date of enactment of the National Geologic Mapping 
     Reauthorization Act of 1999'';
       (C) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``within 90 days after 
     the date of enactment of the National Geologic Mapping 
     Reauthorization Act of 1997'' and inserting ``not later than 
     1 year after the date of enactment of the National Geologic 
     Mapping Reauthorization Act of 1999''; and
       (D) in subparagraph (C)--
       (i) in the matter preceding clause (i), by striking 
     ``within 210 days after the date of enactment of the National 
     Geologic Mapping Reauthorization Act of 1997'' and inserting 
     ``not later than 3 years after the date of enactment of the 
     National Geologic Mapping Reauthorization Act of 1999, and 
     biennially thereafter'';
       (ii) in clause (i), by striking ``will coordinate'' and 
     inserting ``are coordinating'';
       (iii) in clause (ii), by striking ``will establish'' and 
     inserting ``establish''; and
       (iv) in clause (iii), by striking ``will lead to'' and 
     inserting ``affect''; and
       (2) by striking subsection (d) and inserting the following:
       ``(d) Program Components--
       ``(1) Federal component.--
       ``(A) In general.--The geologic mapping program shall 
     include a Federal geologic

[[Page 4427]]

     mapping component, the objective of which shall be to 
     determine the geologic framework of areas determined to be 
     vital to the economic, social, environmental, or scientific 
     welfare of the United States.
       ``(B) Mapping priorities.--For the Federal component, 
     mapping priorities--
       ``(i) shall be described in the 5-year plan under section 
     6; and
       ``(ii) shall be based on--

       ``(I) national requirements for geologic map information in 
     areas of multiple-issue need or areas of compelling single-
     issue need; and
       ``(II) national requirements for geologic map information 
     in areas where mapping is required to solve critical earth 
     science problems.

       ``(C) Interdisciplinary studies.--
       ``(i) In general.--The Federal component shall include 
     interdisciplinary studies that add value to geologic mapping.
       ``(ii) Representative categories.--Interdisciplinary 
     studies under clause (i) may include--

       ``(I) establishment of a national geologic map database 
     under section 7;
       ``(II) studies that lead to the implementation of cost-
     effective digital methods for the acquisition, compilation, 
     analysis, cartographic production, and dissemination of 
     geologic map information;
       ``(III) paleontologic, geochrono-logic, and isotopic 
     investigations that provide information critical to 
     understanding the age and history of geologic map units;
       ``(IV) geophysical investigations that assist in 
     delineating and mapping the physical characteristics and 3-
     dimensional distribution of geologic materials and geologic 
     structures; and
       ``(V) geochemical investigations and analytical operations 
     that characterize the composition of geologic map units.

       ``(iii) Use of results.--The results of investigations 
     under clause (ii) shall be contributed to national databases.
       ``(2) State component.--
       ``(A) In general.--The geologic mapping program shall 
     include a State geologic mapping component, the objective of 
     which shall be to establish the geologic framework of areas 
     determined to be vital to the economic, social, 
     environmental, or scientific welfare of individual States.
       ``(B) Mapping priorities.--For the State component, mapping 
     priorities--
       ``(i) shall be determined by State panels representing a 
     broad range of users of geologic maps; and
       ``(ii) shall be based on--

       ``(I) State requirements for geologic map information in 
     areas of multiple-issue need or areas of compelling single-
     issue need; and
       ``(II) State requirements for geologic map information in 
     areas where mapping is required to solve critical earth 
     science problems.

       ``(C) Integration of federal and state priorities.--A 
     national panel including representatives of the Survey shall 
     integrate the State mapping priorities under this paragraph 
     with the Federal mapping priorities under paragraph (1).
       ``(D) Use of funds.--The Survey and recipients of grants 
     under the State component shall not use more than 15.25 
     percent of the Federal funds made available under the State 
     component for any fiscal year to pay indirect, servicing, or 
     program management charges.
       ``(E) Federal share.--The Federal share of the cost of 
     activities under the State component for any fiscal year 
     shall not exceed 50 percent.
       ``(3) Education component.--
       ``(A) In general.--The geologic mapping program shall 
     include a geologic mapping education component for the 
     training of geologic mappers, the objectives of which shall 
     be--
       ``(i) to provide for broad education in geologic mapping 
     and field analysis through support of field studies; and
       ``(ii) to develop academic programs that teach students of 
     earth science the fundamental principles of geologic mapping 
     and field analysis.
       ``(B) Investigations.--The education component may include 
     the conduct of investigations, which--
       ``(i) shall be integrated with the Federal component and 
     the State component; and
       ``(ii) shall respond to mapping priorities identified for 
     the Federal component and the State component.
       ``(C) Use of funds.--The Survey and recipients of grants 
     under the education component shall not use more than 15.25 
     percent of the Federal funds made available under the 
     education component for any fiscal year to pay indirect, 
     servicing, or program management charges.
       ``(D) Federal share.--The Federal share of the cost of 
     activities under the education component for any fiscal year 
     shall not exceed 50 percent.''.

     SEC. 5. ADVISORY COMMITTEE.

       Section 5 of the National Geologic Mapping Act of 1992 (43 
     U.S.C. 31d) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)(3), by striking ``90 days after the 
     date of enactment of the National Geologic Mapping 
     Reauthorization Act of 1997'' and inserting ``1 year after 
     the date of enactment of the National Geologic Mapping 
     Reauthorization Act of 1999''; and
       (2) in subsection (b)--
       (A) in paragraph (1), by striking ``critique the draft 
     implementation plan'' and inserting ``update the 5-year 
     plan''; and
       (B) in paragraph (3), by striking ``this Act'' and 
     inserting ``sections 4 through 7''.

     SEC. 6. GEOLOGIC MAPPING PROGRAM 5-YEAR PLAN.

       The National Geologic Mapping Act of 1992 is amended by 
     striking section 6 (43 U.S.C. 31e) and inserting the 
     following:

     ``SEC. 6. GEOLOGIC MAPPING PROGRAM 5-YEAR PLAN.

       ``(a) In General.--The Secretary, acting through the 
     Director, shall, with the advice and review of the advisory 
     committee, prepare a 5-year plan for the geologic mapping 
     program.
       ``(b) Requirements.--The 5-year plan shall identify--
       ``(1) overall priorities for the geologic mapping program; 
     and
       ``(2) implementation of the overall management structure 
     and operation of the geologic mapping program, including--
       ``(A) the role of the Survey in the capacity of overall 
     management lead, including the responsibility for developing 
     the national geologic mapping program that meets Federal 
     needs while fostering State needs;
       ``(B) the responsibilities of the State geological surveys, 
     with emphasis on mechanisms that incorporate the needs, 
     missions, capabilities, and requirements of the State 
     geological surveys, into the nationwide geologic mapping 
     program;
       ``(C) mechanisms for identifying short- and long-term 
     priorities for each component of the geologic mapping 
     program, including--
       ``(i) for the Federal component, a priority-setting 
     mechanism that responds to--

       ``(I) Federal mission requirements for geologic map 
     information;
       ``(II) critical scientific problems that require geologic 
     maps for their resolution; and
       ``(III) shared Federal and State needs for geologic maps, 
     in which joint Federal-State geologic mapping projects are in 
     the national interest;

       ``(ii) for the State component, a priority-setting 
     mechanism that responds to--

       ``(I) specific intrastate needs for geologic map 
     information; and
       ``(II) interstate needs shared by adjacent States that have 
     common requirements; and

       ``(iii) for the education component, a priority-setting 
     mechanism that responds to requirements for geologic map 
     information that are dictated by Federal and State mission 
     requirements;
       ``(D) a mechanism for adopting scientific and technical 
     mapping standards for preparing and publishing general- and 
     special-purpose geologic maps to--
       ``(i) ensure uniformity of cartographic and scientific 
     conventions; and
       ``(ii) provide a basis for assessing the comparability and 
     quality of map products; and
       ``(E) a mechanism for monitoring the inventory of published 
     and current mapping investigations nationwide to facilitate 
     planning and information exchange and to avoid redundancy.''.

     SEC. 7. NATIONAL GEOLOGIC MAP DATABASE.

       Section 7 of the National Geologic Mapping Act of 1992 (43 
     U.S.C. 31f) is amended by striking the section heading and 
     all that follows through subsection (a) and inserting the 
     following:

     ``SEC. 7. NATIONAL GEOLOGIC MAP DATABASE.

       ``(a) Establishment.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Survey shall establish a national 
     geologic map database.
       ``(2) Function.--The database shall serve as a national 
     catalog and archive, distributed through links to Federal and 
     State geologic map holdings, that includes--
       ``(A) all maps developed under the Federal component and 
     the education component;
       ``(B) the databases developed in connection with 
     investigations under subclauses (III), (IV), and (V) of 
     section 4(d)(1)(C)(ii); and
       ``(C) other maps and data that the Survey and the 
     Association consider appropriate.''.

     SEC. 8. BIENNIAL REPORT.

       The National Geologic Mapping Act of 1992 is amended by 
     striking section 8 (43 U.S.C. 31g) and inserting the 
     following:

     ``SEC. 8. BIENNIAL REPORT.

       ``Not later 3 years after the date of enactment of the 
     National Geologic Mapping Reauthorization Act of 1999 and 
     biennially thereafter, the Secretary shall submit to the 
     Committee on Resources of the House of Representatives and 
     the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources of the Senate a 
     report that--
       ``(1) describes the status of the national geologic mapping 
     program;
       ``(2) describes and evaluates the progress achieved during 
     the preceding 2 years in developing the national geologic map 
     database; and
       ``(3) includes any recommendations that the Secretary may 
     have for legislative or other action to achieve the purposes 
     of sections 4 through 7.''.

     SEC. 9. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       The National Geologic Mapping Act of 1992 is amended by 
     striking section 9 (43 U.S.C. 31h) and inserting the 
     following:

     ``SEC. 9. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       ``(a) In General.--There are authorized to be appropriated 
     to carry out this Act--
       ``(1) $28,000,000 for fiscal year 1999;
       ``(2) $30,000,000 for fiscal year 2000;

[[Page 4428]]

       ``(3) $37,000,000 for fiscal year 2001;
       ``(4) $43,000,000 for fiscal year 2002;
       ``(5) $50,000,000 for fiscal year 2003;
       ``(6) $57,000,000 for fiscal year 2004; and
       ``(7) $64,000,000 for fiscal year 2005.
       ``(b) Allocation of Appropriations.--Of any amounts 
     appropriated for any fiscal year in excess of the amount 
     appropriated for fiscal year 2000--
       ``(1) 48 percent shall be available for the State 
     component; and
       ``(2) 2 percent shall be available for the education 
     component.''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. MURKOWSKI (for himself, Mr. Craig, Mr. Grams, and Mr. 
        Crapo):
  S. 608. A bill to amend the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982; to the 
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.


                    nuclear waste policy act of 1999

  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I come to the floor today with my 
colleague, Senator Frank Murkowski of Alaska, chairman of the Energy 
and Natural Resources Committee, and Senator Rod Grams to introduce the 
Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1999.
  Once again, Congress must clarify its intention toward the disposal 
of spent nuclear fuel and nuclear waste. It is for this reason that I 
introduced the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1997, which passed with 
broad bipartisan support in this body last year, as did similar 
legislation in the other body. It is why I am an original cosponsor of 
the legislation this year.
  We must resolve the problem that this Nation faces with disposing of 
nuclear materials. Congress must recognize its responsibility to set a 
clear and definitive nuclear material disposal policy. With the passage 
of this legislation in the last Congress, the Senate expressed its will 
that Government fulfill its responsibilities. This legislation makes 
one significant change to the course we are currently on by directing 
that an interim storage facility for nuclear materials be constructed 
at area 25 at the Nevada test site and that the interim facility be 
prepared to accept nuclear materials by June 30, 2003.
  The President and the Vice President do not support this provision. 
They do not support an interim storage facility at one safe, secure 
location in the Nevada desert. What they do support, according to 
Energy Secretary Bill Richardson, is an interim storage at 70 some 
sites spread across this Nation. They support storage near population 
centers and major bodies of water, but not at a site located right next 
to a permanent repository, a site where hundreds of nuclear explosions 
have already been detonated over the last 50 years.
  In an announcement last month, the administration proposes to 
federalize storage of spent fuel at commercial reactors around this 
country by having the Government come in and take responsibility for 
each site. But do not worry, folks, because they promise to come and 
pick up the waste eventually, or at least that is what they have been 
promising for a long, long while. Well, I have some experience with the 
DOE and its promises, as many of my colleagues have, especially in the 
area of nuclear waste over the last number of years.
  In 1995, the Secretary of Energy promised the State of Idaho, and 
signed a court enforceable agreement, that transuranic waste in Idaho 
would be headed out of the State to the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant no 
later than next month. Now DOE says they can't meet that deadline. Why? 
The Environmental Protection Agency has said that the Waste Isolation 
Pilot Plant is safe and ready to receive waste, but the State of New 
Mexico won't issue a permit for the disposal and that the court won't 
lift its injunction.
  Now, I do believe our Secretary of Energy is trying in good faith to 
honor his commitment to the State of Idaho in moving that waste, but, 
once again, on issues of this kind of political sensitivity, our 
Government has shown no willingness to lead on this issue, and this 
administration is the prime example of a government without leadership.
  I know something about the politics of nuclear waste. I know 
something about DOE's broken promises. I mentioned the example of WIPP 
as a misuse of environmental regulation to subvert the will of 
Congress. It is this kind of game playing that we must eliminate.
  I guess my bottom line advice to those living next to one of these 
commercial nuclear reactors is, when DOE says they will come in and 
take responsibility for spent fuel and move it later, do not be fooled. 
You need a centralized interim storage facility and you need this 
legislation to make it happen.
  This administration has said that interim storage in Nevada will 
prejudge the repository site investigation now going on at Yucca 
Mountain. I think it is important to note that this legislation calls 
for beginning operation of an interim storage facility in the year 
2003, 2 years after DOE will have recommended the repository site to 
the President and 1 year after DOE will have submitted a license 
application for the repository to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 
This can hardly be called rushing ahead recklessly on interim storage. 
What it is is sealing the deal, trying to build credibility with the 
American people on this Government's responsibility and dedication 
toward the appropriate handling of high-level nuclear waste.
  In addition to the billions of dollars that utility ratepayers have 
contributed to the disposal fund, taxpayers have contributed hundreds 
of millions of dollars to the disposal program for the removal of spent 
fuel and nuclear waste from the Nation's national laboratory sites. 
This legislation will make good on the Government's commitment to the 
communities which agreed to host our defense laboratories--that cleanup 
of these sites will happen, that it will happen sooner rather than 
later, and that defense nuclear waste, our legacy from the cold war, 
will be disposed of responsibly.
  Just this past week, before the appropriate Appropriations Committee, 
I and Senator Domenici heard at length what this administration is 
doing to help Russia get rid of its cold war nuclear waste legacy. 
While we are going headlong to help them, it is ironic that we cannot 
help ourselves. This administration has promised and yet, in 6 years, 
has delivered nothing and finally gave up on its promises and found 
itself in a box canyon with a lot of lawyers lining up in lawsuits, 
because they are now out of compliance with an act that this Congress 
passed in the mid-1980s to deal with nuclear waste.
  This bill will assure that the spent fuel from our nuclear fighting 
ships and submarines, currently stored at the Idaho National 
Engineering and Environmental Laboratory, can be sent to the interim 
storage facility beginning in the year 2003. This is good news for both 
the Navy and for Idaho. Our nuclear Navy ought to be concerned that DOE 
is still playing games with the real hard fact that sooner, rather than 
later, they must have a permanent repository for spent nuclear fuel 
coming from our Navy vessels.
  Spent nuclear fuel will be moved out of Idaho well before the agreed 
date of the year 2035 called for in the agreement between Idaho 
Governor Batt, DOE and the Navy. This legislation will provide 
assurance that nuclear waste now in Idaho for permanent storage will 
eventually be disposed of at the repository. The tragedy here, of 
course, and we understand it, in the building of safe facilities, is 
the long lead time necessary. That is why this legislation is important 
now, to construct an interim storage facility ready to receive by the 
year 2003.
  Critics of this legislation will attempt to distract you over the 
issue of transportation. In just a few months we will hear on the floor 
of the Senate the term ``mobile Chernobyl.'' This is just so much 
politics or political statement. There is absolutely no fact or record 
behind that statement other than a scare tactic that some of my 
colleagues will attempt to use to support an absence of fact. The fact 
is that there have been over 2,500 commercial shipments of spent fuel 
in the United States and that there has not been a single death or 
injury from the radioactivity nature of the cargo. In my State of 
Idaho, there have been over 600 shipments of naval fuel and over 4,000

[[Page 4429]]

other shipments of radioactive material. Again, there has been not one 
single injury related to the radioactive nature of these shipments.
  This is a phenomenal safety record, but it is a real safety record, 
because this Government has insisted that the appropriate handling of 
our spent nuclear fuels and waste long term be dealt with in the right 
way. The proof is in the reality and the responsibility that this 
country has taken for years in the transportation of its waste. Those 
are the facts as I have related them.
  I know that many people would prefer not to address the problem of 
spent nuclear fuel disposal. Some of my colleagues are probably 
fatigued at the prospect of debating this issue once again in the 106th 
Congress. Unfortunately, as long as this administration continues to 
stick its head in the sand, sand that is now going to cost millions of 
dollars in legal fees, my colleagues and I have no choice but to 
address this issue once again for the sake of our country, for the 
future of energy production in our country from radioactive materials, 
and just the tremendous responsibility we have in making sure to our 
public that all of it is done well and safely.
  As this legislative body sets policies for the Nation, the Congress 
cannot sit by and watch while key components of the energy security of 
this Nation, the source of 20 percent of this country's electricity--
and that is coming from nuclear powerplants--risk going down simply 
because we cannot manage our waste.
  The Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1999 will address what neither the 
1982 nor the 1987 Act did, and that is to provide a cost-effective and 
safe means to store spent fuel in the near term while we continue to 
investigate and provide for the ultimate disposal.
  I thank you, Mr. President. I see my colleague, the chairman of the 
full committee, has joined me now on the floor. I yield my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. I wish the Presiding Officer a pleasant afternoon.
  I thank my colleague, Senator Craig, for his statement relative to 
the reality that 22 percent of the Nation's power is generated by 
nuclear energy.
  Here we are again today, Mr. President, with an obligation to fulfill 
a commitment. That obligation and that commitment was made to the 
ratepayers, the individuals all over America who depend on nuclear 
energy for their power. They paid $14 billion over the last 18 years.
  What have they paid for? They have paid the Federal Government to 
take the waste under contract in the year 1998. That was a year ago. 
Shakespeare wrote in Henry III, ``Delays have dangerous ends. . . .'' 
We might also add, ``expensive ends.''
  In addition to what the ratepayers have paid, there has been over $6 
billion expended by the Federal Government in preparation for the waste 
primarily at Yucca Mountain. Delay has been the administration's answer 
to the problem of what to do with nuclear waste in this country. This 
administration simply doesn't want to take it up on its watch under any 
terms or circumstances.
  In 1997, the administration objected to siting a temporary storage 
facility before 1998 when the viability assessment for Yucca Mountain 
would be complete.
  The so-called ``dangerous ends'' to that delay is that 1998 has come 
and gone. The viability assessment was presented and guess what? There 
were no show stoppers. Safety issues requiring that we abandon the 
proposed Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository project were not 
called for. The next step, of course, is to move on with the licensing, 
which is to take place in the year 2001.
  What is the delay this year? It is the inability of the 
administration to recognize its contractual commitment under the 
agreement. To his credit, the new Secretary of Energy Bill Richardson 
has come forward with the first ever--and I mean first ever--
administration proposal on nuclear waste. The Department of Energy 
would assume ownership of the used nuclear fuel and continue storing it 
at its commercial and defense sites in the 41 States across the 
country. The cost of the storage would be offset by consumer fees 
collected by the Department of Energy over the past 18 years, as I have 
stated. These are fees that were to have been dedicated to the removal 
and permanent storage of the spent fuel.
  While this proposal may seem interesting, let's reflect on it a 
little bit, because what it means is that there is no date certain to 
remove the waste. The waste would sit onsite near the reactors.
  It seems that we have gone full cycle in one sense. If you recognize 
that the Government had contracted to take the waste in 1998, the court 
has specifically stated that the Federal Government is liable to take 
that waste. So the court says, in effect, the Federal Government owns 
the waste onsite.
  The proposal is the Government take the waste onsite. In fact, it 
owns the waste anyway. Think about it. There is a duplication, of 
course. I have a map here that I think warrants a little consideration. 
It shows some of the sites where we have nuclear fuel and radioactive 
waste that is destined for the geologic disposal.
  The commercial reactors are in brown in California, in Washington, in 
Arizona, in Texas, up and down the east coast, in Illinois.
  We have the shutdown reactors with the spent fuel onsite. These are 
the little triangles. We have them in Oregon, California, and Illinois. 
We have them in Michigan. This is significant amounts of waste that 
would go to a central repository at Yucca Mountain if this 
administration would come to grips with its responsibility.
  Commercial spent nuclear fuel storage facilities are depicted by the 
little black squares. There are a few of them around.
  Non-DOE research reactors. These are reactors that are spread through 
the country.
  Then we have the Navy reactor fuel in Idaho. And we have the 
Department of Energy-owned spent fuel, high-level radioactive waste in 
New Mexico.
  We have this all around the country, Mr. President, and the whole 
purpose of this legislation is to provide for and put this waste in one 
central repository at Yucca Mountain in Nevada where it would be 
retrievable. As a consequence, as we look at this proposal--and, again, 
I would like to point out there is no date for removal--one of the more 
interesting things is that there are claims now brought about by the 
nuclear industry against the Federal Government for nonperformance of 
its contract. Those claims total somewhere between $60 billion and $80 
billion.
  The Government is in default for nonperformance of its contractual 
obligation. One of the proposals circulated is if the Government agrees 
to take the waste onsite, that those claims be dropped. If you think 
about this a little bit more, the Government has already collected a 
significant amount of money from the ratepayers over the last 18 years, 
some $14 billion. Now the Government is going to take this waste and 
use that money, paid for by the ratepayers, to store the nuclear waste 
onsite for no timeframe that can be ascertained. In other words, this 
waste is going to sit where it is, Mr. President. We do not know how 
long because there is no definite date in the proposal for the 
administration to take the waste.
  So what have we done? We have simply gone full circle. The court said 
the Federal Government owned the waste. The Federal Government says 
they will take it and store it at site. They will not tell you when 
they are going to get rid of it. They use the money the ratepayers pay 
to store it there. I don't think that is satisfactory. It is a little 
different. It is acknowledging that they have come up with a proposal, 
but I do not think it is workable.
  What we have here is, if you will, more delay. The Department of 
Energy--and really it is not the Department of Energy's fault--it is 
the administration that has broken its promise to the electric 
consumers, who depend on nuclear energy, people who have paid more than 
$14 billion to the Federal Government.

[[Page 4430]]

  That $14 billion paid by consumers was designed specifically to 
remove this waste, Mr. President, to a single--a single--storage 
facility at Yucca Mountain. And that is what we have been building. The 
waste, again, was supposed to be taken in the year 1998.
  Where have we been over the past 15 years? We have done nothing but 
slip the schedule on nuclear waste. First it was to have this waste 
removed by the year 2003, then 2005, then 2010, now 2015. With this 
proposal that I have just mentioned, that is in draft form, they are 
proposing it go back to 2010. Maybe that is progress; I don't know. 
Through it all, the nuclear ratepayers have paid the bill, but we are 
not through with the cost.
  As I have indicated previously, the U.S. Court of Appeals has ruled 
the Department of Energy had an obligation to take possession of the 
waste in 1998, whether or not a repository was ready. The court ordered 
the Department of Energy to pay contractual remedies. This is a pretty 
big hit on the Federal Government and, hence, the taxpayer, Mr. 
President.
  Estimates of damages range as high as $40, $50, $60--up to $80 
billion. How do the damages break down? Here they are: the cost of 
storage of spent nuclear fuel, $19.6 billion; return of nuclear waste 
fees, $8.5 billion; interest on nuclear waste fees, $15 to $27.8 
billion; consequential damages for shutdown of 25 percent of nuclear 
plants due to insufficient storage--these are power replacement costs--
$24 billion.
  That is a pretty disastrous scenario for the consumers. It would add, 
if you will, the high cost of replacement power if these reactors go 
down as a consequence of not being able to basically remove their 
waste. There is loss of emissions, a free source of electric energy if 
the nuclear plants are forced to close. And again, I would remind you 
that 22 percent of our total electric power is generated from nuclear 
energy.
  These costs, these ``dangerous ends'' can be fixed. It is really time 
for the administration to stop trying out bats, if you will, and step 
up to the plate on its obligation. So today I once again, along with 
Senator Craig, and a number of my colleagues, Senator Grams, are 
introducing the Nuclear Waste Policy Act to solve our immediate 
liability problems by establishing an interim nuclear waste facility at 
the Nevada test site.
  Why the Nevada test site? Over the last 50 years, we have tested 
nuclear bombs, nuclear weapons in that area numerous times. As a 
consequence, it appears, and was selected, to be the best site for a 
permanent repository.
  What we are proposing, by this legislation, is to move this waste out 
and put it at site, but have it retrievable so when the permanent 
repository is ready it can be placed there. In the meantime, we will 
remove the waste from some 70 sites around the country.
  In addition, this measure improves the process towards a permanent 
nuclear waste repository by making sure that funding is adequate and 
that the process to reach that goal is sound and viable?
  While my committee will examine the proposal put forth by the 
Secretary, there is some circular reasoning inherent in it.
  One, the administration's arguments to date have been that building 
an interim storage facility would divert funds from the study of the 
proposed permanent repository. But the Secretary's proposal for 
continued onsite storage would do just that. It would redirect consumer 
funds to pay for continued onsite storage.
  Do we really want this nuclear waste piling up at 71 sites around the 
Nation rather than one? That is the critical question, Mr. President. 
Here is the proposed site for the nuclear waste--out in the Nevada 
desert. And the Nevada test site was previously used for more than 800 
nuclear weapons tests. There it is.
  There is some conversation that suggests, What if the current 
repository at Yucca Mountain does not prove to be licensable, what will 
you do with it then? Obviously, we will have to address that. But in 
the meantime, we would concentrate it out in this area in retrievable 
casks that would allow us to move it someplace for permanent storage. 
Or there is the technology that is developing on reprocessing that the 
Japanese and the French have proceeded with, which is to recover the 
plutonium out of the spent nuclear fuel and put it back in the 
reactors. That is another alternative.
  So the alternative to leaving it at the 71 sites, vis-a-vis putting 
it out in one place where we have had over 800 nuclear tests over the 
past 50 years, obviously is a logical and reasonable progression to 
remove this from the various sites around the United States.
  Finally, Mr. President, the time for delay is long past. We have had 
enough delay now. In the last Congress, we had a vote on this matter. 
It was overwhelmingly bipartisan. There were 65 Members of the U.S. 
Senate that voted yes--that voted yes--to put the waste in a temporary 
retrievable repository at Yucca Mountain. In the House there were 307 
Members that voted yes.
  Obviously the time is now at hand to move this bill out, to meet the 
responsibility that we have committed to with the ratepayers over these 
last 18 years and take that $14 billion and move this waste out to the 
Nevada test site once and for all until the permanent repository is 
licensed.
  So, Mr. President, I encourage my colleagues to reflect on the merits 
of this bill--the debate went on in the last Congress--and recognize 
that we simply cannot put our heads in the sand and ignore this. This 
is a contract commitment. You have to recognize the sanctity of that 
contract and the recognition of 22 percent of our power is from nuclear 
energy, and if we are to allow this industry to strangle on its high-
level waste, we are doing a great disservice and simply are going to 
have to come up with power sources from other generating capabilities 
that do not offer the air quality that is available by nuclear energy.
  As we look at global warming and greenhouse gases and various 
legislative proposals by the administration, the role of nuclear energy 
is noticeably absent. I think that is unfortunate as we recognize that 
nuclear energy contributes to reducing greenhouse gases and hence 
global warming.
  Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleagues in 
introducing the Nuclear Waste Policy Act amendments of 1999.
  First, I would like to thank Senators Murkowski and Craig for once 
again authoring this legislation and for their combined efforts in the 
Energy and Natural Resources Committee on matters related to nuclear 
waste storage.
  As we all know, Washington's involvement in nuclear power isn't new. 
Since the 1950's ``Atoms for Peace'' program, the federal government 
has promoted nuclear energy, in part, by promising to remove 
radioactive waste from power plants. Congress decisively committed the 
federal government to take and dispose of civilian radioactive waste 
beginning in 1998 through the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, and its 
amendments in 1987. These acts established the DOE Office of Civilian 
Radioactive Waste Management to conduct the program, selected Yucca 
Mountain, Nevada as the site to assess for the permanent disposal 
facility, and established fees of a tenth of a cent per kilowatt hour 
on nuclear-generated electricity, and provided that these fees would be 
deposited in the Nuclear Waste Fund. Furthermore, it authorized 
appropriations from this fund for a number of activities, including 
development of a nuclear waste repository.
  Eventually, publication of the standard contract addressed how 
radioactive waste would be taken, stored, and disposed of. The DOE then 
signed individual contracts with all civilian nuclear utilities 
promising to take and dispose of civilian high-level waste beginning 
January 31, 1998. Other administrative proceedings, such as the Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission's Waste Confidence Rule, told the American public 
that they should literally bank on the federal government's promise.
  Because of these promises and measures taken by the federal 
government, ratepayers have paid over $15 billion, including interest, 
into the Nuclear Waste Fund. Today, these payments continue, exceeding 
$1 billion annually,

[[Page 4431]]

or $70,000 for every hour of every day of the year.
  Up until recently, however, the administration has acted as if there 
is no problem. They have maintained a hands-off approach to the issue 
and when they have engaged Congress on nuclear waste storage, it has 
only been to issue a veto threat against this legislation.
  As a member of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources committee last 
year, I had the opportunity to question Secretary Richardson on nuclear 
waste issues during his Senate confirmation hearings. Unfortunately, 
his answers to my questions were generally incomplete and contained 
little substantive discussion on the very real problems facing our 
nation's utilities, states, and ratepayers.
  Mr. Richardson did, however, write some interesting things about 
nuclear power in his responses. Let me share with you a few of those 
responses. They read:

       Nuclear power is a proven means of generating electricity. 
     When managed well, it is also a safe means of generating 
     electricity.

                           *   *   *   *   *

       It is my understanding that spent nuclear fuel has been 
     safely transported in the United States in compliance with 
     the regulatory requirements set forth by the Nuclear 
     Regulatory Commission and the Department of Transportation.

                           *   *   *   *   *

       The widely publicized shipment last week of spent fuel from 
     California to Idaho is proof that transportation can be done 
     safely. The safety record of nuclear shipments would be among 
     the issues I would focus on as Secretary of Energy.

  I asked Mr. Richardson to tell me who would pay the billions of 
dollars in damages some say the DOE will owe utilities as a result of 
DOE failure to remove spent nuclear fuel by January 31, 1998. After 
writing about the DOE's beliefs on their level of liability, he wrote: 
``I will give this issue priority attention once I am confirmed as 
Secretary of Energy.''
  I asked Mr. Richardson if he felt the taxpayers had been treated 
fairly. Again, after telling me about the history of the Department's 
actions to avoid its responsibilities, he wrote: ``I share your 
interest in resolving these issues and I will continue to pursue this 
once I am confirmed.''
  Now, Mr. President, let's look at how then-nominee Federico Pena 
responded to my question regarding the responsibility of the DOE to 
begin removing spent nuclear fuel from my state. He said in testimony 
before the Energy and Natural Resources Committee:

       . . . we will work with the Committee to address these 
     issues within the context of the President's statement last 
     year. So we've got a very difficult issue. I am prepared to 
     address it. I will do that as best as I can, understanding 
     the complexities involved. But they are all very legitimate 
     questions and I look forward to working with you and others 
     to try to find a solution.

  Does that sound familiar? I suspect Secretary O'Leary had something 
equally vague to say about nuclear waste storage as well. Secretary 
Pena, I believe, said it best when he stated, ``I will do that as best 
as I can, understanding the complexities involved.'' Those 
complexities, Mr. President, are not that complex at all. Quite simply, 
the President of the United States, despite the will of 307 Members of 
the House of Representatives and 65 Senators, last year refused to keep 
the DOE's promise.
  Now, Secretary Richardson has come before the Senate and offered a 
``new'' approach to the nuclear waste storage crisis. He believes we 
should leave the waste at sites across the country and merely transfer 
title, or ownership, to the federal government. The federal government 
would then be responsible for the costs associated with maintaining 
each of the 73 interim storage sites in 34 states, including the 
Prairie Island facility in Minnesota. To pay for this, Secretary 
Richardson is suggesting we raid the Nuclear Waste Fund, which was 
created to pay for the removal of that same spent nuclear fuel.
  While I am glad to see the Administration is finally engaged in the 
nuclear waste debate and that Secretary Richardson has finally been 
allowed to address the issue before the U.S. Senate, his proposal is a 
``year late and several billion dollars short.'' It does nothing to 
actually move the waste out of our states and into an interim storage 
facility. It is unclear whether his proposal would do anything to 
prevent the premature shutdown of nuclear facilities in states like 
Minnesota. And the one thing we know it will do, is take money from the 
Nuclear Waste Fund that was supposed to pay for the removal of spent 
nuclear fuel, not the indefinite continuance of a failed approach to 
nuclear waste management.
  Mr. President, I want to be very clear that I am sincere in these 
complaints. My concern is for the ratepayers of my state and ratepayers 
across the country. They have poured billions of dollars into the 
Nuclear Waste Fund expecting the DOE to take this waste. They have paid 
countless more millions paying for on-site nuclear waste storage. 
Effective January 31, 1998, they began paying for both of these costs 
simultaneously, even though no waste has been moved.
  When the DOE is forced to pay damages to utilities across the nation, 
the ratepayers and taxpayers will again pay for the follies created by 
the DOE. Some estimate the costs of damages to be $80 to $100 billion 
or more. The ratepayers will also have to pay the price of building new 
gas or coal-fired plants when nuclear plants must shut down. And, if 
the Administration gets its way, my constituents will pay again when 
the Kyoto Protocol takes effect in 2008--exactly the same time 
Minnesota will be losing 20 percent of its electricity from clean 
nuclear power and replacing it with fossil fuels.
  That is why we must move forward, pass the legislation introduced 
today, and send it to the President for his signature. If he refuses to 
sign the bill, then I believe we will be able to find those last two 
votes we need to override his veto and remove the cloud hanging over 
our nation's ratepayers. There is no scientific or technical reason why 
we should not move this bill forward and pass it into law.
  The administration has admitted nuclear waste can be transported 
safely. They have admitted they neglected their responsibility. They 
have admitted nuclear power is a proven, safe means of generating 
electricity. And they have admitted there is a general consensus that 
centralized interim storage is scientifically and technically possible 
and can be done safely. If you add all of these points together and 
hold them up against this Administration's lack of action, you can only 
come to one conclusion: politics has indeed won out over policy and 
science.
  Mr. President, I am proud to once again support these amendments to 
the Nuclear Waste Policy Act and urge my colleagues to move this bill 
quickly through committee and onto the Senate floor where it will once 
again be approved by an overwhelming majority.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. MURKOWSKI:
  S. 609. A bill to amend the Safe and Drug-Free Schools and 
Communities Act of 1994 to prevent the abuse of inhalants through 
programs under the Act, and for other purposes; read the first time.


      the safe and drug-free schools and communities act amendment

  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill that 
will help fight a silent epidemic among America's youth. This epidemic 
can leave young people permanently brain damaged, and in some cases 
even dead. It is called inhalant abuse. An awful lot of attention goes 
to substance abuse--alcohol, drugs--but very little attention is being 
given to inhalant abuse. It seems to be the silent killer. I ask that 
the bill be introduced pursuant to Senate rule 14 and be placed 
immediately on the Calendar.
  My bill amends the Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities Act of 
1994 to include inhalant abuse among the act's definition of ``abused 
substances,'' thereby allowing schools the option to educate students 
about the horrors of inhalant abuse.
  What exactly are inhalants? What are we talking about? Inhalants are 
the intentional breathing of gas or vapors for the purpose of getting a 
high. Over 1,400 common products can be abused--lighter fluid, 
pressurized whipped cream, hair spray; gasoline is often

[[Page 4432]]

used in my rural State of Alaska. These products are inexpensive, they 
are easily obtained, and, most of all, they are legal. One inhalant 
abuse counselor told me, ``If it smells like a chemical, it can be 
abused.''
  It is a silent epidemic because few adults appreciate the severity of 
the problem or how often it occurs. It is estimated one in five 
students have tried inhalants by the time they reach the eighth grade. 
The use of inhalants by children has nearly doubled in the last 10 
years. Inhalants are the third most abused substance among teenagers, 
behind alcohol and tobacco.
  Inhalants are deadly. Inhalant vapors react with fatty tissues of the 
brain and literally dissolve those tissues. A one-time use of inhalants 
can cause instant and permanent brain damage, heart failure, kidney 
failure, liver failure, or death. The user can also suffer instant 
heart failure. This is known as sudden sniffing death syndrome. This 
means an abuser can die on the very first time he or she tries it or 
the 10th time or the 100th time that an individual sees fit to use an 
inhalant. In fact, according to a recent study by the National Native 
Health Consortium, ``inhaling has a higher risk of `instant death' than 
any other abused substance.'' Think of that: Inhalants have a higher 
risk of instant death, the first time, than any other abused substance.
  That is what happened last year to Theresa, an 18-year-old who lived 
in a rural western Alaska village. Last year Theresa was inhaling 
gasoline; shortly thereafter, her heart stopped. She was found outside 
in the near-zero temperature. Theresa was the youngest of five children 
and just a month shy of graduation. She was flown to the Fairbanks 
Memorial Hospital where she was pronounced dead on arrival.
  Earlier this year in Pennsylvania, a teenaged driver with four 
teenaged passengers lost control of her car in broad daylight. The car 
hit a tree with such impact that all the passengers were killed. High 
levels of a chemical found in computer keyboard cleaners--think about 
this, computer keyboard cleaners--were found in the young driver's 
body. The medical examiner report cited impairment due to inhalant 
abuse as the cause of that crash.
  Mr. Haviland, the principal of the school that the five girls 
attended, said the teacher never suspected that the students were 
involved with inhalants. That is why this bill is so important. The 
most effective prevention against inhalant abuse is education. It is 
preventable. But educators must first know about inhalants before they 
can teach our kids of their dangers.
  My bill will amend section 4131 of the Safe and Drug-Free Schools and 
Communities Act to allow States and communities the option to develop 
programs on inhalant abuse. Under my amendment, the principals, 
teachers, and counselors will be able to learn about inhalants and will 
have the option to develop educational programs to teach about inhalant 
abuse.
  There is no cost associated with this legislation. This bill makes 
fiscal sense. A 1993 study by the Alaska Indian Health Service revealed 
that a 19-year-old chronic inhalant abuser could have an average 
lifetime cost of up to $1.4 million. These are the costs of chronic 
medical care, substance abuse treatment, rehabilitation treatment, and 
social services. The costs go on and on. We can save those costs if we 
just prevent this type of abuse.
  The goal of the Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities Act is to 
save the lives of young people, but currently only illegal drugs, 
alcohol, and tobacco are covered under the definitions of this act. 
This bill will help us solve the problem and save the lives of our 
youth. We support this legislation.
  I ask unanimous consent the text of the bill be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 609

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

     SECTION 1. DEFINITIONS.

       Section 4131 of the Safe and Drug-Free Schools and 
     Communities Act of 1994 (20 U.S.C. 7141) is amended by adding 
     at the end the following:
       ``(7) Abuse.--The term `abuse', used with respect to an 
     inhalant, means the intentional breathing of gas or vapors 
     from the inhalant for the purpose of achieving an altered 
     state of consciousness.
       ``(8) Drug.--The term `drug' includes a substance that is 
     an inhalant, whether or not possession or consumption of the 
     substance is legal.
       ``(9) Inhalant.--The term `inhalant' means a product that--
       ``(A) may be a legal, commonly available product; and
       ``(B) has a useful purpose but can be abused, such as spray 
     paint, glue, gasoline, correction fluid, furniture polish, a 
     felt tip marker, pressurized whipped cream, an air freshener, 
     butane, or cooking spray.
       ``(10) Use.--The term `use', used with respect to an 
     inhalant, means abuse of the inhalant.''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       Section 4002 of the Safe and Drug-Free Schools and 
     Communities Act of 1994 (20 U.S.C. 7102) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (2), by inserting ``, and the abuse of 
     inhalants,'' after ``other drugs'';
       (2) in paragraph (5), by striking ``and the illegal use of 
     alcohol and drugs'' and inserting ``, the illegal use of 
     alcohol and drugs, and the abuse of inhalants'';
       (3) in paragraph (7), by striking ``and tobacco'' each 
     place it appears and inserting ``, tobacco, and inhalants'';
       (4) in paragraph (9), by striking ``and illegal drug use'' 
     and inserting ``, illegal drug use, and inhalant abuse''; and
       (5) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(11)(A) The number of children using inhalants has 
     doubled during the 10-year period preceding 1999. Inhalants 
     are the third most abused class of substances by children age 
     12 through 14 in the United States, behind alcohol and 
     tobacco. One of 5 students in the United States has tried 
     inhalants by the time the student has reached the 8th grade.
       ``(B) Inhalant vapors react with fatty tissues in the 
     brain, literally dissolving the tissues. A single use of 
     inhalants can cause instant and permanent brain, heart, 
     kidney, liver, and other organ damage. The user of an 
     inhalant can suffer from Sudden Sniffing Death Syndrome, 
     which can cause a user to die the first, tenth, or hundredth 
     time the user uses an inhalant.
       ``(C) Because inhalants are legal, education on the dangers 
     of inhalant abuse is the most effective method of preventing 
     the abuse of inhalants.''.

     SEC. 3. PURPOSE.

       Section 4003 of the Safe and Drug-Free Schools and 
     Communities Act of 1994 (20 U.S.C. 7103) is amended, in the 
     matter preceding paragraph (1), by inserting ``and abuse of 
     inhalants'' after ``and drugs''.

     SEC. 4. GOVERNOR'S PROGRAMS.

       Section 4114(c)(2) of the Safe and Drug-Free Schools and 
     Communities Act of 1994 (20 U.S.C. 7114(c)(2)) is amended by 
     inserting ``(including inhalant abuse education)'' after 
     ``drug and violence prevention''.

     SEC. 5. DRUG AND VIOLENCE PREVENTION PROGRAMS.

       Section 4116 of the Safe and Drug-Free Schools and 
     Communities Act of 1994 (20 U.S.C. 7116) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)(1)(A), by inserting ``, and the abuse 
     of inhalants,'' after ``illegal drugs''; and
       (2) in subsection (b)--
       (A) in paragraph (1)--
       (i) by inserting ``and the abuse of inhalants'' after ``use 
     of illegal drugs''; and
       (ii) by inserting ``and abuse inhalants'' after ``use 
     illegal drugs''; and
       (B) in paragraph (2)--
       (i) in the matter preceding subparagraph (A), by inserting 
     ``(including age appropriate inhalant abuse prevention 
     programs for all students, from the preschool level through 
     grade 12)'' after ``drug prevention''; and
       (ii) in subparagraph (C), by inserting ``and inhalant 
     abuse'' after ``drug use''.

     SEC. 6. FEDERAL ACTIVITIES.

       Section 4121(a) of the Safe and Drug-Free Schools and 
     Communities Act of 1994 (20 U.S.C. 7131(a)) is amended, in 
     the first sentence, by striking ``illegal use of drugs'' and 
     inserting ``illegal use of drugs, the abuse of inhalants,''.

     SEC. 7. MATERIALS.

       Section 4132(a) of the Safe and Drug-Free Schools and 
     Communities Act of 1994 (20 U.S.C. 7142(a)) is amended by 
     striking ``illegal use of alcohol and other drugs'' and 
     inserting ``illegal use of alcohol and other drugs and the 
     abuse of inhalants''.

     SEC. 8. QUALITY RATING.

       Section 4134(b)(1) of the Safe and Drug-Free Schools and 
     Communities Act of 1994 (20 U.S.C. 7144(b)(1)) is amended by 
     inserting ``, and the abuse of inhalants,'' after 
     ``tobacco''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. ENZI (for himself and Mr. Thomas):
  S. 610. A bill to direct the Secretary of the Interior to convey 
certain land under the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Land Management in 
Washakie County and Big Horn County, Wyoming, to the Westside 
Irrigation District, Wyoming,

[[Page 4433]]

and for other purposes; to the Committee on Energy and Natural 
Resources.


                WESTSIDE IRRIGATION DISTRICT LEGISLATION

 Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation 
with my colleague from Wyoming, Senator Thomas, that would authorize a 
land exchange project called the Westside Irrigation District in 
Washakie and Big Horn Counties, Wyoming. This project has been many 
years in the making and is very important to many people in our state. 
It will provide a strong foundation for economic development in the 
area and it will provide a great opportunity for the public to obtain 
parcels of land that are now in private hands.
  The Westside District is a win-win project for everyone. It takes 
public land that is of low value for wildlife or aesthetic enjoyment 
and sells it to a non-profit district for conveyance into agricultural 
use. The District will pay fair market value for the surface land--not 
the mineral rights, which would remain federal property--and the Bureau 
of Land Management can then take the money and purchase other property 
that has a much higher value for public recreation, public access, fish 
and wildlife habitat, or cultural resources. The Bureau presently has 
very limited funds for this purpose and they could make good use of the 
money in the Worland District, which has a very complex land ownership 
mix.
  The description of the project is nearly 37,000 acres of shelf land 
near the Big Horn River. The proposal would make use of unallocated 
water rights to irrigate approximately 20,000 acres, leaving the 
remainder in conservation buffer zones, rights of way and wildlife 
habitat. The local economy, which has been hit very hard in recent 
years, would benefit from additional production of barley, corn, beans, 
hay and sugar beets. The anticipated benefit of a fully implemented 
project could be as many as 216 new jobs in the community. And this is 
in a county that only has about 4,500 working people--so there is a 
real positive impact expected.
  The district has been working diligently to address public questions 
that had been expressed early in the process. Some of these related to 
water quality, wildlife habitat, access, and land values. The Wyoming 
Game and Fish, the Bureau of Land Management, and the Westside District 
have been working out plans to mitigate each of the project's impacts. 
For example, the District will make use of overhead sprinkler systems 
to prevent runoff and will maintain vegetative buffer zones to capture 
any possible runoff due to natural events, such as snow melt. The 
District only plans to irrigate 20,000 acres of the total area, so the 
remaining 46 percent of the land will remain in native cover to provide 
habitat for wildlife and antelope winter range. The District will also 
help support additional staff with the Wyoming Game and Fish for 
mitigation assistance. And all existing rights of way and public access 
to surrounding public lands will be preserved.
  Mr. President, this bill is necessary because the BLM does not have 
the statutory authority to complete a sale of lands. Although they 
could conduct an exchange, the sheer size of this project prevented 
creating a reasonable exchange portfolio of other lands. This could 
have been accomplished with existing authority, but was prohibitively 
difficult to achieve in a single process. This legislation enables the 
BLM to take the money now, and then purchase various private lands as 
they become available--lands that are more suitable to our public 
objectives, such as wildlife and resource conservation and public 
enjoyment.
  This bill should be referred to the Senate Energy Committee and it is 
my hope that a hearing could be held and a report generated with enough 
time to complete action on the legislation this year. The people in 
Worland, Wyoming, have worked very hard to make this project happen. I 
would urge my colleagues to review the bill and support it.
 Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, it gives me great pleasure to join 
my colleague from Wyoming, Senator Enzi, in introducing legislation to 
convey certain BLM lands to the Westside Irrigation District. This 
measure is a culmination of years of hard work, by folks affected, to 
reach a solution through perseverance and much negotiation. It is a 
compromise--interested parties working together for a common goal, and 
it has been 30 years in the making. I am pleased today to be part of 
setting forth what is needed to turn a goal for many Wyoming residents 
into a reality.
  This legislation directs the Secretary of the Interior to convey 
roughly 37,000 acres of land under the jurisdiction of the Bureau of 
Land Management in Washakie County and Big Horn County, Wyoming, to the 
Westside Irrigation District. In turn, Westside Irrigation District 
will irrigate these lands and sell them as farmland parcels. Proceeds 
raised from the land sales will be given to the Secretary of the 
Interior for the acquisition of land in the Worland District of the 
Bureau of Land Management, for the purpose of benefiting public 
recreation, increasing public access, enhancing fish and wildlife 
habitat and improving cultural resources.
  In recent years, expanded residential development in Washakie and Big 
Horn Counties has resulted in key loss to the economy--farmland. What 
this legislation proposes to do is afford communities an opportunity to 
retain their economic vitality while protecting cultural and natural 
resources. It promises to benefit both the business community and 
preserve the environment.
  Benefits attained from this legislation will be fruitful for all 
parties. Agricultural producers have the rare chance to increase 
private land holdings in a largely public lands State. Wildlife 
interests are given the resources necessary to enhance critical habitat 
areas. In addition, the creation of 200 new jobs and an estimated 
financial impact of $16.8 million annually will spur tremendous 
economic development in these Wyoming counties.
  Mr. President, let me once again congratulate all of the folks who 
have worked so hard on this measure--it is a job well done. I hope the 
Senate will give this bill every consideration and I look forward to 
taking action on it in the near future.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. CAMPBELL:
  S. 611. A bill to provide for administrative procedures to extend 
Federal recognition to certain Indian groups, and for other purposes; 
to the Committee on Indian Affairs.


        Indian Federal Recognition Administrative Procedures Act

  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, just as it recognizes foreign 
governments, the United States is called upon to consider extending its 
recognition to Indian tribal governments here at home.
  From the first days of the republic, the Congress has acted to 
recognize the unique legal and political relationship the United States 
has with the Indian tribes. Reforming the process of recognition is the 
goal of the legislation I am introducing today.
  Just as the United States at times refuses to recognize foreign 
governments, there are and always have been tribal governments which 
have not been recognized by the Federal government. This lack of 
recognition does not alter the ``Indian-ness'' of a tribe's members; 
rather it merely means that there is no formal political relationship 
between that tribal group and the United States.
  Federal recognition is critical to tribal groups because it triggers 
eligibility for services and benefits provided by the United States 
because of their status as members of federally recognized Indian 
tribes.
  I want to be clear--I am not advocating for the approval of every 
petition for recognition, and I am not proposing that the petitions 
receive a limited or cursory review. I am concerned with the viability 
of the current recognition process and am interested in seeing 
fairness, promptness, and finality brought into that process while 
providing basic assurances to already-recognized tribes regarding their 
inherent rights.
  Federal recognition can be accomplished in two ways: through the 
enactment of federal legislation; or through

[[Page 4434]]

the administrative process that occurs, or more accurately does not 
occur, within the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA).
  Over the years, uncertainty has developed over just how or when the 
Bureau would process tribal group applications for recognition. In 
short, the current process is not getting the job done.
  The process in the Department of the Interior is time consuming and 
costly, although it has improved from its original state. Some tribal 
groups allege that the Department's process leads to unfair and 
unfounded results. It has frequently been hindered by a lack of staff 
and resources needed to fairly and promptly review all petitions. At 
the same time, the Congress extends recognition to tribes with little 
or no reference to the legal standards and criteria employed by the 
Department.
  The amount of time some tribal groups have had to wait before their 
petitions are acted on in some cases is outrageous. Sometimes these 
applications for recognition are pending literally for decades. The 
concerns expressed go beyond the delays I mentioned and involve the 
viability of the current recognition process itself.
  As with any decision-making body, fairness and timeliness are the 
keys to maintaining a credible system which holds the confidence of 
affected parties. I believe that it is in the interests of all parties 
to have a clear deadline for the completion of the recognition process.
  In 1978, the Department of the Interior promulgated regulations to 
establish criteria and procedures for the recognition of Indian tribes 
by the Secretary.
  Since that time to date, tribal groups have filed hundreds of 
petitions for review. Of those, 42 have been resolved, and 179 are new 
petitioners; During this same time, 89 expressed letters of intent to 
petition, and 5 required legislative authority to proceed which are now 
deemed inactive.
  The remainder are in various stages of consideration by the 
Department either ready for active status or are already placed on 
active status. During this same time to date, the Congress has 
recognized 7 other tribal groups through legislation.
  In the last twenty years, the Committee on Indian Affairs held 
oversight hearings on the Federal recognition process. At each of those 
hearings the record clearly showed that the process is not working 
properly. At a Committee on Indian Affairs hearing in 1995, the Bureau 
testified that at the current rate of review and consideration, it 
would take several decades to eliminate the entire backlog of tribal 
petitions. The record from numerous previous hearings reveals a clear 
need for the Congress to address the problems affecting the recognition 
process.
  The bill I am introducing today will go a long way toward resolving 
the problems which have plagued both the Department of the Interior and 
tribal petitioners over the years.
  This bill, the Indian Federal Recognition Administrative Procedures 
Act of 1999, provides the required clarification and changes that will 
help tribal petitioners and the United States in providing fair and 
orderly administrative procedures to extend Federal recognition to 
eligible Indian groups. The key element of this bill is that it removes 
the recognition process from the BIA and places it in a temporary and 
independent ``Commission on Indian Recognition.''
  This bill provides that the Commission will be an independent agency, 
composed of three members appointed by the President, and authorized to 
hold hearings, take testimony and reach final determinations on 
petitions for recognition.
  The bill provides strict but realistic time-lines to guide the 
Commission in the review and decision making process. Under the 
existing process in the Bureau of Indian Affairs, some petitioners have 
waited ten years or more for even a cursory review of their petition.
  The bill I am introducing today requires the Commission to set a date 
for a preliminary hearing on a petition not later than 60 days after 
the filing of a documented petition. Not later than 30 days after the 
conclusion of a preliminary hearing, the Commission would be required 
to either decide to extend federal acknowledgment to the petitioner or 
to require the petitioner to proceed to an adjudicatory hearing.
  The current recognition process becomes so expensive that the 
consideration of petitions are stretched out over a number of years 
because there have been no real deadlines for these decisions.
  This bill will allow for a cost-effective process for the BIA and the 
petitioners, will provide definite time-lines for the administrative 
recognition process, and ``sunsets'' the Commission in 12 years.
  To ensure fairness, the bill provides for appeals of adverse 
decisions to the federal district court here in the District of 
Columbia.
  To ensure promptness, the bill authorizes adequate funding for the 
costs of processing petitions through the Commission.
  The bill also provides finality for both the petitioners and the 
Department by requiring all interested tribal groups to file their 
petitions within 6 years after the date of enactment and requiring the 
Commission to complete its work within 12 years from enactment.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the bill be 
printed in the Record, and urge my colleagues to join me in enacting 
this much-needed reform legislation.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 611

       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 ``Indian Federal Recognition 
     Administrative Procedures Act of 1999''.

     SEC. 2. PURPOSES.

       The purposes of this Act are as follows:
       (1) To establish an administrative procedure to extend 
     Federal recognition to certain Indian groups.
       (2) To extend to Indian groups that are determined to be 
     Indian tribes the protection, services, and benefits 
     available from the Federal Government pursuant to the Federal 
     trust responsibility with respect to Indian tribes.
       (3) To extend to Indian groups that are determined to be 
     Indian tribes the immunities and privileges available to 
     other federally acknowledged Indian tribes by virtue of their 
     status as Indian tribes with a government-to-government 
     relationship with the United States.
       (4) To ensure that when the Federal Government extends 
     acknowledgment to an Indian tribe, the Federal Government 
     does so with a consistent legal, factual, and historical 
     basis.
       (5) To establish a Commission on Indian Recognition to 
     review and act upon petitions submitted by Indian groups that 
     apply for Federal recognition.
       (6) To provide clear and consistent standards of 
     administrative review of documented petitions for Federal 
     acknowledgment.
       (7) To clarify evidentiary standards and expedite the 
     administrative review process by providing adequate resources 
     to process petitions.
       (8) To remove the Federal acknowledgment process from the 
     Bureau of Indian Affairs and transfer the responsibility for 
     the process to an independent Commission on Indian 
     Recognition.

     SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act:
       (1) Acknowledged.--The term ``acknowledged'' means, with 
     respect to an Indian group, that the Commission on Indian 
     Recognition has made an acknowledgment, as defined in 
     paragraph (2), for that group.
       (2) Acknowledgment.--The term ``acknowledgment'' means a 
     determination by the Commission on Indian Recognition that an 
     Indian group--
       (A) constitutes an Indian tribe with a government-to-
     government relationship with the United States; and
       (B) with respect to which the members are recognized as 
     eligible for the special programs and services provided by 
     the United States to Indians because of their status as 
     Indians.
       (3) Alaska native.--The term ``Alaska Native'' means an 
     individual who is an Alaskan Indian, Eskimo, or Aleut, or any 
     combination thereof.
       (4) Autonomous.--
       (A) In general.--The term ``autonomous'' means the exercise 
     of political influence or authority independent of the 
     control of any other Indian governing entity.
       (B) Context of term.--With respect to a petitioner, that 
     term shall be understood in

[[Page 4435]]

     the context of the history, geography, culture, and social 
     organization of the petitioner.
       (5) Bureau.--The term ``Bureau'' means the Bureau of Indian 
     Affairs of the Department.
       (6) Commission.--The term ``Commission'' means the 
     Commission on Indian Recognition established under section 4.
       (7) Community.--
       (A) In general.--The term ``community'' means any group of 
     people, living within a reasonable territorial that is able 
     to demonstrate that--
       (i) consistent interactions and significant social 
     relationships exist within the membership; and
       (ii) the members of that group are differentiated from and 
     identified as distinct from nonmembers.
       (B) Context of term.--The term shall be understood in the 
     context of the history, culture, and social organization of 
     the group, taking into account the geography of the region in 
     which the group resides.
       (8) Continuous or continuously.--With respect to a period 
     of history of a group, the term ``continuous'' or 
     ``continuously'' means extending from the first sustained 
     contact with Euro-Americans throughout the history of the 
     group to the present substantially without interruption.
       (9) Department.--The term ``Department'' means the 
     Department of the Interior.
       (10) Documented petition.--The term ``documented petition'' 
     means the detailed, factual exposition and arguments, 
     including all documentary evidence, necessary to demonstrate 
     that those arguments specifically address the mandatory 
     criteria established in section 5.
       (11) Group.--The term ``group'' means an Indian group, as 
     defined in paragraph (13).
       (12) Historically, historical, history.--The terms 
     ``historically'', ``historical'', and ``history'' refer to 
     the period dating from the first sustained contact with Euro-
     Americans.
       (13) Indian group.--The term ``Indian group'' means any 
     Indian or Alaska Native band, pueblo, village or community 
     within the United States that the Secretary does not 
     acknowledge to be an Indian tribe.
       (14) Indian tribe.--The term ``Indian tribe'' means any 
     Indian or Alaska Native tribe, band, pueblo, village, or 
     community within the United States that--
       (A) the Secretary has acknowledged as an Indian tribe as of 
     the date of enactment of this Act, or acknowledges to be an 
     Indian tribe pursuant to the procedures applicable to certain 
     petitions under active consideration at the time of the 
     transfer of petitions to the Commission under section 
     5(a)(3); or
       (B) the Commission acknowledges as an Indian tribe under 
     this Act.
       (15) Indigenous.--With respect to a petitioner, the term 
     ``indigenous'' means native to the United States, in that at 
     least part of the traditional territory of the petitioner at 
     the time of first sustained contact with Euro-Americans 
     extended into the United States.
       (16) Letter of intent.--The term ``letter of intent'' means 
     an undocumented letter or resolution that--
       (A) is dated and signed by the governing body of an Indian 
     group;
       (B) is submitted to the Commission; and
       (C) indicates the intent of the Indian group to submit a 
     petition for Federal acknowledgment.
       (17) Member of an indian group.--The term ``member of an 
     Indian group'' means an individual who--
       (A) is recognized by an Indian group as meeting the 
     membership criteria of the Indian group; and
       (B) consents in writing to being listed as a member of that 
     group.
       (18) Member of an indian tribe.--The term ``member of an 
     Indian tribe'' means an individual who--
       (A)(i) meets the membership requirements of the tribe as 
     set forth in its governing document; or
       (ii) in the absence of a governing document which sets out 
     those requirements, has been recognized as a member 
     collectively by those persons comprising the tribal governing 
     body; and
       (B)(i) has consistently maintained tribal relations with 
     the tribe; or
       (ii) is listed on the tribal membership rolls as a member, 
     if those rolls are kept.
       (19) Petition.--The term ``petition'' means a petition for 
     acknowledgment submitted or transferred to the Commission 
     pursuant to section 5.
       (20) Petitioner.--The term ``petitioner'' means any group 
     that submits a letter of intent to the Commission requesting 
     acknowledgment.
       (21) Political influence or authority.--
       (A) In general.--The term ``political influence or 
     authority'' means a tribal council, leadership, internal 
     process, or other mechanism that a group has used as a means 
     of--
       (i) influencing or controlling the behavior of its members 
     in a significant manner;
       (ii) making decisions for the group which substantially 
     affect its members; or
       (iii) representing the group in dealing with nonmembers in 
     matters of consequence to the group.
       (B) Context of term.--The term shall be understood in the 
     context of the history, culture, and social organization of 
     the group.
       (22) Previous federal acknowledgment.--The term ``previous 
     Federal acknowledgment'' means any action by the Federal 
     Government, the character of which--
       (A) is clearly premised on identification of a tribal 
     political entity; and
       (B) clearly indicates the recognition of a government-to-
     government relationship between that entity and the Federal 
     Government.
       (23) Restoration.--The term ``restoration'' means the 
     reextension of acknowledgment to any previously acknowledged 
     tribe with respect to which the acknowledged status may have 
     been abrogated or diminished by reason of legislation enacted 
     by Congress expressly terminating that status.
       (24) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
     of the Interior.
       (25) Sustained contact.--The term ``sustained contact'' 
     means the period of earliest sustained Euro-American 
     settlement or governmental presence in the local area in 
     which the tribe or tribes from which the petitioner claims 
     descent was located historically.
       (26) Treaty.--The term ``treaty'' means any treaty--
       (A) negotiated and ratified by the United States on or 
     before March 3, 1871, with, or on behalf of, any Indian group 
     or tribe;
       (B) made by any government with, or on behalf of, any 
     Indian group or tribe, from which the Federal Government 
     subsequently acquired territory by purchase, conquest, 
     annexation, or cession; or
       (C) negotiated by the United States with, or on behalf of, 
     any Indian group in California, whether or not the treaty was 
     subsequently ratified.
       (27) Tribe.--The term ``tribe'' means an Indian tribe.
       (28) Tribal relations.--The term ``tribal relations'' means 
     participation by an individual in a political and social 
     relationship with an Indian tribe.
       (29) Tribal roll.--The term ``tribal roll'' means a list 
     exclusively of those individuals who--
       (A)(i) have been determined by the tribe to meet the 
     membership requirements of the tribe, as set forth in the 
     governing document of the tribe; or
       (ii) in the absence of a governing document that sets forth 
     those requirements, have been recognized as members by the 
     governing body of the tribe; and
       (B) have affirmatively demonstrated consent to being listed 
     as members of the tribe.
       (30) United states.--The term ``United States'' means the 
     48 contiguous States, and the States of Alaska and Hawaii. 
     The term does not include territories or possessions of the 
     United States.

     SEC. 4. COMMISSION ON INDIAN RECOGNITION.

       (a) Establishment.--There is established, as an independent 
     commission, the Commission on Indian Recognition. The 
     Commission shall be an independent establishment, as defined 
     in section 104 of title 5, United States Code.
       (b) Membership.--
       (1) In general.--
       (A) Members.--The Commission shall consist of 3 members 
     appointed by the President, by and with the advice and 
     consent of the Senate.
       (B) Individuals to be considered for membership.--In making 
     appointments to the Commission, the President shall give 
     careful consideration to--
       (i) recommendations received from Indian tribes; and
       (ii) individuals who have a background in Indian law or 
     policy, anthropology, genealogy, or history.
       (2) Political affiliation.--Not more than 2 members of the 
     Commission may be members of the same political party.
       (3) Terms.--
       (A) In general.--Except as provided in subparagraph (B), 
     each member of the Commission shall be appointed for a term 
     of 4 years.
       (B) Initial appointments.--As designated by the President 
     at the time of appointment, of the members initially 
     appointed under this subsection--
       (i) 1 member shall be appointed for a term of 2 years;
       (ii) 1 member shall be appointed for a term of 3 years; and
       (iii) 1 member shall be appointed for a term of 4 years.
       (4) Vacancies.--Any vacancy in the Commission shall not 
     affect the powers of the Commission, but shall be filled in 
     the same manner in which the original appointment was made. 
     Any member appointed to fill a vacancy occurring before the 
     expiration of the term for which the predecessor of the 
     member was appointed shall be appointed only for the 
     remainder of that term. A member may serve after the 
     expiration of the term of that member until a successor has 
     taken office.
       (5) Compensation.--
       (A) In general.--Each member of the Commission shall 
     receive compensation at a rate equal to the daily equivalent 
     of the annual rate of basic pay prescribed for level V of the 
     Executive Schedule under section 5316 of title 5, United 
     States Code, for each day, including traveltime, that member 
     is engaged in the actual performance of duties authorized by 
     the Commission.

[[Page 4436]]

       (B) Travel.--All members of the Commission shall be 
     reimbursed for travel and per diem in lieu of subsistence 
     expenses during the performance of duties of the Commission 
     while away from their homes or regular places of business, in 
     accordance with subchapter I of chapter 57 of title 5, United 
     States Code.
       (6) Full-time employment.--Each member of the Commission 
     shall serve on the Commission as a full-time employee of the 
     Federal Government. No member of the Commission may, while 
     serving on the Commission, be otherwise employed as an 
     officer or employee of the Federal Government. Service by a 
     member who is an employee of the Federal Government at the 
     time of nomination as a member shall be without interruption 
     or loss of civil service status or privilege.
       (7) Chairperson.--At the time appointments are made under 
     paragraph (1), the President shall designate a Chairperson of 
     the Commission (referred to in this section as the 
     ``Chairperson'') from among the appointees.
       (c) Meetings and Procedures.--
       (1) In general.--The Commission shall hold its first 
     meeting not later than 30 days after the date on which all 
     members of the Commission have been appointed and confirmed 
     by the Senate.
       (2) Quorum.--Two members of the Commission shall constitute 
     a quorum for the transaction of business.
       (3) Rules.--The Commission may adopt such rules (consistent 
     with the provisions of this Act) as may be necessary to 
     establish the procedures of the Commission and to govern the 
     manner of operations, organization, and personnel of the 
     Commission.
       (4) Principal office.--The principal office of the 
     Commission shall be in the District of Columbia.
       (d) Duties.--The Commission shall carry out the duties 
     assigned to the Commission by this Act, and shall meet the 
     requirements imposed on the Commission by this Act.
       (e) Powers and Authorities.--
       (1) Powers and authorities of chairperson.--Subject to such 
     rules and regulations as may be adopted by the Commission, 
     the Chairperson may--
       (A) appoint, terminate, and fix the compensation (without 
     regard to the provisions of title 5, United States Code, 
     governing appointments in the competitive service, and 
     without regard to the provisions of chapter 51 and subchapter 
     III of chapter 53 of that title, or of any other provision of 
     law, relating to the number, classification, and General 
     Schedule rates) of an Executive Director of the Commission 
     and of such other personnel as the Chairperson considers 
     advisable to assist in the performance of the duties of the 
     Commission, at a rate not to exceed a rate equal to the daily 
     equivalent of the annual rate of basic pay prescribed for 
     level V of the Executive Schedule under section 5316 of title 
     5, United States Code; and
       (B) procure, as authorized by section 3109(b) of title 5, 
     United States Code, temporary and intermittent services to 
     the same extent as is authorized by law for agencies in the 
     executive branch, but at rates not to exceed the daily 
     equivalent of the annual rate of basic pay prescribed for 
     level V of the Executive Schedule under section 5316 of that 
     title.
       (2) General powers and authorities of commission.--
       (A) In general.--The Commission may hold such hearings and 
     sit and act at such times as the Commission considers to be 
     appropriate.
       (B) Other authorities.--As the Commission may consider 
     advisable, the Commission may--
       (i) take testimony;
       (ii) have printing and binding done;
       (iii) enter into contracts and other arrangements, subject 
     to the availability of funds;
       (iv) make expenditures; and
       (v) take other actions.
       (C) Oaths and affirmations.--Any member of the Commission 
     may administer oaths or affirmations to witnesses appearing 
     before the Commission.
       (3) Information.--
       (A) In general.--The Commission may secure directly from 
     any officer, department, agency, establishment, or 
     instrumentality of the Federal Government such information as 
     the Commission may require to carry out this Act. Each such 
     officer, department, agency, establishment, or 
     instrumentality shall furnish, to the extent permitted by 
     law, such information, suggestions, estimates, and statistics 
     directly to the Commission, upon the request of the 
     Chairperson.
       (B) Facilities, services, and details.--Upon the request of 
     the Chairperson, to assist the Commission in carrying out the 
     duties of the Commission under this section, the head of any 
     Federal department, agency, or instrumentality may--
       (i) make any of the facilities and services of that 
     department, agency, or instrumentality available to the 
     Commission; and
       (ii) detail any of the personnel of that department, 
     agency, or instrumentality to the Commission, on a 
     nonreimbursable basis.
       (C) Mails.--The Commission may use the United States mails 
     in the same manner and under the same conditions as other 
     departments and agencies of the United States.
       (f) Federal Advisory Committee Act.--The provisions of the 
     Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.) shall not 
     apply to the Commission.
       (g) Termination of Commission.--The Commission shall 
     terminate on the date that is 12 years after the date of 
     enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 5. PETITIONS FOR RECOGNITION.

       (a) In General.--
       (1) Petitions.--Subject to subsection (d) and except as 
     provided in paragraph (2), any Indian group may submit to the 
     Commission a petition requesting that the Commission 
     recognize an Indian group as an Indian tribe.
       (2) Exclusion.--The following groups and entities shall not 
     be eligible to submit a petition for recognition by the 
     Commission under this Act:
       (A) Certain entities that are eligible to receive services 
     from the bureau.--Indian tribes, organized bands, pueblos, 
     communities, and Alaska Native entities that are recognized 
     by the Secretary as of the date of enactment of this Act as 
     eligible to receive services from the Bureau.
       (B) Certain splinter groups, political factions, and 
     communities.--Splinter groups, political factions, 
     communities, or groups of any character that separate from 
     the main body of an Indian tribe that, at the time of that 
     separation, is recognized as an Indian tribe by the 
     Secretary, unless the group, faction, or community is able to 
     establish clearly that the group, faction, or community has 
     functioned throughout history until the date of that petition 
     as an autonomous Indian tribal entity.
       (C) Certain groups that have previously submitted 
     petitions.--Groups, or successors in interest of groups, that 
     before the date of enactment of this Act, have petitioned for 
     and been denied or refused recognition as an Indian tribe 
     under regulations prescribed by the Secretary.
       (D) Indian groups subject to termination.--Any Indian group 
     whose relationship with the Federal Government was expressly 
     terminated by an Act of Congress.
       (E) Parties to certain actions.--Any Indian group that--
       (i) in any action in a United States court of competent 
     jurisdiction to which the group was a party, attempted to 
     establish its status as an Indian tribe or a successor in 
     interest to an Indian tribe that was a party to a treaty with 
     the United States;
       (ii) was determined by that court--

       (I) not to be an Indian tribe; or
       (II) not to be a successor in interest to an Indian tribe 
     that was a party to a treaty with the United States; or

       (iii) was the subject of findings of fact by that court 
     which, if made by the Commission, would show that the group 
     was incapable of establishing 1 or more of the criteria set 
     forth in this section.
       (3) Transfer of petition.--
       (A) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law, not later than 30 days after the date on which all of 
     the members of the Commission have been appointed and 
     confirmed by the Senate under section 4(b), the Secretary 
     shall transfer to the Commission all petitions pending before 
     the Department that--
       (i) are not under active consideration by the Secretary at 
     the time of the transfer; and
       (ii) request the Secretary, or the Federal Government, to 
     recognize or acknowledge an Indian group as an Indian tribe.
       (B) Cessation of certain authorities of secretary.--
     Notwithstanding any other provision of law, on the date of 
     the transfer under subparagraph (A), the Secretary and the 
     Department shall cease to have any authority to recognize or 
     acknowledge, on behalf of the Federal Government, any Indian 
     group as an Indian tribe, except for those groups under 
     active consideration at the time of the transfer whose 
     petitions have been retained by the Secretary pursuant to 
     subparagraph (A).
       (C) Determination of order of submission of transferred 
     petitions.--Petitions transferred to the Commission under 
     subparagraph (A) shall, for purposes of this Act, be 
     considered as having been submitted to the Commission in the 
     same order as those petitions were submitted to the 
     Department.
       (b) Petition Form and Content.--Except as provided in 
     subsection (c), any petition submitted under subsection (a) 
     by an Indian group shall be in any readable form that clearly 
     indicates that the petition is a petition requesting the 
     Commission to recognize the Indian group as an Indian tribe 
     and that contains detailed, specific evidence concerning each 
     of the following items:
       (1) Statement of facts.--A statement of facts establishing 
     that the petitioner has been identified as an American Indian 
     entity on a substantially continuous basis since 1871. 
     Evidence that the character of the group as an Indian entity 
     has from time to time been denied shall not be considered to 
     be conclusive evidence that this criterion has not been met. 
     Evidence that the Commission may rely on in determining the 
     Indian identity of a group may include any 1 or more of the 
     following items:
       (A) Identification of petitioner.--An identification of the 
     petitioner as an Indian entity by any department, agency, or 
     instrumentality of the Federal Government.

[[Page 4437]]

       (B) Relationship of petitioner with state government.--A 
     relationship between the petitioner and any State government, 
     based on an identification of the petitioner as an Indian 
     entity.
       (C) Relationship of petitioner with a political subdivision 
     of a state.--Dealings of the petitioner with a county or 
     political subdivision of a State in a relationship based on 
     the Indian identity of the petitioner.
       (D) Identification of petitioner on the basis of certain 
     records.--An identification of the petitioner as an Indian 
     entity by records in a private or public archive, courthouse, 
     church, or school.
       (E) Identification of petitioner by certain experts.--An 
     identification of the petitioner as an Indian entity by an 
     anthropologist, historian, or other scholar.
       (F) Identification of petitioner by certain media.--An 
     identification of the petitioner as an Indian entity in a 
     newspaper, book, or similar medium.
       (G) Identification of petitioner by another indian tribe or 
     organization.--An identification of the petitioner as an 
     Indian entity by another Indian tribe or by a national, 
     regional, or State Indian organization.
       (H) Identification of petitioner by a foreign government or 
     international organization.--An identification of the 
     petitioner as an Indian entity by a foreign government or an 
     international organization.
       (I) Other evidence of identification.--Such other evidence 
     of identification as may be provided by a person or entity 
     other than the petitioner or a member of the membership of 
     the petitioner.
       (2) Evidence of community.--
       (A) In general.--A statement of facts establishing that a 
     predominant portion of the membership of the petitioner--
       (i) comprises a community distinct from those communities 
     surrounding that community; and
       (ii) has existed as a community from historical times to 
     the present.
       (B) Evidence.--Evidence that the Commission may rely on in 
     determining that the petitioner meets the criterion described 
     in clauses (i) and (ii) of subparagraph (A) may include 1 or 
     more of the following items:
       (i) Marriages.--Significant rates of marriage within the 
     group, or, as may be culturally required, patterned out-
     marriages with other Indian populations.
       (ii) Social relationships.--Significant social 
     relationships connecting individual members.
       (iii) Social interaction.--Significant rates of informal 
     social interaction which exist broadly among the members of a 
     group.
       (iv) Shared economic activity.--A significant degree of 
     shared or cooperative labor or other economic activity among 
     the membership.
       (v) Discrimination or other social distinctions.--Evidence 
     of strong patterns of discrimination or other social 
     distinctions by nonmembers.
       (vi) Shared ritual activity.--Shared sacred or secular 
     ritual activity encompassing most of the group.
       (vii) Cultural patterns.--Cultural patterns that--

       (I) are shared among a significant portion of the group 
     that are different from the cultural patterns of the non-
     Indian populations with whom the group interacts;
       (II) function as more than a symbolic identification of the 
     group as Indian; and
       (III) may include language, kinship or religious 
     organizations, or religious beliefs and practices.

       (viii) Collective indian identity.--The persistence of a 
     named, collective Indian identity continuously over a period 
     of more than 50 years, notwithstanding changes in name.
       (ix) Historical political influence.--A demonstration of 
     historical political influence pursuant to the criterion set 
     forth in paragraph (3).
       (C) Criteria for sufficient evidence.--The Commission shall 
     consider the petitioner to have provided sufficient evidence 
     of community at a given point in time if the petitioner has 
     provided evidence that demonstrates any one of the following:
       (i) Residence of members.--More than 50 percent of the 
     members of the group of the petitioner reside in a particular 
     geographical area exclusively or almost exclusively composed 
     of members of the group, and the balance of the group 
     maintains consistent social interaction with some members of 
     the community.
       (ii) Marriages.--Not less than 50 percent of the marriages 
     of the group are between members of the group.
       (iii) Distinct cultural patterns.--Not less than 50 percent 
     of the members of the group maintain distinct cultural 
     patterns including language, kinship or religious 
     organizations, or religious beliefs or practices.
       (iv) Community social institutions.--Distinct community 
     social institutions encompassing a substantial portion of the 
     members of the group, such as kinship organizations, formal 
     or informal economic cooperation, or religious organizations.
       (v) Applicability of criteria.--The group has met the 
     criterion in paragraph (3) using evidence described in 
     paragraph (3)(B).
       (3) Autonomous entity.--
       (A) In general.--A statement of facts establishing that the 
     petitioner has maintained political influence or authority 
     over its members as an autonomous entity from historical 
     times until the time of the petition. The Commission may rely 
     on 1 or more of the following items in determining whether a 
     petitioner meets the criterion described in the preceding 
     sentence:
       (i) Mobilization of members.--The group is capable of 
     mobilizing significant numbers of members and significant 
     resources from its members for group purposes.
       (ii) Issues of personal importance.--Most of the membership 
     of the group consider issues acted upon or taken by group 
     leaders or governing bodies to be of personal importance.
       (iii) Political process.--There is a widespread knowledge, 
     communication, and involvement in political processes by most 
     of the members of the group.
       (iv) Level of application of criteria.--The group meets the 
     criterion described in paragraph (2) at more than a minimal 
     level.
       (v) Intragroup conflicts.--There are intragroup conflicts 
     which show controversy over valued group goals, properties, 
     policies, processes, or decisions.
       (B) Evidence of exercise of political influence or 
     authority.--The Commission shall consider that a petitioner 
     has provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate the exercise 
     of political influence or authority at a given point in time 
     by demonstrating that group leaders or other mechanisms exist 
     or have existed that accomplish the following:
       (i) Allocation of group resources.--Allocate group 
     resources such as land, residence rights, or similar 
     resources on a consistent basis.
       (ii) Settlement of disputes.--Settle disputes between 
     members or subgroups such as clans or moieties by mediation 
     or other means on a regular basis.
       (iii) Influence on behavior of individual members.--Exert 
     strong influence on the behavior of individual members, such 
     as the establishment or maintenance of norms and the 
     enforcement of sanctions to direct or control behavior.
       (iv) Economic subsistence activities.--Organize or 
     influence economic subsistence activities among the members, 
     including shared or cooperative labor.
       (C) Temporality of sufficiency of evidence.--A group that 
     has met the requirements of paragraph (2)(C) at any point in 
     time shall be considered to have provided sufficient evidence 
     to meet the criterion described in subparagraph (A) at that 
     point in time.
       (4) Governing document.--A copy of the then present 
     governing document of the petitioner that includes the 
     membership criteria of the petitioner. In the absence of a 
     written document, the petitioner shall be required to provide 
     a statement describing in full the membership criteria of the 
     petitioner and the then current governing procedures of the 
     petitioner.
       (5) List of members.--
       (A) In general.--A list of all then current members of the 
     petitioner, including the full name (and maiden name, if 
     any), date, and place of birth, and then current residential 
     address of each member, a copy of each available former list 
     of members based on the criteria defined by the petitioner, 
     and a statement describing the methods used in preparing 
     those lists.
       (B) Requirements for membership.--In order for the 
     Commission to consider the members of the group to be members 
     of an Indian tribe for the purposes of the petition, that 
     membership shall be required to consist of established 
     descendancy from an Indian group that existed historically, 
     or from historical Indian groups that combined and functioned 
     as a single autonomous entity.
       (C) Evidence of tribal membership.--Evidence of tribal 
     membership required by the Commission for a determination of 
     tribal membership shall include the following items:
       (i) Descendancy rolls.--Descendancy rolls prepared by the 
     Secretary for the petitioner for purposes of distributing 
     claims money, providing allotments, or other purposes.
       (ii) Certain official records.--Federal, State, or other 
     official records or evidence identifying then present members 
     of the petitioner, or ancestors of then present members of 
     the petitioner, as being descendants of a historic tribe or 
     historic tribes that combined and functioned as a single 
     autonomous political entity.
       (iii) Enrollment records.--Church, school, and other 
     similar enrollment records identifying then present members 
     or ancestors of then present members as being descendants of 
     a historic tribe or historic tribes that combined and 
     functioned as a single autonomous political entity.
       (iv) Affidavits of recognition.--Affidavits of recognition 
     by tribal elders, leaders, or the tribal governing body 
     identifying then present members or ancestors of then present 
     members as being descendants of 1 or more historic tribes 
     that combined and functioned as a single autonomous political 
     entity.
       (v) Other records or evidence.--Other records or evidence 
     identifying then present

[[Page 4438]]

     members or ancestors of then present members as being 
     descendants of 1 or more historic tribes that combined and 
     functioned as a single autonomous political entity.
       (c) Exceptions.--A petition from an Indian group that is 
     able to demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that 
     the group was, or is the successor in interest to, a--
       (1) party to a treaty or treaties;
       (2) group acknowledged by any agency of the Federal 
     Government as eligible to participate under the Act of June 
     18, 1934 (commonly referred to as the ``Indian Reorganization 
     Act'') (48 Stat. 984 et seq., chapter 576; 25 U.S.C. 461 et 
     seq.);
        (3) group for the benefit of which the United States took 
     into trust lands, or which the Federal Government has treated 
     as having collective rights in tribal lands or funds; or
       (4) group that has been denominated a tribe by an Act of 
     Congress or Executive order,

     shall be required to establish the criteria set forth in this 
     section only with respect to the period beginning on the date 
     of the applicable action described in paragraph (1), (2), 
     (3), or (4) and ending on the date of submission of the 
     petition.
       (d) Deadline for Submission of Petitions.--No Indian group 
     may submit a petition to the Commission requesting that the 
     Commission recognize an Indian group as an Indian tribe after 
     the date that is 8 years after the date of enactment of this 
     Act. After the Commission makes a determination on each 
     petition submitted before that date, the Commission may not 
     make any further determination under this Act to recognize 
     any Indian group as an Indian tribe.

     SEC. 6. NOTICE OF RECEIPT OF PETITION.

       (a) Petitioner.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than 30 days after a petition is 
     submitted or transferred to the Commission under section 
     5(a), the Commission shall--
       (A) send an acknowledgement of receipt in writing to the 
     petitioner; and
       (B) publish in the Federal Register a notice of that 
     receipt, including the name, location, and mailing address of 
     the petitioner and such other information that--
       (i) identifies the entity that submitted the petition and 
     the date the petition was received by the Commission;
       (ii) indicates where a copy of the petition may be 
     examined; and
       (iii) indicates whether the petition is a transferred 
     petition that is subject to the special provisions under 
     paragraph (2).
       (2) Special provisions for transferred petitions.--
       (A) In general.--With respect to a petition that is 
     transferred to the Commission under section 5(a)(3), the 
     notice provided to the petitioner, shall, in addition to 
     providing the information specified in paragraph (1), inform 
     the petitioner whether the petition constitutes a documented 
     petition that meets the requirements of section 5.
       (B) Amended petitions.--If the petition described in 
     subparagraph (A) is not a documented petition, the Commission 
     shall notify the petitioner that the petitioner may, not 
     later than 90 days after the date of the notice, submit to 
     the Commission an amended petition that is a documented 
     petition for review under section 7.
       (C) Effect of amended petition.--To the extent practicable, 
     the submission of an amended petition by a petitioner by the 
     date specified in this paragraph shall not affect the order 
     of consideration of the petition by the Commission.
       (b) Others.--In addition to providing the notification 
     required under subsection (a), the Commission shall notify, 
     in writing, the Governor and attorney general of, and each 
     federally recognized Indian tribe within, any State in which 
     a petitioner resides.
       (c) Publication; Opportunity for Supporting or Opposing 
     Submissions.--
       (1) Publication.--The Commission shall publish the notice 
     of receipt of each petition (including any amended petition 
     submitted pursuant to subsection (a)(2)) in a major newspaper 
     of general circulation in the town or city located nearest 
     the location of the petitioner.
       (2) Opportunity for supporting or opposing submissions.--
       (A) In general.--Each notice published under paragraph (1) 
     shall include, in addition to the information described in 
     subsection (a), notice of opportunity for other parties to 
     submit factual or legal arguments in support of or in 
     opposition to, the petition.
       (B) Copy to petitioner.--A copy of any submission made 
     under subparagraph (A) shall be provided to the petitioner 
     upon receipt by the Commission.
       (C) Response.--The petitioner shall be provided an 
     opportunity to respond to any submission made under 
     subparagraph (A) before a determination on the petition by 
     the Commission.

     SEC. 7. PROCESSING THE PETITION.

       (a) Review.--
       (1) In general.--Upon receipt of a documented petition 
     submitted or transferred under section 5(a) or submitted 
     under section 6(a)(2)(B), the Commission shall conduct a 
     review to determine whether the petitioner is entitled to be 
     recognized as an Indian tribe.
       (2) Content of review.--The review conducted under 
     paragraph (1) shall include consideration of the petition, 
     supporting evidence, and the factual statements contained in 
     the petition.
       (3) Other research.--In conducting a review under this 
     subsection, the Commission may--
       (A) initiate other research for any purpose relative to 
     analyzing the petition and obtaining additional information 
     about the status of the petitioner; and
       (B) consider such evidence as may be submitted by other 
     parties.
       (4) Access to library of congress and national archives.--
     Upon request by the petitioner, the appropriate officials of 
     the Library of Congress and the National Archives shall allow 
     access by the petitioner to the resources, records, and 
     documents of those entities, for the purpose of conducting 
     research and preparing evidence concerning the status of the 
     petitioner.
       (b) Consideration.--
       (1) In general.--Except as otherwise provided in this 
     subsection, petitions submitted or transferred to the 
     Commission shall be considered on a first come, first served 
     basis, determined by the date of the original filing of each 
     such petition with the Commission (or the Department if the 
     petition is transferred to the Commission pursuant to section 
     5(a) or is an amended petition submitted pursuant to section 
     6(a)(2)(B)). The Commission shall establish a priority 
     register that includes petitions that are pending before the 
     Department on the date of enactment of this Act.
       (2) Priority consideration.--Each petition (that is 
     submitted or transferred to the Commission pursuant to 
     section 5(a) or that is submitted to the Commission pursuant 
     to section 6(a)(2)(B)) of an Indian group that meets 1 or 
     more of the requirements set forth in section 5(c) shall 
     receive priority consideration over a petition submitted by 
     any other Indian group.

     SEC. 8. PRELIMINARY HEARING.

       (a) In General.--Not later than 60 days after the receipt 
     of a documented petition by the Commission submitted or 
     transferred under section 5(a) or submitted to the Commission 
     pursuant to section 6(a)(2)(B), the Commission shall set a 
     date for a preliminary hearing. At the preliminary hearing, 
     the petitioner and any other concerned party may provide 
     evidence concerning the status of the petitioner.
       (b) Determination.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than 30 days after the 
     conclusion of a preliminary hearing under subsection (a), the 
     Commission shall make a determination--
       (A) to extend Federal acknowledgment of the petitioner as 
     an Indian tribe to the petitioner; or
       (B) that provides that the petitioner should proceed to an 
     adjudicatory hearing.
       (2) Notice of determination.--The Commission shall publish 
     in the Federal Register a notice of each determination made 
     under paragraph (1).
       (c) Information To Be Provided Preparatory to an 
     Adjudicatory Hearing.--
       (1) In general.--If the Commission makes a determination 
     under subsection (b)(1)(B) that the petitioner should proceed 
     to an adjudicatory hearing, the Commission shall--
       (A)(i) make available appropriate evidentiary records of 
     the Commission to the petitioner to assist the petitioner in 
     preparing for the adjudicatory hearing; and
       (ii) include such guidance as the Commission considers 
     necessary or appropriate to assist the petitioner in 
     preparing for the hearing; and
       (B) not later than 30 days after the conclusion of the 
     preliminary hearing under subsection (a), provide a written 
     notification to the petitioner that includes a list of any 
     deficiencies or omissions that the Commission relied on in 
     making a determination under subsection (b)(1)(B).
       (2) Subject of adjudicatory hearing.--The list of 
     deficiencies and omissions provided by the Commission to a 
     petitioner under paragraph (1)(B) shall be the subject of the 
     adjudicatory hearing. The Commission may not make any 
     additions to the list after the Commission issues the list.

     SEC. 9. ADJUDICATORY HEARING.

       (a) In General.--Not later than 180 days after the 
     conclusion of a preliminary hearing under section 8(a), the 
     Commission shall afford a petitioner who is subject to 
     section 8(b)(1)(B) an adjudicatory hearing. The subject of 
     the adjudicatory hearing shall be the list of deficiencies 
     and omissions provided under section 8(c)(1)(B) and shall be 
     conducted pursuant to section 554 of title 5, United States 
     Code.
       (b) Testimony From Staff of Commission.--In any hearing 
     held under subsection (a), the Commission may require 
     testimony from the acknowledgement and research staff of the 
     Commission or other witnesses. Any such testimony shall be 
     subject to cross-examination by the petitioner.
       (c) Evidence by Petitioner.--In any hearing held under 
     subsection (a), the petitioner may provide such evidence as 
     the petitioner considers appropriate.
       (d) Determination by Commission.--Not later than 60 days 
     after the conclusion of any hearing held under subsection 
     (a), the Commission shall--

[[Page 4439]]

       (1) make a determination concerning the extension or denial 
     of Federal acknowledgment of the petitioner as an Indian 
     tribe to the petitioner;
       (2) publish the determination of the Commission under 
     paragraph (1) in the Federal Register; and
       (3) deliver a copy of the determination to the petitioner, 
     and to every other interested party.

     SEC. 10. APPEALS.

       (a) In General.--Not later than 60 days after the date that 
     the Commission publishes a determination under section 9(d), 
     the petitioner may appeal the determination to the United 
     States District Court for the District of Columbia.
       (b) Attorney Fees.--If the petitioner prevails in an appeal 
     made under subsection (a), the petitioner shall be eligible 
     for an award of reasonable attorney fees and costs under 
     section 504 of title 5, United States Code, or section 2412 
     of title 28, United States Code, whichever is applicable.

     SEC. 11. EFFECT OF DETERMINATIONS.

       A determination by the Commission under section 9(d) that 
     an Indian group is recognized by the Federal Government as an 
     Indian tribe shall not have the effect of depriving or 
     diminishing--
       (1) the right of any other Indian tribe to govern the 
     reservation of such other tribe as that reservation existed 
     before the recognition of that Indian group, or as that 
     reservation may exist thereafter;
       (2) any property right held in trust or recognized by the 
     United States for that other Indian tribe as that property 
     existed before the recognition of that Indian group; or
       (3) any previously or independently existing claim by a 
     petitioner to any such property right held in trust by the 
     United States for that other Indian tribe before the 
     recognition by the Federal Government of that Indian group as 
     an Indian tribe.

     SEC. 12. IMPLEMENTATION OF DECISIONS.

       (a) Eligibility for Services and Benefits.--
       (1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), upon recognition 
     by the Commission of a petitioner as an Indian tribe under 
     this Act, the Indian tribe shall--
       (A) be eligible for the services and benefits from the 
     Federal Government that are available to other federally 
     recognized Indian tribes by virtue of their status as Indian 
     tribes with a government-to-government relationship with the 
     United States; and
       (B) have the responsibilities, obligations, privileges, and 
     immunities of those Indian tribes.
       (2) Programs of the bureau.--
       (A) In general.--The recognition of an Indian group as an 
     Indian tribe by the Commission under this Act shall not 
     create an immediate entitlement to programs of the Bureau in 
     existence on the date of the recognition.
       (B) Availability of programs.--
       (i) In general.--The programs described in subparagraph (A) 
     shall become available to the Indian tribe upon the 
     appropriation of funds.
       (ii) Requests for appropriations.--The Secretary and the 
     Secretary of Health and Human Services shall forward budget 
     requests for funding the programs for the Indian tribe 
     pursuant to the needs determination procedures established 
     under subsection (b).
       (b) Needs Determination and Budget Request.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than 180 days after an Indian 
     group is recognized by the Commission as an Indian tribe 
     under this Act, the appropriate officials of the Bureau and 
     the Indian Health Service of the Department of Health and 
     Human Services shall consult and develop in cooperation with 
     the Indian tribe, and forward to the Secretary or the 
     Secretary of Health and Human Services, as appropriate, a 
     determination of the needs of the Indian tribe and a 
     recommended budget required to serve the newly recognized 
     Indian tribe.
       (2) Submission of budget request.--Upon receipt of the 
     information described in paragraph (1), the appropriate 
     Secretary shall submit to the President a recommended budget 
     along with recommendations, concerning the information 
     received under paragraph (1), for inclusion in the annual 
     budget submitted by the President to the Congress pursuant to 
     section 1108 of title 31, United States Code.

     SEC. 13. ANNUAL REPORT CONCERNING COMMISSION'S ACTIVITIES.

       (a) List of Recognized Tribes.--Not later than 90 days 
     after the first meeting of the Commission, and annually on or 
     before each January 30 thereafter, the Commission shall 
     publish in the Federal Register a list of all Indian tribes 
     that--
       (1) are recognized by the Federal Government; and
       (2) receive services from the Bureau.
       (b) Annual Report.--
       (1) In general.--Beginning on the date that is 1 year after 
     the date of enactment of this Act, and annually thereafter, 
     the Commission shall prepare and submit a report to the 
     Committee on Indian Affairs of the Senate and the Committee 
     on Resources of the House of Representatives that describes 
     the activities of the Commission.
       (2) Content of reports.--Each report submitted under this 
     subsection shall include, at a minimum, for the year that is 
     the subject of the report--
       (A) the number of petitions pending at the beginning of the 
     year and the names of the petitioners;
       (B) the number of petitions received during the year and 
     the names of the petitioners;
       (C) the number of petitions the Commission approved for 
     acknowledgment during the year and the names of the 
     acknowledged petitioners;
       (D) the number of petitions the Commission denied for 
     acknowledgment during the year and the names of the 
     petitioners; and
       (E) the status of all pending petitions on the date of the 
     report and the names of the petitioners.

     SEC. 14. ACTIONS BY PETITIONERS FOR ENFORCEMENT.

       Any petitioner may bring an action in the district court of 
     the United States for the district in which the petitioner 
     resides, or the United States District Court for the District 
     of Columbia, to enforce the provisions of this Act, including 
     any time limitations within which actions are required to be 
     taken, or decisions made, under this Act. The district court 
     shall issue such orders (including writs of mandamus) as may 
     be necessary to enforce the provisions of this Act.

     SEC. 15. REGULATIONS.

       The Commission may, in accordance with applicable 
     requirements of title 5, United States Code, promulgate and 
     publish such regulations as may be necessary to carry out 
     this Act.

     SEC. 16. GUIDELINES AND ADVICE.

       (a) Guidelines.--Not later than 90 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Commission shall make available to 
     Indian groups suggested guidelines for the format of 
     petitions, including general suggestions and guidelines 
     concerning where and how to research information that is 
     required to be included in a petition. The examples included 
     in the guidelines shall not preclude the use of any other 
     appropriate format.
       (b) Research Advice.--The Commission may, upon request, 
     provide suggestions and advice to any petitioner with respect 
     to the research of the petitioner concerning the historical 
     background and Indian identity of that petitioner. The 
     Commission shall not be responsible for conducting research 
     on behalf of the petitioner.

     SEC. 17. ASSISTANCE TO PETITIONERS.

       (a) Grants.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary of Health and Human Services 
     may award grants to Indian groups seeking Federal recognition 
     as Indian tribes to enable the Indian groups to--
       (A) conduct the research necessary to substantiate 
     petitions under this Act; and
       (B) prepare documentation necessary for the submission of a 
     petition under this Act.
       (2) Treatment of grants.--The grants made under this 
     subsection shall be in addition to any other grants the 
     Secretary of Health and Human Services is authorized to 
     provide under any other provision of law.
       (b) Competitive Award.--The grants made under subsection 
     (a) shall be awarded competitively on the basis of objective 
     criteria prescribed in regulations promulgated by the 
     Secretary of Health and Human Services.

     SEC. 18. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       (a) Commission.--There are authorized to be appropriated to 
     the Commission to carry out this Act (other than section 17) 
     such sums as are necessary for each of fiscal years 2001 
     through 2009.
       (b) Secretary of HHS.--To carry out section 17, there are 
     authorized to be appropriated to the Department of Health and 
     Human Services for the Administration for Native Americans 
     such sums as are necessary for each of fiscal years 2001 
     through 2009.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. CAMPBELL:
  S. 612. A bill to provide for periodic Indian needs assessments, to 
require Federal Indian program evaluations; and for other purposes; to 
the Committee on Indian Affairs.


Indian Needs Assessment, Program Evaluation and Policy Coordination Act 
                                of 1999

  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, today I am pleased to be joined by 
Senator Inouye in introducing the Indian Needs Assessment, Program 
Evaluation and Policy Coordination Act of 1999 to bring about needed 
reforms in the way Indian programs are designed and funded.
  As the annual funding debates over Indian programs show us year after 
year, rational and equitable funding decisions are made more difficult 
because of the lack of accurate and up to date information about the 
needs of tribal governments and tribal members.
  The ability of the Congress to target unmet needs and make available 
adequate funds for tribes and tribal members is directly related to the 
quantity and quality of information available about the type and degree 
of demand for federal programs and services.

[[Page 4440]]

  Within one year of the enactment of this Act, and every 5 years 
thereafter, each Federal agency or department is required to conduct an 
``Indian Needs Assessment'' (``INA'') aimed at determining the needs of 
tribes and Indians eligible for programs and services administered by 
such agency or department.
  To facilitate information collection and analysis, the bill requires 
the development of a uniform method, criteria and procedures for 
determining, analyzing, and compiling the program and service needs of 
tribes and Indians.
  The resulting ``Indian Needs Assessments'' are to be filed with the 
Committees on Appropriations and Indian Affairs of the Senate, and the 
Committees on Appropriations and Resources of the House of 
Representatives.
  In addition to a Needs Assessment, the bill also requires that each 
Federal agency or department responsible for providing services to 
Indians file an ``Annual Indian Program Evaluation'' (``AIPE'') with 
these same committees. The AIPE will measure the performance and 
effectiveness of the programs under the jurisdiction of that agency or 
department, and include recommendations as to how such programs can be 
improved.
  I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the bill be printed in the 
Record and urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this measure.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 612

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Indian Needs Assessment and 
     Program Evaluation Act of 1999''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS, PURPOSES.

       (a) Findings.--the Congress finds that--
       (1) the United States and the Indian tribes have a unique 
     legal and political government-to-government relationship;
       (2) pursuant to Constitution, treaties, statutes, executive 
     order, court decisions, and course of conduct, the United 
     States has a trust obligation to provide certain services to 
     Indian tribes and to Indians;
       (3) Federal agencies charged with administering programs 
     and providing services to or for the benefit of Indians have 
     not furnished Congress with adequate information necessary to 
     assess such programs or the needs of Indians and Indian 
     tribes;
       (4) such lack of information has hampered the ability of 
     the Congress to determine the nature, type, and magnitude of 
     such needs as well as its ability to respond to them.
       (5) Congress cannot properly fulfill its obligation to 
     Indian tribes and Indian people unless and until it has an 
     adequate store of information related to the needs of Indians 
     nationwide.
       (b) Purposes.--the purposes of this Act are to--
       (1) ensure that Indian needs for federal programs and 
     services are known in a more certain and predictable fashion;
       (2) to require that Federal agencies and departments 
     carefully review and monitor the effectiveness of the 
     programs and services provided to Indians;
       (3) to provide for more efficient and effective cooperation 
     and coordination of, and accountability from, the agencies 
     and departments providing programs and services, including 
     technical and business development assistance, to Indians; 
     and
       (4) to provide Congress with reliable information regarding 
     both Indian needs and the evaluation of federal programs and 
     services provided to Indians nationwide.

     SEC. 3. INDIAN TRIBAL NEEDS ASSESSMENT.

       (a) Indian Tribal Needs Assessments.--In General.--
       (1) within 180 days after the enactment of this Act, the 
     Secretary, in consultation and coordination with the 
     Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Defense, Energy, Labor, 
     Justice, Treasury, Transportation, and Veterans Affairs, the 
     Environmental Protection Agency, other relevant agencies, 
     offices, and departments, shall develop a uniform method, 
     criteria and procedures for determining, analyzing, and 
     compiling the program and service assistance needs of Indian 
     tribes and Indians nationwide. The needs assessment shall 
     address, but not be limited to, the following:
       (A) The total population of the tribe(s), and the 
     population of tribal members located in the service area, 
     where applicable;
       (B) The size of the service area;
       (C) The location of the service area;
       (D) The availability of similar programs within the 
     geographical area to tribes or tribal members; and
       (E) socio-economic conditions that exist within the service 
     area.
       (2) the Secretary shall consult with tribal governments in 
     establishing and conducting the needs assessment mandated by 
     this Act.
       (3) within 1 year of the enactment of this Act, and every 
     five (5) years thereafter, each Federal agency or department, 
     in coordination with the Secretary, shall conduct an Indian 
     Needs Assessment (``INA'') aimed at determining the actual 
     needs of Indian tribes and Indians eligible for programs and 
     services administered by such agency or department.
       (4) the Indian Needs Assessment developed pursuant to 
     subsection (c)(3) above shall be filed with the Committees on 
     Appropriations and Indian Affairs of the Senate, and the 
     Committees on Appropriations and Resources of the House of 
     Representatives on February 1 of each year in which it is to 
     be submitted.
       (b) Federal Agency Indian Tribal Program Evaluation.--
       (1) within 180 days of enactment of this Act, the Secretary 
     shall develop a uniform method, criteria and procedures for 
     compiling, maintaining, keeping current and reporting to 
     Congress all information concerning
       (A) the agency or department annual expenditure for 
     programs and services for which Indians are eligible, with 
     specific information regarding the names of tribes who are 
     currently participating in or receiving each service, the 
     names of tribes who have applied for and not received 
     programs or services, and the names of tribes whose services 
     or programs have been terminated within the last fiscal year;
       (B) services or programs specifically for the benefit of 
     Indians, with specific information regarding the names of 
     tribes who are currently participating in or receiving each 
     service, the names of tribes who have applied for and not 
     received programs or services, and the names of tribes whose 
     services or programs have been terminated within the last 
     fiscal year;
       (C) the agency or department method of delivery of such 
     services and funding, including a detailed explanation of the 
     outreach efforts of each agency or department to Indian 
     tribes.
       (2) within 1 year of the enactment of this Act, and 
     annually thereafter, each Federal agency or department 
     responsible for providing services or programs to or for the 
     benefit of Indian tribes or Indians shall file an Annual 
     Indian Program Evaluation (``AIPE'') with the Committees on 
     Appropriations and Indian Affairs of the Senate, and the 
     Committees on Appropriations and Resources of the House of 
     Representatives.
       (c) Annual Listing of Tribal Eligible Programs.--On or 
     before February 1 of each calendar year, those Federal 
     agencies or departments mentioned in (b)(2) above, shall 
     develop and publish in the Federal Register a list of all 
     programs and services offered by such agency or department 
     for which Indian tribes or their members are or may be 
     eligible, and shall provide a brief explanation of the 
     program or service.

     SEC. 4. REPORT TO CONGRESS

       (a) In General.--the Secretary shall, within 1 years of the 
     enactment of this Act, develop and submit to the Committees 
     on Appropriations and Indian Affairs of the Senate, and the 
     Committees on Appropriations and Resources of the House of 
     Representatives a report detailing the coordination of 
     federal program and service assistance for which Indian 
     tribes and their members are eligible.
       (b) Strategic Plan.--the Secretary shall, within 18 months 
     after the enactment of this Act, and after consultation and 
     coordination with the Indian tribes, file a Strategic Plan 
     for the Coordination of Federal Assistance for Indians.
       (c) Contents of Strategic Plan.--the Plan required under 
     this Act shall contain (1) identification of reforms 
     necessary to the laws, regulations, policies, procedures, 
     practices, and systems of the agencies involved; (2) 
     proposals for remedying the reforms identified in the Plan; 
     and (3) other recommendations consistent with the purposes of 
     the Act.

     SEC. 5. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       (a) Beginning in fiscal year 2001 and for each fiscal year 
     thereafter, there are authorized to be appropriated such sums 
     as are necessary to carry out this Act.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. CAMPBELL:
  S. 613. A bill to encourage Indian economic development, to provide 
for the disclosure of Indian tribal sovereign immunity in contracts 
involving Indian tribes, and for other purposes; to the Committee on 
Indian Affairs.


 INDIAN TRIBAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND CONTRACT ENCOURAGEMENT ACT OF 
                                  1999

  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce the 
Indian Tribal Economic Development and Contract Encouragement Act of 
1999 to encourage tribal economic development, provide for disclosures 
regarding tribal sovereign immunity, and eliminate excessive and 
unproductive bureaucratic oversight of tribal decisions.
  As many of my colleagues are aware, most Indian tribes are not in the 
position to fund all, or even most of their

[[Page 4441]]

governmental operations through taxes imposed on reservation-based 
activities or assets. Often a tribe's own land and other natural 
resources are the only means a tribe has to fund its activities or to 
promote economic development within its reservation boundaries.
  Since land is the basic trust resource, the United States has the 
authority and the responsibility to oversee the lease of tribal lands. 
Where tribes propose to enter leases of their lands, a federal statute 
provides that the lease is only valid if it is approved by the Interior 
Department. My proposed bill does not affect the federal government's 
authority to approve leases. My bill addresses non-lease agreements 
between Indian tribes and those that provide services that relate to 
the tribe's lands.
  Not that long ago, tribes had to rely on federal bureaucrats to 
devise ways to develop their lands, to negotiate leases, and to then 
approve those leases. In many instances, tribes are now developing 
their own proposals. To assist in the development of a private sector, 
I want to encourage this entrepreneurial spirit.
  There are strong indications, however, that an ancient federal 
statute is impeding every Indian tribe's ability to enter into 
agreements with those who might be hired by the tribe to assist it in 
developing its lands. Like most laws, this statute was enacted with the 
best intentions. I speak of a law enacted over 125 years ago; a law 
enacted when many Indians had to rely on translators to read the 
treaties between the United States and their tribal government. The 
statute I propose to amend was enacted in 1871, and it survives in much 
the same form today as it did then--64 Congresses ago.
  Section 81, as it is known, provides that a contract ``relating to 
Indian lands'' is not valid unless it is approved by the Secretary. 
Section 81 imposes no limits on how long the BIA may take to review the 
agreement or even what standards apply to decide whether the contract 
should be approved or denied.
  The bill I introduce today addresses these issues and others.
  First, the bill gives the Secretary 90 days to review a proposed 
contract. This is the same amount of time the Secretary has to review 
contracts relating to the management of gaming facilities. My bill 
provides that if the government takes no action for 90 days, then the 
tribe can proceed with the project unhindered by the lack of approval.
  All other federal laws will still apply to the agreement.
  Second, the Secretary must identify the types of contracts that are 
not covered by this statute. A tribe can submit such contracts and the 
BIA has 45 days to determine whether they are covered by the law. The 
Secretary is still authorized to reject any contract that violates 
federal law.
  Finally, the bill incorporates a suggestion made in 1988 by then-
Assistant Secretary Ross Swimmer to ``eliminate the current statutory 
requirements that the Secretary approve the tribal selection of 
attorneys and attorney fees.'' To allow the selection of counsel, 
without the Secretary's oversight, is fundamental to Indian self-
determination.
  My bill addresses one other key matter. Like other sovereign 
governments, Indian tribes are free to negotiate with potential 
business partners whether, in what form, and to what extent the parties 
can sue and be sued under a contract they enter. My bill recognizes a 
tribe's discretion in this area and it leaves it in place.
  After numerous hearings conducted in the 105th Congress and in 
previous congresses, I believe the record is clear: Indian tribes have 
been increasingly responsible in their consideration of immunity 
decisions.
  I am concerned, however, about those who may enter into agreements 
with Indian tribes knowing that the tribe retains immunity but at a 
later time insist that they have been treated unfairly by the tribe 
raising the immunity defense.
  Under my bill, the Secretary must deny approval of contracts if the 
agreement in question fails to state that the parties recognize that 
the tribe is immune from suit unless immunity is expressly waived.
  Excessive federal regulation, especially if it impedes business and 
economic development in Indian Country, needs to be eliminated. Whether 
we put this belief in terms of the Contract with America, or the 
initiative to reinvent government, our objective is the same.
  There is no group of people who have experienced more federal 
regulation of every aspect of their lives than Indians. This bill 
represents a commitment to reduce unnecessary and anachronistic federal 
bureaucratic requirements.
  I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the bill be printed in the 
Record, and I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this critical 
measure.
  There being no objection, this bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 613

       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 ``Indian Tribal Economic 
     Development and Contract Encouragement Act of 1999''.

     SEC. 2. CONTRACTS AND AGREEMENTS WITH INDIAN TRIBES.

       Section 2103 of the Revised Statutes (25 U.S.C. 81) is 
     amended--
       (1) by inserting ``(a)'' before ``No agreement'';
       (2) in subsection (a), as designated by paragraph (1) of 
     this section--
       (A) by striking ``, or individual Indians not citizens of 
     the United States,'';
       (B) by striking ``First. Such agreement'' and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(1) Such contract or agreement'';
       (C) by striking ``Second. It shall bear the approval of the 
     Secretary of the Interior and the Commissioner of Indian 
     Affairs endorsed up on it.'' and inserting the following:
       ``(2) Except as provided in subsection (b), it shall bear 
     the approval of the Secretary of the Interior (referred to in 
     this section as the `Secretary') or a designee of the 
     Secretary of the Interior endorsed upon it.'';
       (D) by striking ``Third. It'' and inserting the following:
       ``(3) It'';
       (E) by striking ``Fourth. It'' and inserting the following:
       ``(4) It''; and
       (F) by striking ``Fifth. It'' and inserting the following:
       ``(5) It'';
       (3) by inserting ``(d)'' before ``All contracts'';
       (4) by inserting after subsection (a) the following:
       ``(b) Subsection (a)(2) shall not apply to a contract or 
     agreement in any case in which--
       ``(1) the Secretary (or a designee of the Secretary) fails 
     to approve or disapprove the contract or agreement by the 
     date that is 90 days after the date on which the contract or 
     agreement is filed with the Secretary under this section; or
       ``(2)(A) the tribe notifies the Secretary in a manner 
     prescribed by the Secretary under subsection (c)(3) that a 
     contract or agreement is not covered under subsection (a); 
     and
       ``(B) the Secretary (or a designee of the Secretary) fails 
     to inform the tribe in writing, by the date that is 45 days 
     after receipt of the notification under subparagraph (A), 
     that the Secretary (or designee) intends to review the 
     contract agreement by the date specified in paragraph (1).
       ``(c)(1) The Secretary (or a designee of the Secretary) 
     shall refuse to approve a contract or agreement that is filed 
     with the Secretary under this section if the Secretary (or 
     designee) determines that the contract or agreement--
       ``(A) violates Federal law; or
       ``(B)(i) is covered under subsection (a); and
       ``(ii) does not include a provision that--
       ``(I) provides for remedies in the case of a breach of the 
     contract or agreement;
       ``(II) references a tribal code, ordinance, or ruling of a 
     court of competent jurisdiction that discloses the right of 
     the tribe to assert sovereign immunity as a defense in an 
     action brought against the tribe; or
       ``(III) includes an express waiver of the right of the 
     tribe to assert sovereign immunity as a defense in an action 
     brought against the tribe (including a waiver that limits the 
     nature of relief that may be provided or the jurisdiction of 
     a court with respect to such an action).
       ``(2)(A) The Secretary (or a designee of the Secretary) 
     shall not approve any contract or agreement that is submitted 
     to the Secretary for approval under this section if the 
     Secretary (or designee) determines that the contract or 
     agreement is not covered under subsection (a).
       ``(B) If the Secretary determines that a contract or 
     agreement is not covered under subsection (a), the Secretary 
     shall notify the tribe of that determination.
       ``(3) To assist tribes in providing notice under subsection 
     (b)(2), the Secretary shall--

[[Page 4442]]

       ``(A) issue guidelines for identifying types of contracts 
     or agreements that are not covered under subsection (a); and
       ``(B) establish procedures for providing that notice.
       ``(4) The failure of the Secretary to approve a contract or 
     agreement under this subsection or to provide notice under 
     paragraph (2)(B) shall not affect the applicability of a 
     requirement under any other provision of Federal law.'';
       (5) in subsection (d), as redesignated by paragraph (3) of 
     this section, by striking ``paid to any person by any Indian 
     tribe'' and all that follows through the end of the 
     subsection and inserting ``paid to any person by any tribe or 
     any other person on behalf of the tribe on account of such 
     services in excess of the amount approved by the Secretary of 
     the Interior, may be recovered in an action brought by the 
     tribe or the United States. Such an action may be brought in 
     any district court of the United States, without regard to 
     the amount in controversy. Any amount recovered under this 
     subsection shall be paid to the Treasury of the United States 
     for use by the tribe for whom it was recovered.''; and
       (6) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(e) Nothing in this section shall be construed to require 
     the Secretary of the Interior to approve a contract for legal 
     services by an attorney.''.

     SEC. 3. CHOICE OF COUNSEL.

       Section 16(e) of the Act of June 18, 1934 (commonly 
     referred to as the ``Indian Reorganization Act'') (48 Stat. 
     987, chapter 576; 25 U.S.C. 476(e)) is amended by striking 
     ``, the choice of counsel and fixing of fees to be subject to 
     the approval of the Secretary''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. CAMPBELL (for himself and Mr. Inouye):
  S. 614. A bill to provide for regulatory reform in order to encourage 
investment, business, and economic development with respect to 
activities conducted on Indian lands; to the Committee on Indian 
Affairs.


  INDIAN TRIBAL REGULATORY REFORM AND BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 1999

  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce another 
key piece of legislation to encourage private sector development on 
Indian lands. This bill is aimed at removing the obstacles that stand 
in the way of responsive government and greater levels of business 
activity in Indian country--the Indian Tribal Regulatory Reform and 
Business Development Act of 1999.
  Over the years, laws, regulations and policies have been built up--
often with good intentions--but have outlived their usefulness or 
relevance to the contemporary needs of Indian tribal governments and 
economies.
  More importantly, the multi-layered bureaucracies, federal as well as 
tribal, have been repeatedly identified as a barrier to Indian 
entrepreneurship and business development on and around Indian lands.
  Efforts to reduce bureaucracy are not new or unique to Indian 
country. Governments around the world have begun embarking on efforts 
to downsize and streamline government operations to an appropriate 
level--one that complements human endeavors rather than hindering them.
  The bill I am introducing today is part of the much-needed effort to 
accomplish the same goal to benefit the business environments on Indian 
lands nationwide.
  The legislation requires a comprehensive review of the laws and 
regulations affecting investment and business decisions on Indian 
lands, and requires the Regulatory Reform and Business Development on 
Indian lands Authority to determine the extent to which such laws and 
regulations unnecessarily or inappropriately impair investment and 
business development on Indian lands.
  The Authority is also required to determine how such laws and 
regulations impact the financial stability and management efficiency of 
tribal governments.
  Under the provisions of this bill, the Authority is required to 
conduct the review and within one year report the findings and 
recommendations to the Congress and the President for further actions.
  Mr. President, this is not the first time an effort of this sort has 
been proposed, but I believe that if conducted properly, it can serve 
as a lasting and constructive initiative to further the long-term 
health and prosperity of tribal governments and economies.
  I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the bill be printed in the 
Record, and urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this key 
measure.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 614

       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 ``Indian Tribal Regulatory 
     Reform and Business Development Act of 1999''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS; PURPOSES.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
       (1) despite the availability of abundant natural resources 
     on Indian lands and a rich cultural legacy that accords great 
     value to self-determination, self-reliance, and independence, 
     American Indians and Alaska Natives suffer rates of 
     unemployment, poverty, poor health, substandard housing, and 
     associated social ills to a greater degree than any other 
     group in the United States;
       (2) the capacity of Indian tribes to build strong tribal 
     governments and vigorous economies is hindered by the 
     inability of Indian tribes to engage communities that 
     surround Indian lands and outside investors in economic 
     activities conducted on Indian lands;
       (3) beginning in 1970, with the issuance by the Nixon 
     Administration of a special message to Congress on Indian 
     Affairs, each President has confirmed the special government-
     to-government relationship between Indian tribes and the 
     United States; and
       (4) the United States has an obligation to assist Indian 
     tribes with the creation of appropriate economic and 
     political conditions with respect to Indian lands to--
       (A) encourage investment from outside sources that do not 
     originate with the Indian tribes; and
       (B) facilitate economic development on Indian lands.
       (b) Purposes.--The purposes of this Act are as follows:
       (1) To provide for a comprehensive review of the laws 
     (including regulations) that affect investment and business 
     decisions concerning activities conducted on Indian lands.
       (2) To determine the extent to which those laws 
     unnecessarily or inappropriately impair--
       (A) investment and business development on Indian lands; or
       (B) the financial stability and management efficiency of 
     tribal governments.
       (3) To establish an authority to conduct the review under 
     paragraph (1) and report findings and recommendations that 
     result from the review to Congress and the President.

     SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act:
       (1) Authority.--The term ``Authority'' means the Regulatory 
     Reform and Business Development on Indian Lands Authority.
       (2) Federal agency.--The term ``Federal agency'' means an 
     agency, as that term is defined in section 551(1) of title 5, 
     United States Code.
       (3) Indian.--The term ``Indian'' has the meaning given that 
     term in section 4(d) of the Indian Self-Determination and 
     Education Assistance Act (25 U.S.C. 450b(d)).
       (4) Indian lands.--The term ``Indian lands'' has the 
     meaning given that term in section 4(4) of the Indian Gaming 
     Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2703(4)).
       (5) Indian tribe.--The term ``Indian tribe'' has the 
     meaning given that term in section 4(e) of the Indian Self-
     Determination and Education Assistance Act (25 U.S.C. 
     450b(e)).
       (6) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
     of Commerce.
       (7) Tribal organization.--The term ``tribal organization'' 
     has the meaning given that term in section 4(l) of the Indian 
     Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (25 U.S.C. 
     450b(l)).

     SEC. 4. ESTABLISHMENT OF AUTHORITY.

       (a) Establishment.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than 60 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary, in consultation with 
     the Secretary of the Interior and other officials whom the 
     Secretary determines to be appropriate, shall establish an 
     authority to be known as the Regulatory Reform and Business 
     Development on Indian Lands Authority.
       (2) Purpose.--The Secretary shall establish the Authority 
     under this subsection in order to facilitate identifying and 
     subsequently removing obstacles to investment, business 
     development, and the creation of wealth with respect to the 
     economies of Indian reservations.
       (b) Membership.--
       (1) In general.--The Authority established under this 
     section shall be composed of 21 members.
       (2) Representatives of indian tribes.--12 members of the 
     Authority shall be representatives of the Indian tribes from 
     the areas of the Bureau of Indian Affairs. Each such area 
     shall be represented by such a representative.
       (c) Initial Meeting.--Not later than 90 days after the date 
     of enactment of this Act, the Authority shall hold its 
     initial meeting.

[[Page 4443]]

       (d) Review.--Beginning on the date of the initial meeting 
     under subsection (c), the Authority shall conduct a review of 
     laws (including regulations) relating to investment, 
     business, and economic development that affect investment and 
     business decisions concerning activities conducted on Indian 
     lands.
       (e) Meetings.--The Authority shall meet at the call of the 
     chairperson.
       (f) Quorum.--A majority of the members of the Authority 
     shall constitute a quorum, but a lesser number of members may 
     hold hearings.
       (g) Chairperson.--The Authority shall select a chairperson 
     from among its members.

     SEC. 5. REPORT.

       Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this 
     Act, the Authority shall prepare and submit to the Committee 
     on Indian Affairs of the Senate, the Committee on Resources 
     of the House of Representatives, and to the governing body of 
     each Indian tribe a report that includes--
       (1) the findings of the Authority concerning the review 
     conducted under section 4(d); and
       (2) such recommendations concerning the proposed revisions 
     to the laws that were subject to review as the Authority 
     determines to be appropriate.

     SEC. 6. POWERS OF THE AUTHORITY.

       (a) Hearings.--The Authority may hold such hearings, sit 
     and act at such times and places, take such testimony, and 
     receive such evidence as the Authority considers advisable to 
     carry out the duties of the Authority.
       (b) Information From Federal Agencies.--The Authority may 
     secure directly from any Federal department or agency such 
     information as the Authority considers necessary to carry out 
     the duties of the Authority.
       (c) Postal Services.--The Authority may use the United 
     States mails in the same manner and under the same conditions 
     as other departments and agencies of the Federal Government.
       (d) Gifts.--The Authority may accept, use, and dispose of 
     gifts or donations of services or property.

     SEC. 7. AUTHORITY PERSONNEL MATTERS.

       (a) Compensation of Members.--
       (1) Non-federal members.--Members of the Authority who are 
     not officers or employees of the Federal Government shall 
     serve without compensation, except for travel expenses, as 
     provided under subsection (b).
       (2) Officers and employees of the federal government.--
     Members of the Authority who are officers or employees of the 
     United States shall serve without compensation in addition to 
     that received for their services as officers or employees of 
     the United States.
       (b) Travel Expenses.--The members of the Authority shall be 
     allowed travel expenses, including per diem in lieu of 
     subsistence, at rates authorized for employees of agencies 
     under subchapter I of chapter 57 of title 5, United States 
     Code, while away from their homes or regular places of 
     business in the performance of services for the Authority.
       (c) Staff.--
       (1) In general.--The chairperson of the Authority may, 
     without regard to the civil service laws, appoint and 
     terminate such personnel as may be necessary to enable the 
     Authority to perform its duties.
       (2) Procurement of temporary and intermittent services.--
     The chairperson of the Authority may procure temporary and 
     intermittent service under section 3109(b) of title 5, United 
     States Code, at rates for individuals that do not exceed the 
     daily equivalent of the annual rate of basic pay prescribed 
     under GS-13 of the General Schedule established under section 
     5332 of title 5, United States Code.

     SEC. 8. TERMINATION OF THE AUTHORITY.

       The Authority shall terminate 90 days after the date on 
     which the Authority has submitted, to the committees of 
     Congress specified in section 5, and to the governing body of 
     each Indian tribe, a copy of the report prepared under 
     section 5.

     SEC. 9. EXEMPTION FROM FEDERAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE ACT.

       The activities of the authority conducted under this title 
     shall be exempt from the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 
     U.S.C. App.).

     SEC. 10. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       There are authorized to be appropriated such sums as are 
     necessary to carry out this Act, to remain available until 
     expended.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. CAMPBELL:
  S. 615. A bill to encourage Indian economic development, to provide 
for a framework to encourage and facilitate intergovernmental tax 
agreements, and for other purposes.


              INTER-GOVERNMENTAL TAX AGREEMENT ACT OF 1999

  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, to encourage states and tribes to 
negotiate and enter fair and binding tax compacts, I introduce today 
the Inter-Governmental Tax Agreement Act of 1999.
  In 1998, I introduced similar legislation to provide a mechanism, 
short of litigation, for the collection of state retail sales taxes. 
The Committee on Indian Affairs held several hearings on the issue of 
taxation involving tribes and sales made on Indian lands and heard from 
tribal leaders, state tax officials, private retailers, and other 
affected parties. Though no resolution was reached, the voluminous 
record developed by the Committee has helped flesh out the issue of 
taxation and has led to a fuller picture being developed.
  Because there is much confusion about Indians and tax matters, I 
should be clear and explain exactly what we are talking about when we 
address these matters. Indian tribal governments, like state 
governments, pay no federal taxes on income earned by the tribe. 
Individual members of Indian tribes pay the same taxes other citizens 
of the United States pay: federal income taxes, Social Security taxes, 
and a host of other taxes.
  What we are focusing on with this bill are state taxes on retail 
sales made to non-Indians on goods such as tobacco and fuel when the 
transaction occurs on Indian lands. As late as 1991, the Supreme Court 
ruled that such taxes are legitimately levied taxes and set out several 
possible remedies available to states including lawsuits against tribal 
officials and negotiating a tax compact. The court was equally clear, 
however, that because of tribal common law immunity from lawsuits, 
tribes cannot be sued to collect the tax revenues.
  Consistent with that opinion, at least 18 states and dozens of Indian 
tribes have chosen to negotiate and enter into tax agreements. At the 
Committee hearing in March 1998, it was estimated that more than 200 
``intergovernmental tax agreements'' are now in place covering a 
variety of retail goods.
  These agreements detail the collection and remittance of tax revenues 
by the tribe to the state on sales to non-members of the tribe, and 
often allow for an ``administrative fee'' paid to the tribe for their 
efforts to collect and remit the tax revenues.
  Two factors were presented to the Committee which are legitimate 
issues for debate in the 106th Congress. First, the question of 
services provided by the state and/or the tribe to Indians and non-
Indians living on tribal lands; and second, the devastating impact on 
Indian economies as a result of ``dual'' state and tribal taxes levied 
on the same transaction.
  This legislation encourages state-tribal agreements by requiring that 
states and tribes attempt to resolve their differences in good faith 
through negotiations aimed at entering into a tax compact.
  If efforts to reach agreement through negotiations and mediation 
fail, under this bill the Interior Secretary may refer the matter to 
the ``Intergovernmental Dispute Resolution Panel'' consisting of 
representatives of the departments of Interior, Justice, and Treasury, 
Indian tribal governments, and State governments.
  Rather than create an entirely new mechanism, the framework provided 
by this bill relies on existing mediation services provided by the 
Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service to assist the Panel in 
carrying out its duties in arriving at fair agreements.
  The history of state-tribal relations is one full of acrimony with 
brief periods of cooperation. The tax issue is an emotional one with a 
long history, Mr. President, but I am hopeful that fair and equitable 
solutions to matters involving states, tribes and taxation can be 
developed with the input of all affected parties.
  I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the bill be printed in the 
Record and urge my colleagues to support this important measure.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 615

       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 ``Intergovernmental Tax 
     Agreement Act of 1999''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS; PURPOSES.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds that--

[[Page 4444]]

       (1) Indian tribal governments exercise governmental 
     authority and powers over persons and activities that occur 
     on Indian lands;
       (2) a dual State-tribal tax burden on transactions by 
     Indian tribes and members of Indian tribes with non-Indian 
     persons and entities undermines the ability of Indian tribes 
     to finance governmental functions and programs of those 
     Indian tribes;
       (3) the apportionment of taxes from commercial activities 
     occurring on Indian lands should take into account the 
     government services provided by the State and the Indian 
     tribe involved to members of that Indian tribe and other 
     individuals residing on those lands;
       (4) the governments of Indian tribes and States have 
     negotiated and entered into more than 200 tax compacts, and 
     those compacts cover a variety of commodities and retail 
     taxes;
       (5) in cases in which a tax compact between an Indian tribe 
     and a State is not in effect, conflicts between the State and 
     Indian tribe may require the active involvement of the United 
     States in the role of the United States as a trustee for the 
     Indian tribe;
       (6) alternative dispute resolution--
       (A) has been used to resolve successfully disputes in the 
     public and private sectors;
       (B) results in expedited decisionmaking; and
       (C) is less costly and less contentious than litigation; 
     and
       (7) it is necessary to facilitate intergovernmental 
     agreements between Indian tribes and States and political 
     subdivisions thereof.
       (b) Purposes.--The purposes of this Act are as follows:
       (1) To strengthen the economies of Indian tribes.
       (2) To encourage and facilitate tax agreements between the 
     governments of Indian tribes and State governments.

     SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act:
       (1) Compact.--The term ``compact'' means a written 
     agreement between a State and an Indian tribe concerning the 
     collection and remittance of--
       (A) applicable State taxes on retail commercial 
     transactions involving non-Indians on Indian lands of that 
     Indian tribe; or
       (B) covered tribal equivalency taxes.
       (2) Covered tribal equivalency tax.--The term ``covered 
     tribal equivalency tax'' means a tribal equivalency tax--
       (A) with a rate that is equal to or greater than the rate 
     of an applicable State sales or excise tax for transactions 
     for which the tax is imposed; and
       (B)(i) that is used to--
       (I) fund tribal government operations or programs;
       (II) provide for the general welfare of the Indian tribe 
     and the members of that Indian tribe;
       (III) promote the economic development of that Indian 
     tribe; or
       (IV) assist in funding operations of local governmental 
     agencies; or
       (ii) that is a fuel or highway tax, with respect to which 
     the revenues derived from the tax are used only for highway 
     and transportation purposes.
       (3) Indian lands.--The term ``Indian lands'' means, with 
     respect to an Indian tribe--
       (A) lands within the reservation of that Indian tribe; and
       (B) other lands over which the Indian tribe exercises 
     governmental jurisdiction.
       (4) Indian tribe.--The term ``Indian tribe'' has the 
     meaning given that term in section 4(e) of the Indian Self-
     Determination and Education Assistance Act (25 U.S.C. 
     450b(e)).
       (5) Non-indian.--The term ``non-Indian'' means a person who 
     is not--
       (A) an Indian tribe;
       (B) comprised of members of an Indian tribe; or
       (C) a member of an Indian tribe.
       (6) Panel.--The term ``Panel'' means the Intergovernmental 
     Dispute Resolution Panel established under section 5.
       (7) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
     of the Interior.
       (8) State.--The term ``State'' means each of the 50 States.
       (9) Tribal equivalency tax.--The term ``tribal equivalency 
     tax'' means a tax that--
       (A) is imposed by the tribal government of an Indian tribe 
     on retail commercial transactions that involve non-Indians on 
     Indian lands within the jurisdiction of that Indian tribe; 
     and
       (B) is in addition to any State tax that may be imposed.

     SEC. 4. INTERGOVERNMENTAL TAX AGREEMENTS.

       (a) In General.--The consent of the United States is 
     granted to States and Indian tribes to enter into compacts 
     and agreements in accordance with this Act.
       (b) Compact Negotiations.--An Indian tribe may request the 
     Secretary to initiate negotiations on the part of that Indian 
     tribe with a State for the purpose of entering into a tax 
     compact under this section. A State may request the Secretary 
     to initiate negotiations between an Indian tribe and the 
     State to enter into such a tax compact.
       (c) Notification.--The Secretary shall notify each affected 
     Indian tribe or State of any request made under subsection 
     (b).
       (d) Requirements for Request for Initiation of 
     Negotiations.--
       (1) Written request.--A request by an Indian tribe or State 
     under subsection (a) shall be in writing.
       (2) Response.--Not later than 30 days after receiving a 
     request referred to in paragraph (1), the Secretary shall 
     issue a written response to the Indian tribe or State that 
     submitted the request.
       (e) Commencement of Negotiations; Completion of 
     Negotiations.--
       (1) Commencement of negotiations.--Not later than 30 days 
     after the date specified in subsection (d), the Secretary 
     shall commence negotiations with respect to the tax compact 
     that is the subject of the request submitted by the Indian 
     tribe or State.
       (2) Completion of negotiations.--Not later than 120 days 
     after the commencement of the negotiations under paragraph 
     (1), the parties shall complete the negotiations, unless the 
     parties agree to an extension of the period of time for 
     completion of the negotiations.
       (f) Mediation.--The Secretary shall initiate a mediation 
     process, with the goal of achieving a tax compact, if--
       (1) by the date specified in subsection (e)(1), the party 
     that was requested to enter into negotiations, failed to 
     respond to that request; or
       (2) upon the completion of an applicable period for 
     negotiations, as determined under subsection (e)(2), the 
     parties have failed to execute a compact.

     SEC. 5. INTERGOVERNMENTAL DISPUTE RESOLUTION PANEL.

       (a) Establishment.--There is established the 
     Intergovernmental Dispute Resolution Panel.
       (b) Membership of the Panel.--
       (1) In general.--The Panel shall consist of--
       (A) 1 representative from the Department of the Interior;
       (B) 1 representative from the Department of Justice;
       (C) 1 representative from the Department of the Treasury;
       (D) 1 representative of State governments; and
       (E) 1 representative of tribal governments of Indian 
     tribes.
       (2) Chairperson.--The members of the Panel shall select a 
     Chairperson from among the members of the Panel.
       (c) Duties of Panel.--To the extent allowable by law, the 
     Panel may consider and render a decision on the following:
       (1) If negotiations and mediation conducted under section 4 
     do not result in the execution of a compact, a dispute 
     between the State and Indian tribe that is referred to the 
     Panel at the discretion of the Secretary.
       (2) Any claim involving the legitimacy of a claim for the 
     collection or payment of retail taxes claimed by a State with 
     respect to transactions conducted on Indian lands (including 
     counterclaims, setoffs, or related claims submitted or filed 
     by an Indian tribe in question regarding an original claim 
     involving that Indian tribe).
       (d) Federal Mediation Conciliation Service.--
       (1) In general.--In a manner consistent with this Act, the 
     Panel shall consult with the Federal Mediation Conciliation 
     Service (referred to in this subsection as the ``Service'') 
     established under section 202 of the National Labor Relations 
     Act (29 U.S.C. 172).
       (2) Duties of service.--The Service shall, upon request of 
     the Panel and in a manner consistent with applicable law, 
     provide services to the Panel to aid in resolving disputes 
     brought before the Panel.

     SEC. 6. JUDICIAL ENFORCEMENT.

       (a) In General.--Except as provided in subsections (b) and 
     (c), the district courts of the United States shall have 
     original jurisdiction with respect to--
       (1) the enforcement of any compact entered into under this 
     Act; and
       (2) any civil action, claim, counterclaim, or setoff, 
     brought by any party with respect to a compact entered into 
     under this Act to secure equitable relief, including 
     injunctive and declaratory relief.
       (b) Damages.--No action to recover damages arising out of 
     or in connection with an agreement or compact entered into 
     under this Act may be brought, except as specifically 
     provided for in that agreement or compact.
       (c) Consent to Suit.--Each compact entered into under this 
     Act shall specify that each party to the compact--
       (1) consents to litigation to enforce the compact; and
       (2) to the extent necessary to enforce that compact, waives 
     any defense of sovereign immunity.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Ms. COLLINS:
  S. 617. A bill to amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to 
provide for coverage under the medicare program of insulin pumps as 
items of durable medical equipment; to the Committee on Finance.


               medicare insulin pump coverage act of 1999

  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, diabetes is a serious and potentially 
life-threatening disease affecting more

[[Page 4445]]

than 16 million Americans at a cost of more than $105 billion annually. 
Moreover, since 3 million elderly Medicare beneficiaries have been 
diagnosed with diabetes, and another 3 million are likely to have the 
disease but not know it, nowhere is the economic impact of diabetes 
felt more strongly than in the Medicare Program.
  Treating these seniors for the often devastating complications 
associated with diabetes accounts for more than one-quarter of all 
Medicare expenditures. Therefore, helping diabetic seniors avoid the 
complications of their disease will not only improve the quality of 
their lives but also help reduce the economic burden that diabetes 
places on Medicare. While there is no known cure, diabetes is largely a 
treatable disease. Many people who have diabetes can often lead 
relatively normal, active lives as long as they stick to a proper diet, 
carefully monitor the amount of sugar or glucose in their blood and 
take their medication, which may or may not include insulin.
  However, if these people with diabetes are unable to follow or do not 
follow this regimen, they put themselves at risk of blindness, loss of 
limbs and have an increased chance of heart disease, kidney failure and 
stroke. Therefore, preventive services for people with diabetes has the 
potential to save a great deal of money that would otherwise go for 
hospitalizations or acute care costs--not to mention a great deal of 
unnecessary pain and suffering.
  Congress recently took a number of important steps to improve 
Medicare coverage of preventive care for diabetics. Prior to the 
enactment of the balanced budget amendment in 1997, Medicare covered 
diabetics' self-maintenance education services in inpatient or 
hospital-based settings and in limited outpatient settings, 
specifically hospital outpatient departments or rural health clinics. 
Medicare did not, however, cover education services if they were given 
in any other outpatient setting, such as a doctor's office. Moreover, 
while Medicare did cover the cost of blood-testing strips used to 
monitor the sugar in the blood, the program did so for only Type I 
diabetics who require insulin to control their disease.
  The balanced budget amendment of 1997 rightly expanded Medicare to 
cover all outpatient self-management training services as well as 
providing uniform coverage of blood-testing strips for all persons with 
diabetes. With the enactment of the balanced budget amendment, we made 
significant progress toward improving care for our senior citizens with 
diabetes. However, there is more that we can do.
  External insulin infusion pumps have proven to be much more effective 
in controlling blood glucose levels than conventional therapy injection 
therapy for insulin-dependent diabetics whose blood sugar levels are 
difficult to control. Such pumps help them to avoid the expensive 
complications and suffering resulting from uncontrolled diabetes. 
However, Medicare currently does not cover these pumps, even when they 
have been prescribed as medically necessary by a patient's physician.
  I am, therefore, pleased to introduce today legislation, the Medicare 
Insulin Pump Coverage Act of 1999, that would expand Medicare coverage 
to include insulin infusion pumps for certain Type I diabetics.
  External insulin pumps are neither investigational nor experimental. 
They are widely accepted by health care professionals involved in 
treating parties with diabetes. Moreover, studies such as the Diabetes 
Control and Complications Trial sponsored by the National Institutes of 
Health have established that maintaining blood glucose levels as close 
to normal as possible is the key to preventing devastating 
complications from this disease. For many patients, the use of an 
infusion pump is the only way that optimal blood glucose control can be 
safely achieved. That is why virtually all other third party payers--
including many State Medicaid Programs and CHAMPUS--cover the device. 
Moreover, there is precedent in Medicare since it currently does cover 
infusion pumps for numerous cancer drugs, as well as for pain control 
medications.
  The need for this legislation became apparent to me based on my 
attempts to help one of my constituents, Nona Frederich of Raymond, ME. 
She is an example of the Medicare patient who would benefit from the 
pump but who is currently being denied what is for her the most 
effective form of glucose control. Nona has been an insulin-dependent 
diabetic since 1962. Because of her extremely volatile insulin 
sensitivity, her diabetic specialists placed her on an insulin infusion 
pump in January 1982. Until she reached the age of 65, the cost of the 
pump and operating supplies were underwritten in large part by her 
insurer.
  In March of 1995 it became necessary for Nona to purchase a new 
infusion pump. However, by this time, she was now on Medicare and 
Medicare refused to cover it, even though her doctor had prescribed it 
as clearly being medically necessary. With the help of my Portland 
office, the Frederichs worked their way through the Health Care 
Financing Administration system of appeals. Unfortunately, in January 
of last year, they received final notification of a negative decision. 
Their only remaining option is to file a civil suit which they are 
simply not in a position to pursue.
  The Frederichs literally have notebooks filled with documentation of 
the procedures they followed and the evidence they submitted. Moreover, 
they personally paid close to $5,000 in original pump costs and 
supplies for which they received no reimbursement. For a Medicare 
beneficiary with a limited income, these kinds of costs would be 
devastating and would place the pump--the medically necessary pump--
completely out of reach. In such a case, they would be forced to return 
to or to continue with conventional insulin therapy which simply just 
may not be as effective in controlling blood sugar. As a consequence, 
these patients are admitted to the hospital over and over again, and 
Medicare now picks up the bill--a far greater bill than if Medicare had 
simply paid for the pump in the first place.
  While potentially devastating for an individual, the financial costs 
to Medicare of expanding coverage to include the insulin infusion pump 
will not be great. Under my bill, the pump would have to be prescribed 
by a physician and the beneficiary would have to be a Type I diabetic 
experiencing severe swings of high and low blood glucose levels. Of the 
estimated 3 million Medicare beneficiaries with diabetes, only about 5 
percent are Type I, or insulin dependent; of these, it is estimated 
that the pump would be appropriate for only about 4 percent. Mr. 
President, what a difference it would make for those individuals.
  The American Diabetes Association, the Juvenile Diabetes Foundation, 
the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists and the American 
Association of Diabetes Educators, as well as officials at the Centers 
for Disease Control, all have advocated expanding Medicare to cover 
insulin infusion pumps for Type I diabetics who otherwise would have 
great difficulty in controlling their blood sugar.
  I am pleased to introduce legislation today to do just that. I urge 
all of my colleagues to join me in support of this important 
legislation, legislation that would not cost much money but would 
enrich the lives of those diabetics who need these pumps immeasurably.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of the legislation as well as 
the letters of support from the American Diabetes Association and the 
Juvenile Diabetes Foundation be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                 S. 617

       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 ``Medicare Insulin Pump 
     Coverage Act of 1999''.

     SEC. 2. COVERAGE OF INSULIN PUMPS UNDER MEDICARE.

       (a) Inclusion as Item of Durable Medical Equipment.--
     Section 1861(n) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 
     1395x(n)) is amended by inserting before the semicolon the 
     following: ``, and includes insulin infusion pumps (as 
     defined in subsection (uu)) prescribed by the

[[Page 4446]]

     physician of an individual with Type I diabetes who is 
     experiencing severe swings of high and low blood glucose 
     levels and has successfully completed a training program that 
     meets standards established by the Secretary or who has used 
     such a pump without interruption for at least 18 months 
     immediately before enrollment under part B''.
       (b) Definition of Insulin Infusion Pump.--Section 1861 of 
     the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395x) is amended by 
     adding at the end the following:

                        ``Insulin Infusion Pump

       ``(uu) The term `insulin infusion pump' means an infusion 
     pump, approved by the Federal Food and Drug Administration, 
     that provides for the computerized delivery of insulin for 
     individuals with diabetes in lieu of multiple daily manual 
     insulin injections.''.
       (c) Payment for Supplies Relating to Infusion Pumps.--
     Section 1834(a)(2)(A) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 
     1395m(a)(2)(A)) is amended--
       (1) in clause (ii), by striking ``or'' at the end;
       (2) in clause (iii), by inserting ``or'' at the end; and
       (3) by inserting after clause (iii) the following:
       ``(iv) which is an accessory used in conjunction with an 
     insulin infusion pump (as defined in section 1861(uu)),''.
       (d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply with respect to items of durable medical 
     equipment furnished under title XVIII of the Social Security 
     Act (42 U.S.C. 1395 et seq.) on or after the date of 
     enactment of this Act.
                                  ____


   Statement by the American Diabetes Association in Support of the 
                   Medicare Insulin Pump Coverage Act

       The American Diabetes Association lends its full support to 
     passage of the Medicare Insulin Pump Coverage Act in 
     Congress. Effective maintenance of blood glucose levels is 
     imperative if people with diabetes are to forestall the onset 
     of the complications of diabetes, such as cardiovascular 
     disease, end-stage renal disease, blindness or amputations. 
     External insulin infusion pumps have proven to be more 
     effective in controlling blood glucose levels than 
     conventional injection therapy for insulin-dependent people 
     whose blood sugar levels are difficult to control. Many, 
     including those who have had access to the insulin pump prior 
     to becoming a Medicare beneficiary, need access to the pump 
     for better control. Medicare access to the insulin pump will 
     help Medicare enhance the quality of life for people with 
     diabetes and contain the costly complications of diabetes.
       Diabetes is a disease that requires a lifetime of medical 
     care and self-treatment. People with diabetes must have full 
     access to supplies, equipment and education. The Diabetes 
     Control and Complications Trial (DCCT), a 10-year clinical 
     study conducted by the National Institutes of Health, proved 
     that maintaining blood glucose levels as close to normal as 
     possible is the key to preventing the devastating 
     complications associated with diabetes.
       ``Unfortunately, many health insurance plans, including 
     Medicare, do not provide comprehensive coverage for the 
     supplies and education people with diabetes need to control 
     their disease,'' said Gerald Bernstein, MD, President of the 
     American Diabetes Association. ``For example, Medicare does 
     not provide coverage for the insulin pump,'' Bernstein added.
       According to the Health Care Financing Administration 
     (HCFA), the federal agency responsible for administering the 
     Medicare program, the insulin pump is not covered because 
     ``there [is no] medical advantage to using controlled 
     continuous insulin infusion (via infusion pump) rather than 
     conventional multiple daily injections to treat diabetes.''
       Bernstein added, ``The use of the insulin pump has proven 
     to be effective for individuals who, despite multiple insulin 
     injections and frequent monitoring, have unstable diabetes. 
     For many of these individuals, use of the insulin pump is a 
     life-enhancing decision.'' The Medicare Insulin Pump Coverage 
     Act will require Medicare to cover insulin pumps for 
     beneficiaries with Type 1 diabetes who are experiencing 
     severe swings of high and low blood glucose levels or who 
     have used an insulin pump without interruption for at least 
     18 months immediately before enrollment under Medicare Part 
     B.
       According to Bernstein, ``This legislation is especially 
     important for those individuals who face the prospect of 
     losing their coverage of the pump upon entering Medicare. Now 
     is the right time for HCFA to move forward with coverage of 
     the insulin pump in these limited circumstances.''
       For these reasons the American Diabetes Association 
     strongly supports The Medicare Insulin Pump Coverage Act and 
     applauds Senator Susan M. Collins (R-ME) for introducing this 
     important legislation. Passage of the Collins Bill will 
     dramatically improve the lives of those striving to maintain 
     a healthy life, while at the same time, reducing costly 
     hospital stays.
                                  ____

         Juvenile Diabetes Foundation International, The Diabetes 
           Research Foundation,
                                    Washington, DC, March 8, 1999.
     Hon. Susan M. Collins,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Collins: On behalf of the Juvenile Diabetes 
     Foundation International (JDF), I want to express our strong 
     support for your insulin pump legislation which would ensure 
     that pumps are covered by the Medicare program.
       Diabetes is a devastating disease that affects 16 million 
     Americans and 120 million people worldwide. A new case of 
     diabetes is diagnosed every forty seconds, and diabetes kills 
     one American every three minutes. Diabetes is the leading 
     cause of kidney failure, adult blindness, and nontraumatic 
     amputations, and it substantially increases the risk of 
     having a heart attack or stroke. In all, the life expectancy 
     of people with diabetes averages 15 years less than that of 
     people without diabetes.
       As you know, people with diabetes who use insulin take up 
     to five injections daily to treat their diabetes. However, 
     injection therapy does not work will for many diabetes 
     sufferers. In these and other cases, insulin pumps are an 
     effective and critical tool in assisting persons with 
     diabetes in more closely controlling blood glucose levels. 
     Better control of blood glucose levels is likely to lead to 
     fewer health complications from diabetes, and will result in 
     enormous cost savings to the Medicare system where one in 
     four Medicare dollars presently goes to pay for health care 
     of people with diabetes.
       Senator Collins, the JDF applauds you for introducing this 
     important legislation to help our nation's seniors and other 
     Medicare-covered Americans have access to cost-effective and 
     life-improving medical supplies such as the insulin pump.
           Sincerely,
                                                   Leah J. Mullin,
                               Chairman, JDF Government Relations.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. MOYNIHAN:
  S. 618. A bill to provide for the declassification of the journal 
kept by Glenn T. Seaborg while serving as chairman of the Atomic Energy 
Commission; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.


                          private relief bill

 Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce 
legislation I introduced in the 105th Congress to require the 
Department of Energy to return the journal Dr. Glenn T. Seaborg kept as 
Chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission. Dr. Glenn T. Seaborg, who 
died on February 25 at the age of 86, was the co-discoverer of 
plutonium, and led a research team which created a total of nine 
elements, all of which are heavier than uranium. For this he was 
awarded the Nobel Prize in Chemistry in 1951 which he shared with Dr. 
Edwin M. McMillan.
  Dr. Seaborg kept a journal while chairman of the AEC. The journal 
consisted of a diary written at home each evening, correspondence, 
announcements, minutes, and the like. He was careful about classified 
matters; nothing was included that could not be made public, and the 
journal was reviewed by the AEC before his departure in 1971. 
Nevertheless, more than a decade after his departure from the AEC, the 
Department of Energy subjected two copies of Dr. Seaborg's journals--
one of which it had borrowed--to a number of classification reviews. He 
came unannounced to my Senate office in September of 1997 to tell me of 
the problems he was having getting his journal released, saying it was 
something he wished to have resolved prior to his death. Although he 
has left us, it is fitting that his journal should finally be returned 
to his estate. This bill would do just that. I introduced a bill to 
return to Dr. Seaborg his journal in its original, unredacted form but 
to no avail, so bureaucracy triumphed. It was never returned. Now he 
has left us without having the satisfaction of resolving the fate of 
his journal. It is devastating that a man who gave so much of his life 
to his country was so outrageously treated by his own 
government.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. WELLSTONE:
  S. 619. A bill to provide for a community development venture capital 
program; to the Committee on Small Business.


    THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT VENTURE CAPITAL ASSISTANCE ACT OF 1999

 Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the 
Community Development Venture Capital Assistance Act of 1999. This bill 
would create a demonstration program to promote small business 
development and entrepreneurship in economically distressed communities 
through support of Community Development Venture Capital funds.

[[Page 4447]]

  While our nation has enjoyed a historic period of economic growth 
over the past several years, there are concentrated pockets of poverty, 
in rural and urban areas, which have not experienced development of 
jobs and opportunities for its residents. Small businesses, which have 
led America's economic expansion, have not been able to gain a toehold 
in these areas. A major reason for this lackluster performance is 
inability for entrepreneurs in economically distressed areas to access 
capital.
  No business can grow without infusions of capital for equipment 
purchases, to conduct research, to expand capacity, or to build 
infrastructure. At some point all successful ventures outgrow 
incubation in the entrepreneur's garage or living room; additional 
staff must be hired and the complexity of managing supply and demand 
increases. Yet it is clear that throughout the country there are small 
business owners who are being starved of the capital necessary to take 
this step. They have viable businesses or ideas for businesses but 
cannot fully transform their aspirations into reality because of this 
financial roadblock.
  Traditional venture capital firms are not meeting the need for equity 
capital in disadvantaged communities. Such investments are risky in the 
best of circumstances, but they can and do succeed with adequate time 
and attention. These communities need patient investors who are willing 
to work closely with small business owners to realize a financial 
return over the long term. Often, the investments needed are smaller 
than those made by traditional sources. Throughout America, 
organizations known as Community Development Venture Capital funds are 
making these kinds of equity investments in communities and are 
producing excellent results.
  CDVC funds make equity investments in small businesses for two 
purposes: to reap a financial return to the fund, and to generate a 
social benefit for the community through creation of well paying jobs. 
This ``double bottom line'' is what makes CDVC funds unique. There are 
around 30 CDVC funds currently operating throughout the country, in 
both rural and urban areas. These funds are demonstrating the success 
of socially conscious investment and entrepreneurial solutions to 
social and economic problems.
  My own state of Minnesota is home to a good example of a seasoned, 
and successful CDVC fund: Northeast Ventures Corporation of Duluth. NEV 
serves a seven county rural area and focuses on creating good jobs in 
high value-added industries. NEV targets 50% of the jobs created 
through investments to women, and to low income and structurally 
unemployed persons. They also require portfolio companies to offer 
employees an opportunity to participate in a health care plan to which 
the employer contributes. The following story illustrates an NEV 
achievement:
  In 1990 a group of entrepreneurs approached Northeast Ventures about 
setting up a car wash equipment manufacturing facility in Tower, a town 
of 508 people, in one of the poorest parts of Northeastern Minnesota. 
While NEV thought that the market opportunity was attractive, the 
company, called Powerain, had an incomplete business plan and lacked a 
Chief Operating Officer. NEV also felt that the business provided a 
good opportunity to create jobs and bring some economic vitality to an 
area that needed it badly.
  Other assistance was needed before NEV could provide financing for 
the effort. Northeast worked closely with Powerain's founders to revise 
the business plan and identify a strong CEO candidate for the company. 
Northeast also invested $200,000 in equity into the business.
  Northeast's involvement did not stop after making its first 
investment. NEV staff conducted the strategic planning sessions of 
Powerain and continue to be essential in developing the company's 
strategic plan. They assist in identifying the need for key personnel; 
recruit the necessary staff; and are integral in qualifying the short 
list of candidates. Over a multi year period, NEV has talked daily with 
the Powerain CEO regarding subjects as diverse as sales, distributor 
relationships and the financial structure of loans. Over an eight year 
period, NEV has assisted Powerain in all subsequent rounds of financing 
totaling $826,932.
  Powerain had a record sales year in 1998 and is expecting another 
record year in 1999. The company currently employs 20 full-time people, 
and expects to increase that number significantly in the future. The 
company provides ongoing training to its staff and entry level 
positions begin at $8 an hour--with full benefits. Most employees earn 
well in excess of $10 per hour. Success stories such as these are 
typical for CDVC funds.
  The purpose of the Community Development Venture Capital Assistance 
Act is to grow the capacity of the CDVC fund ``industry'' by 
authorizing a $20 million four year demonstration program through the 
Small Business Administration. First, the bill would authorize $15 
million for SBA grants to private, nonprofit organizations with 
expertise in making venture capital investments in poor communities. 
This will provide hands-on technical assistance to the new and emerging 
CDVC funds. These grants could also be used to fund the start up and 
operating costs of new CDVC organizations. Grants to these intermediary 
organizations would be matched dollar for dollar with funds raised by 
the intermediary from non-Federal sources. Second, the bill would 
provide $5 million in SBA grants to colleges, universities, and other 
firms or organizations--public or private--to create and operate 
training programs, intern programs, a national conference, and academic 
research and study dealing with community development venture capital.
  This legislation would provide support for entrepreneurial solutions 
to economic development issues in rural and urban America. It will 
allow the Federal government to promote what's working in distressed 
communities. Last year, the Senate approved a nearly identical 
provision as part of an SBA technical amendments bill. I was pleased 
that the demonstration program enjoyed bipartisan support last year and 
I hope it will again.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. SARBANES (for himself, Mr. Warner, Mrs. Murray, and Mr. 
        Campbell):
  S. 620. A bill to grant a Federal charter to Korean War Veterans 
Association, Incorporated, and for other purposes; to the Committee on 
the Judiciary.


     legislation to grant a federal charter to korean war veterans 
                              association

 Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, today I am introducing 
legislation together with Senators Warner, Campbell, and Murray, which 
would grant a Federal Charter to the Korean War Veterans Association, 
Incorporated. This legislation recognizes and honors the 5.7 million 
Americans who fought and served during the Korean War for their 
struggles and sacrifices on behalf of freedom and the principles and 
ideals of our Nation.
  Mr. President, the year 2000 will mark the 50th Anniversary of the 
Korean War. In June 1950 when the North Korea People's Army swept 
across the 38th Parallel to occupy Seoul, South Korea, members of our 
Armed Forces--including many from the State of Maryland--immediately 
answered the call of the U.N. to repel this forceful invasion. Without 
hesitation, these soldiers travelled to an unfamiliar corner of the 
world, and joining an unprecedented multinational force comprised of 22 
countries, they risked their lives to protect freedom. The Americans 
who led this international effort were true patriots who fought with 
remarkable courage.
  In battles such as Pork Chop Hill, the Inchon Landing and the frozen 
Chosin Reservoir, which was fought in temperatures as low as 57 degrees 
below 0, they faced some of the most brutal combat in history. By the 
time the fighting had ended, 8,177 Americans were listed as missing or 
prisoners of war--some of whom are still missing--and 54,246 Americans 
had died, the most of any American war in the 20th Century. One hundred 
and thirty-one Korean War Veterans were awarded the

[[Page 4448]]

Nation's highest commendation for combat bravery, the Medal of Honor. 
Ninety-four of these soldiers gave their lives in the process. There is 
an engraving on the Korean War Veterans Memorial which reflects these 
losses and how brutal a war this was. It reads, ``Freedom is not 
Free.'' Yet, as a nation, we have done little more than establish this 
memorial to publicly acknowledge the bravery of those who fought the 
Korean War. The Korean War has been termed by many as the ``Forgotten 
War.'' Mr. President, freedom is not free. We owe our Korean War 
Veterans a debt of gratitude. Granting this federal charter--at no cost 
to the government--is a small expression of appreciation that we as a 
nation can offer to these men and women, one which will enable them to 
work as a unified front to ensure that the ``Forgotten War'' is 
forgotten no more.
  The Korean War Veterans Association was originally incorporated on 
June 25, 1985. Since its first annual reunion and memorial service in 
Arlington, Virginia, where its members decided to develop a national 
focus and strong commitment to service, the association has grown 
substantially to a membership of over 25,000. At present, the KWVA is 
the only veterans organization comprised exclusively of Korean War 
Veterans and one of the few such organizations of its size without a 
federal charter. Over the years, it has established a strong record of 
service and commitment to fellow Korean War veterans, ranging from its 
efforts on behalf of Project Freedom to its successful effort to 
construct a national Korean War Veterans Memorial on the Mall. A 
federal charter would allow the Association to continue and grow its 
mission and further its charitable and benevolent causes. Specifically, 
it will afford the Korean War Veterans' Association the same status as 
other major veterans organizations and allow it to participate as part 
of select committees with other congressionally chartered veterans and 
military groups. A federal charter will also accelerate the 
Association's ``accreditation'' with the Department of Veterans Affairs 
which will enable its members to assist in processing veterans' claims.
  Mr. President, the Korean War Veterans have asked for very little in 
return for their service and sacrifice. I urge my colleagues to join me 
in supporting this legislation and ask that the text of the measure be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 620

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

     SECTION 1. GRANT OF FEDERAL CHARTER TO KOREAN WAR VETERANS 
                   ASSOCIATION, INCORPORATED.

       (a) Grant of Charter.--Part B of subtitle II of title 36, 
     United States Code, is amended--
       (1) by striking the following:

                   ``CHAPTER 1201--[RESERVED]''; and

       (2) by inserting the following:

     ``CHAPTER 1201--KOREAN WAR VETERANS ASSOCIATION, INCORPORATED

``Sec.
``120101. Organization.
``120102. Purposes.
``120103. Membership.
``120104. Governing body.
``120105. Powers.
``120106. Restrictions.
``120107. Duty to maintain corporate and tax-exempt status.
``120108. Records and inspection.
``120109. Service of process.
``120110. Liability for acts of officers and agents.
``120111. Annual report.

     ``Sec. 120101. Organization

       ``(a) Federal Charter.--Korean War Veterans Association, 
     Incorporated (in this chapter, the `corporation'), 
     incorporated in the State of New York, is a federally 
     chartered corporation.
       ``(b) Expiration of Charter.--If the corporation does not 
     comply with the provisions of this chapter, the charter 
     granted by subsection (a) expires.

     ``Sec. 120102. Purposes

       ``The purposes of the corporation are as provided in its 
     articles of incorporation and include--
       ``(1) organizing, promoting, and maintaining for benevolent 
     and charitable purposes an association of persons who have 
     seen honorable service in the Armed Forces during the Korean 
     War, and of certain other persons;
       ``(2) providing a means of contact and communication among 
     members of the corporation;
       ``(3) promoting the establishment of, and establishing, war 
     and other memorials commemorative of persons who served in 
     the Armed Forces during the Korean War; and
       ``(4) aiding needy members of the corporation, their wives 
     and children, and the widows and children of persons who were 
     members of the corporation at the time of their death.

     ``Sec. 120103. Membership

       ``Eligibility for membership in the corporation, and the 
     rights and privileges of members of the corporation, are as 
     provided in the bylaws of the corporation.

     ``Sec. 120104. Governing body

       ``(a) Board of Directors.--The board of directors of the 
     corporation, and the responsibilities of the board of 
     directors, are as provided in the articles of incorporation 
     of the corporation.
       ``(b) Officers.--The officers of the corporation, and the 
     election of the officers of the corporation, are as provided 
     in the articles of incorporation.

     ``Sec. 120105. Powers

       ``The corporation has only the powers provided in its 
     bylaws and articles of incorporation filed in each State in 
     which it is incorporated.

     ``Sec. 120106. Restrictions

       ``(a) Stock and Dividends.--The corporation may not issue 
     stock or declare or pay a dividend.
       ``(b) Political Activities.--The corporation, or a director 
     or officer of the corporation as such, may not contribute to, 
     support, or participate in any political activity or in any 
     manner attempt to influence legislation.
       ``(c) Loan.--The corporation may not make a loan to a 
     director, officer, or employee of the corporation.
       ``(d) Claim of Governmental Approval or Authority.--The 
     corporation may not claim congressional approval, or the 
     authority of the United States, for any of its activities.

     ``Sec. 120107. Duty to maintain corporate and tax-exempt 
       status

       ``(a) Corporate Status.--The corporation shall maintain its 
     status as a corporation incorporated under the laws of the 
     State of New York.
       ``(b) Tax-Exempt Status.--The corporation shall maintain 
     its status as an organization exempt from taxation under the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (26 U.S.C. 1 et seq.).

     ``Sec. 120108. Records and inspection

       ``(a) Records.--The corporation shall keep--
       ``(1) correct and complete records of account;
       ``(2) minutes of the proceedings of its members, board of 
     directors, and committees having any of the authority of its 
     board of directors; and
       ``(3) at its principal office, a record of the names and 
     addresses of its members entitled to vote on matters relating 
     to the corporation.
       ``(b) Inspection.--A member entitled to vote on matters 
     relating to the corporation, or an agent or attorney of the 
     member, may inspect the records of the corporation for any 
     proper purpose, at any reasonable time.

     ``Sec. 120109. Service of process

       ``The corporation shall have a designated agent in the 
     District of Columbia to receive service of process for the 
     corporation. Notice to or service on the agent is notice to 
     or service on the Corporation.

     ``Sec. 120110. Liability for acts of officers and agents

       ``The corporation is liable for the acts of its officers 
     and agents acting within the scope of their authority.

     ``Sec. 120111. Annual report

       ``The corporation shall submit an annual report to Congress 
     on the activities of the corporation during the preceding 
     fiscal year. The report shall be submitted at the same time 
     as the report of the audit required by section 10101 of this 
     title. The report may not be printed as a public document.''.
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of chapters at the 
     beginning of subtitle II of title 36, United States Code, is 
     amended by striking the item relating to chapter 1201 and 
     inserting the following new item:

``1201. Korean War Veterans Association, Incorporated.....120101''.....

                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. ROCKEFELLER (for himself, Mr. Dorgan, Mr. Burns, Mr. 
        Roberts, and Mr. Conrad):
  S. 621. A bill to enhance competition among and between rail carriers 
in order to ensure efficient rail service and reasonable rail rates in 
any case in which there is an absence of effective competition; to the 
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.


        RAILROAD COMPETITION AND SERVICE IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 1999

 Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a 
bill that will,

[[Page 4449]]

twenty years after the Staggers Rail Act, finally deliver the benefits 
of market competition to the railroad industry and its customers--the 
Railroad Competition and Service Improvement Act of 1999. I am joined 
in this effort by Senators Dorgan, Burns, Roberts and Conrad, and I 
thank them for their leadership on this bill for the benefit not only 
of rail customers but also the future health of the railroads 
themselves.
  As many of my colleagues know, there are certain issues that I feel 
especially strongly about, and all of them are issues that have far-
reaching consequences for the State of West Virginia and for our 
nation. Competition--or the lack thereof--in the railroad industry is 
one of those issues.
  In the United States we have a railroad industry that has gone from 
63 class I railroads in 1976 to 9 class I railroads today, of which 
only 5 control the vast majority of rail freight across the country: 2 
in the East, 2 in the West, and one down the Mississippi River in the 
middle of the country. We also have a railroad industry with service 
problems so expansive and so disruptive that grain and chemical and 
other manufacturers have lost tens of millions of dollars in recent 
years, must operate with the vulnerability of future service crises, 
and have no choice but to constantly be on the lookout for better and 
more reliable transportation options. And we have a railroad industry 
that seems continually to assert undue and anti-competitive power over 
its customers in increasing local monopoly situations.
  I believe the railroad industry is at a crossroads. It's been nearly 
twenty years since the Staggers Rail Act of 1980, which limited the 
regulation of the railroad industry by allowing government intervention 
only where a railroad customer has no effective means of competition. 
By many measures, the railroads are in far better financial health 
today, and rail freight transportation is far more safe, stable and 
efficient than in the dire days of the 1970s.
  Yet despite these apparent gains, shippers across the nation are 
broadly discontent. As a significant new report from the General 
Accounting Office confirms, rail shippers believe that in the aftermath 
of Staggers--and in direct conflict with the intent of Staggers--we 
have in fact created a system that very heavily, and with tremendous 
financial consequences, favors monopoly railroads and shuts shippers 
out of the regulatory process that is supposed to protect them.
  We have put in place a system that leaves 70 percent of shippers with 
poorer rate and service options than they need to run their businesses 
cost-efficiently, and a system in which nearly 60 percent of shippers 
fear retaliation from the railroads should they access the rate relief 
process--a process which costs between $500,000 and $3 million per 
complaint and can take up to 16 years to get a resolution. The GAO 
makes crystal clear that the rate relief process for shippers with no 
competitive rail options is too costly and too time-consuming to be 
effective.
  Now some would say that customers always want more and better 
service, always want lower prices, and always are unhappy--so we should 
discount their railroad customer concerns and leave the system alone. 
They would say that the railroads are happy with the status quo, so 
Staggers must be working well.
  To my mind, that's a cop-out. The ``shipping community'' is the 
backbone of our nation--they are our farmers, our auto and chemical 
manufacturers, our utilities, our coal miners, our forest products 
workers--and they're not just crying wolf. They have legitimate 
problems with a skewed system, and they deserve the Congress' full 
attention and a commitment to deal with increased concentration and a 
developing pattern of service problems by infusing some degree of real 
and effective competition into the railroad industry as a whole.
  The legislation we introduce today is designed to do just that: it 
will jump-start competition and uphold the common carrier obligation by 
requiring railroads to quote a rate on any given segment; it will 
reduce monopoly routing by facilitating terminal access; it will 
streamline the rate relief process by simplifying the market dominance 
test; it will restore the integrity of the Surface Transportation Board 
by eliminating its annual revenue adequacy pronouncements; it will 
bolster rail access for small farmers by creating a targeted rate 
relief process; and it will require the railroads to file monthly 
service performance reports with the Department of Transportation, 
similar to what we require of the airline industry, so that rail 
customers have access to the information they need to make good 
railroad and transportation choices.
  We intend to offer this legislation as an amendment to the Surface 
Transportation Board reauthorization legislation later this year, and 
we especially look forward to working with our colleagues on the 
Commerce and Agriculture Committees to that end.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 621

       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 ``Railroad Competition and 
     Service Improvement Act of 1999''.

     SEC. 2 PURPOSES.

       The purposes of this Act are--
       (1) to clarify the rail transportation policy of the United 
     States by requiring the Surface Transportation Board to 
     accord greater weight to the need for increased competition 
     between and among rail carriers and consistent and efficient 
     rail service in its decision making;
       (2) to eliminate unreasonable barriers to competition among 
     rail carriers serving the same geographic areas and ensure 
     that smaller carload or intermodal shippers are not precluded 
     from accessing rail systems due to volume requirements;
       (3) to ensure reasonable rail rates for captive rail 
     shippers;
       (4) to provide relief for certain agricultural facilities 
     lacking effective competitive alternatives; and
       (5) to remove unnecessary regulatory burdens from the rate 
     reasonableness procedures of the Surface Transportation 
     Board.

     SEC. 3. FINDINGS.

       The Congress finds that:
       (1) Prior to 1976, the Interstate Commerce Commission 
     regulated most of the rates that railroads charged shippers. 
     The Railroad Revitalization and Regulatory Act (1976) and the 
     Staggers Rail Act (1980) limited the regulation of the rail 
     industry by allowing the Interstate Commerce Commission to 
     regulate rates only where railroads have no effective 
     competition and established the Interstate Commerce 
     Commission's process for resolving rate disputes.
       (2) In 1976, when the Congress began the process of 
     railroad deregulation, there were 63 class I railroads in the 
     United States. By 1997, through mergers and other factors, 
     the number of class I railroads shrunk to nine.
       (3) The nine class I carriers accounted for more than 90 
     percent of the industry's freight revenue and 71 percent of 
     the industry's mileage operated in 1997.
       (4) Rail industry consolidation has diminished competition, 
     creating an even greater dependence upon a rate relief 
     process through a regulatory body such as the Surface 
     Transportation Board.
       (5) Agricultural, chemical, and utility industries in 
     particular rely heavily upon rail transportation, and 
     unreasonable rail rates and inadequate service have a 
     dramatic impact on these important industries.
       (6) According to a report issued by the General Accounting 
     Office, ``. . . [t]he Surface Transportation Board's standard 
     procedures for obtaining rate relief are highly complex and 
     time-consuming'' and the General Accounting Office estimates 
     that over ``70 percent [of shippers] believe that the time, 
     complexity, and costs of filing complaints are barriers that 
     often preclude them from seeking relief.''
       (7) The General Accounting Office analyzed all 41 rate 
     complaints filed with the Interstate Commerce Commission and 
     its successor, the Surface Transportation Board, since 1990 
     and found that each complaint cost shippers between $500,000 
     to $3 million apiece and took between a few months and 16 
     years to resolve.
       (8) The General Accounting Office surveyed over 700 
     shippers and found that--
       (A) 75 percent of the shippers believed that they are 
     overcharged with unreasonable rates and
       (B) over 70 percent of the shippers believed that the time, 
     complexity, and costs of filing complaints create 
     unsurmountable barriers and therefore preclude them form 
     pursuing the rate relief they are entitled to under the law.

[[Page 4450]]

       (9) The General Accounting Office survey of shippers 
     identified the following barriers to obtaining rate relief 
     under the current process:
       (A) The costs associated with filing complaints outweighs 
     the benefits of winning relief.
       (B) The rate complaint process is too complex and too 
     lengthy.
       (C) Developing the stand-alone revenue-to-variable cost 
     model is too costly.
       (D) Most shippers believe that the STB is most likely to 
     decide in favor of the railroad.
       (E) The discovery process is too difficult because the 
     shipper is dependent upon the railroad for all the necessary 
     data.
       (F) Responding to the railroads requests for discovery is 
     too difficult and time consuming.
       (G) Shippers fear reprisal from the railroad.
       (H) The Surface Transportation Board filing fee is too 
     high.
       (10) According to the General Accounting Office report, the 
     vast majority of shippers believe that the following changes 
     in the rate relief process are necessary to provide them with 
     the ability to seek the rate relief:
       (A) The Surface Transportation Board's time limit for 
     deciding a rate relief case should be shortened.
       (B) The complaint fee required upon filing should be 
     eliminated or reduced.
       (C) The market dominance requirement should be simplified.
       (D) Mandatory binding arbitration should be used to resolve 
     rate disputes.
       (E) The Surface Transportation Board's jurisdictional 
     threshold of 180% revenue-to-variable cost should be lowered.
       (11) According to the General Accounting Office report, 
     shippers believe that increasing competition in the railroad 
     industry would lower rates and diminish the need for a rate 
     complaint process. Proposals to increase railroad competition 
     identified in the report include the following:
       (A) Require the STB to grant trackage rights; require 
     reciprocal switching at the nearest junction or interchange 
     upon request of a shipper or competing railroad; and increase 
     rail access for shortline and regional railroads.
       (B) Overturn the STB's ``bottle neck'' decision by 
     requiring railroads to quote a rate for all route segments.
       (12) Consolidation in the railroad industry has diminished 
     competition, thwarting the intended objectives of 
     deregulation to allow competition to lower rates and improve 
     service.
       (13) The rate protection intended for shippers without 
     effective competition has been de-railed by a complex, 
     costly, and time-consuming maze of discovery, findings, and 
     appeals that take years and cost millions of dollars.
       (14) Because of diminished rail competition, a rate relief 
     process plagued with unsurmountable barriers and blanket 
     antitrust immunity unique to the railroad industry, captive 
     shippers have no effective recourse under the current system.

     SEC. 4. CLARIFICATION OF RAIL TRANSPORTATION POLICY.

       Section 10101 of title 49, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) by inserting ``(a) In General.--'' before ``In 
     regulating''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(b) Primary Objectives.--The primary objectives of the 
     rail transportation policy of the United States shall be--
       ``(1) to ensure effective competition among rail carriers 
     at origin and destination;
       ``(2) to maintain reasonable rates in the absence of 
     effective competition; and
       ``(3) to maintain consistent and efficient rail 
     transportation service to shippers, including the timely 
     provision of railcars requested by shippers; and
       ``(4) to ensure that smaller carload and intermodal 
     shippers are not precluded from accessing rail systems due to 
     volume requirements.''.

     SEC. 5. FOSTERING RAIL TO RAIL COMPETITION.

       (a) Establishment of Rate.--Section 11101(a) of title 49, 
     United States Code, is amended by inserting after the first 
     sentence the following: ``Upon the request of a shipper, a 
     rail carrier shall establish a rate for transportation and 
     provide service requested by the shipper between any two 
     points on the system of that carrier where traffic 
     originates, terminates, or may reasonably be interchanged. A 
     carrier shall establish a rate and provide service upon such 
     request without regard to--
       ``(1) whether the rate established is for only part of a 
     movement between an origin and a destination;
       ``(2) whether the shipper has made arrangements for 
     transportation for any other part of that movement; or
       ``(3) whether the shipper currently has a contract with any 
     rail carrier for part or all of its transportation needs over 
     the route of movement.

     ``If such a contract exists, the rate established by the 
     carrier shall not apply to transportation covered by the 
     contract.''.
       (b) Review of Reasonableness of Rates.--Section 10701(d) of 
     title 49, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) by redesignating paragraph (3) as paragraph (4); and
       (2) by inserting after paragraph (2) the following:
       ``(3) A shipper may challenge the reasonableness of any 
     rate established by a rail carrier in accordance with 
     sections 11101(a) and 10701(c) of this title. The Board shall 
     determine the reasonableness of the rate so challenged 
     without regard to--
       ``(A) whether the rate established is for only part of a 
     movement between an origin and a destination;
       ``(B) whether the shipper has made arrangements for 
     transportation for any other part of that movement; or
       ``(C) whether the shipper currently has a contract with a 
     rail carrier for any part of the rail traffic at issue, 
     provided that the rate prescribed by the Board shall not 
     apply to transportation covered by such a contract.''.

     SEC. 6. SIMPLIFIED RELIEF PROCESS FOR CERTAIN AGRICULTURAL 
                   SHIPPERS.

       (a) Limitation of Fees.--Nothwithstanding any other 
     provision of law, the Surface Transportation Board shall not 
     impose fees in excess of $1,000 for services collected from 
     an eligible facility in connection with rail maximum rate 
     complaints under part 1002 of title 49, Code of Federal 
     Regulations.
       (b) Simplified Rate and Service Relief.--Section 10701 of 
     title 49, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end 
     thereof the following:
       ``(e) Simplified Rates and Services.--
       ``(1) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law, a rail carrier may not charge a rate for shipments from 
     or to an eligible facility which results in a revenue-to- 
     variable cost percentage, using system average costs, for the 
     transportation service to which the rate applies that is 
     greater than 180 percent.
       ``(2) Acceptance of requests.--Nothwithstanding any other 
     provision of law, a rail carrier shall accept all requests, 
     for grain service from an eligible facility up to a maximum 
     of 110 percent of the grain carloads shipped from or to the 
     facility in the immediately preceding calendar year. If, in a 
     majority of instances, a rail carrier does not in any 45-days 
     period, supply the number of grain cars so ordered by an 
     eligible facility or does not initiate service within 30 days 
     of the reasonably specified loading date, the eligible 
     facility may request that an alternative rail carrier provide 
     the service using the tracks of the original carrier. If the 
     alternative rail carrier agrees to provide such service, and 
     such service can be provided without substantially impairing 
     the ability of the carrier whose tracks reach the facility to 
     use such tracks to handle its own business, the Board shall 
     order the alternative carrier to commence service and to 
     compensate the other carrier for the use of its tracks. The 
     alternative carrier shall provide reasonable compensation to 
     the original carrier for the use of the original carrier's 
     tracks.
       ``(3) Cancellation penalties.--A carrier may accept car 
     orders under paragraph (2) subject to reasonable penalties 
     for service requests that are canceled by the requester. If 
     the carrier fills such orders more than 15 days after the 
     reasonably specified loading date, the carrier may not assess 
     a penalty for canceled car orders.
       ``(4) Damages.--A rail carrier that fails to provide 
     service under the requirements of paragraph (2) is liable for 
     damages to an eligible facility that does not have access to 
     an alternative carrier, including lost profits, attorney's 
     fees, and any other consequences attributable to the 
     carrier's failure to provide the ordered service. A claim for 
     such damage may be brought in an appropriate United States 
     District Court or before the Board.
       ``(5) Timetable for board proceeding.--The Board shall 
     conclude any proceeding brought under this subsection no 
     later than 180 days from the date a complaint is filed.
       ``(6) Definitions.--In this subsection:
       ``(A) Eligibility facility.--The term `eligible facility' 
     means a shipper facility that--
       ``(i) is the origin or destination for not more than 4,000 
     carloads annually of grain as defined in section 3(g) of the 
     United States Grain Standards Act (7 U.S.C. 75(g));
       ``(ii) is served by a single rail carrier at its origin;
       ``(iii) has more than 60 percent of the facility's inbound 
     or outbound grain and grain product shipments (excluding the 
     delivery of grain to the facility by producers), measured by 
     weight or bushels moved via a rail carrier in the immediately 
     preceding calendar year; and
       ``(iv) the rate charged by the rail carrier for the 
     majority of shipments of grain and grain products from or to 
     the facility, excluding premium for special service programs, 
     results in a revenue-to-variable cost percentage, using 
     system average costs, for the transportation to which the 
     rate applies that is equal to or greater than 180 percent.
       ``(B) Reasonable compensation.--The term `reasonable 
     compensation' shall mean an amount no greater than the total 
     shared costs of the original carrier and the alternative 
     carrier incurred, on a usage basis, for the provision of 
     service to an eligible facility. If the carriers are unable 
     to agree on compensation terms within 15 days after the 
     facility requests service from the alternative carrier, the 
     alternative carrier or the eligible facility may request the 
     Board to establish the compensation and the Board shall

[[Page 4451]]

     establish the compensation within 45 days after such request 
     is made.
       ``(C) Original carrier.--The term `original carrier' means 
     a rail carrier which provides the only rail service to an 
     eligible facility using its own tracks or provides such 
     service over an exclusive lease of the tracks serving the 
     eligible facility.
       ``(D) Alternative carrier.--The term `alternative carrier' 
     means a rail carrier that is not an original carrier to an 
     eligible facility.''.

     SEC. 7. COMPETITIVE RAIL SERVICE IN TERMINAL AREAS.

       (a) Trackage Rights.--Section 11102(a) of title 49, United 
     States Code, is amended--
       (1) by striking ``may'' in the first sentence and inserting 
     ``shall'';
       (2) by inserting [as a new second sentence] after 
     ``business.'' the following: ``In making this determination, 
     the Board shall not require evidence of anticompetitive 
     conduct by the rail carrier from which access is sought.''; 
     and
       (3) by striking ``may establish'' in the next-to-last 
     sentence and inserting ``shall.''
       (b) Reciprocal Switching.--Section 11102(c)(1) of title 49, 
     United States Code, is amended--
       (1) by striking ``may'' in the first sentence and inserting 
     ``shall'';
       (2) by inserting after ``service.'' the following: ``In 
     making this determination, the Board shall not require 
     evidence of anticompetitive conduct by the rail carrier from 
     which access is sought.''; and
       (3) by striking ``may establish'' in the last sentence and 
     inserting ``shall''.

     SEC. 8. SIMPLIFIED STANDARDS FOR MARKET DOMINANCE.

       Section 10707(d)(1)(A) of title 49, United States Code, is 
     amended by adding at the end thereof the following: ``The 
     Board shall not consider evidence of product or geographic 
     competition in making a market dominance determination under 
     this section.''.

     SEC. 9. REVENUE ADEQUACY DETERMINATIONS.

       (a) Rail Transportation Policy.--Section 10101(3) of title 
     49, United States Code, is amended by striking ``revenues, as 
     determined by the Board;'' and inserting ``revenues;''.
       (b) Standards for Rates.--Section 10701(d)(2) is amended by 
     striking ``revenues, as established by the Board under 
     section 10704(a)(2) of this title'' and inserting 
     ``revenues.''.
       (c) Revenue Adequacy Determinations.--Section 10704(a) of 
     title 49, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) by striking ``(a)(1)'' and inserting ``(a)''; and
       (2) by striking paragraphs (2) and (3).

     SEC. 10. RAIL CARRIER SERVICE QUALITY PERFORMANCE REPORTS.

       (a) In General.--Chapter 5 of subtitle I of title 49, 
     United States Code, is amended by adding at the end thereof 
     the following:


                 ``subchapter iii. performance reports

     ``Sec. 541. RAIL CARRIER SERVICE QUALITY PERFORMANCE REPORTS

       ``(a) In General.--The Secretary of Transportation shall 
     require, by regulation, each rail carrier to submit a monthly 
     report to the Secretary, in such a uniform format as the 
     Secretary may be regulation prescribe, containing information 
     about--
       ``(1) its on-time performance;
       ``(2) its car availability deadline performance;
       ``(3) its average train speed;
       ``(4) its average terminal dwell time;
       ``(5) the number of its cars loaded (by major commodity 
     group); and
       ``(6) such other aspects of its performance as a rail 
     carrier as the Secretary may require.
       ``(b) Information Furnished to STB; the Public.--The 
     Secretary shall furnish a copy of each report required under 
     subsection (a) to the Surface Transportation Board no later 
     than the next business day following its receipt by the 
     Secretary, and shall make each such report available to the 
     public.
       ``(c) Annual Report to the Congress.--The Secretary shall 
     transmit to the Congress an annual report based upon 
     information received by the Secretary under this section.
       ``(d) Definitions.--In this section, the definitions in 
     section 10102 apply.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--The chapter analysis for chapter 
     5 of subtitle I of title 49, United States Code, is amended 
     by adding at the end thereof the following:

                 ``Subchapter III. Performance Reports

``541. Rail carrier service quality performance reports''.

 Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I am very pleased to join Senators 
Rockefeller, Burns, and Roberts today in introducing the ``Railroad 
Competition and Service improvement Act of 1999.'' This legislation is 
designed to stimulate railroad competition and level the field for 
shippers who need relief from unreasonable rates. Earlier this month, 
the General Accounting Office (GAO) issued a report on the barriers to 
rate relief that prevent small captive shippers from unreasonable 
rates. That report, outlined below, identified a number of remedies 
that would give captive shippers a fighting chance at rate relief. This 
legislation closely mirrors the GAO's findings and if enacted, would go 
a long way to improve rail service and promote competition.
  In my home state of North Dakota over fifty percent of the state 
economy is dependent upon agriculture. Our ability to move its 
agricultural production to distant markets affects large sectors of 
North Dakota's economy. Over eighty percent of all the grain shipped 
out-of-state moves by rail and 97 percent of North Dakota's grain 
elevators have access to only one railroad. Those who survive on 
farming and those who live in states like North Dakota whose main 
business is agriculture have a great deal at stake when it comes to 
rail transportation. Overcharges cost us millions of dollars a year, 
adding a substantial cost to a product that already operates at very 
low margins.
  Since virtually all of the shippers in North Dakota are subject to 
monopoly service, our farmers and county grain elevators are paying a 
premium for a service they cannot afford to live without. Rail service 
in this country is supposed to be competitive where the forces of 
competition determine shipping rates and in the absence of competition, 
the STB is suppose to have a process that will protect captive shippers 
from overcharges. Unfortunately, rail competition is more of an 
exception than the rule and the process that is designed to protect 
captive shippers is so costly and time-consuming that shippers are 
without recourse; left to the mercy of monopoly railroads who not only 
determine whether or not their product will get to market but also how 
much they will charge to deliver that product. This is a circumstance 
that must be addressed as the Congress considers the reauthorization of 
the STB this year.
  Prior to 1976, the ICC regulated almost all the rates that railroads 
charged shippers. The Railroad Revitalization and Regulatory Act (1976) 
and the Staggers Rail Act (1980) limited the regulation of the rail 
industry by allowing the ICC to regulate rates only where railroads 
have no effective competition and established the ICC's process for 
resolving rate disputes.
  At the time when the Congress began the process of railroad 
deregulation (1976) there were 63 class I railroads in the United 
States. By 1997, through mergers and other factors, the number of class 
I railroads shrunk to nine. These nine carriers accounted for more than 
90 percent of the industry's freight revenue and 71 percent of the 
industry's mileage operated in 1997. In July, 1998, the STB approved 
another Class I merger by splitting the assets of Conrail between CSX 
and Norfolk Southern (reducing the Class I count to 8 once 
implemented). Another merger between Canadian National Railway and 
Illinois Central is pending before the STB.
  This consolidation has diminished competition, creating an even 
greater dependence upon a rate relief process through a regulatory body 
such as the STB. Agricultural, utility, and chemical industries in 
particular rely heavily upon rail transportation and the cost of 
unreasonable rail rates has a dramatic impact on these important 
industries.
  According to GAO/RCED-99-46, ``Railroad Regulation: Current Issues 
Associated With the Rate Relief Process,'' February 1999, ``[t]he 
Surface Transportation Board's standard procedures for obtaining rate 
relief are highly complex and time-consuming'' and the GAO estimates 
that over ``70 percent [of shippers] believe that the time, complexity, 
and costs of filing complaints are barriers that often preclude them 
from seeking relief.'' The report documents that the process for a 
small captive shipper to obtain rate relief under the current 
regulatory and legal framework is broken and unworkable. The reasons 
for these barriers are multiple:
  (A) Historical regulatory precedence has created a complex web of 
hurdles and barriers building an insurmountable maze for a small 
shipper to seek rate relief;
  (B) contradictory statutorily directives based on a statute that was 
designed to protect the financial health

[[Page 4452]]

of railroads while at the same time attempt to protect the needs of 
shippers to challenge unreasonable rates; and
  (C) the time and cost entailed in filing a rate complaint has reached 
absurd levels, far outweighing the potential savings that could be 
achieved through a successful challenge to an unreasonable rate.
  The STB rate complaint process involves an up front filing fee cost 
of $54,500 ($5,400 for the simplified guidelines)--plus the costs of 
pursuing the case through years of negotiation through a complex maze 
of discovery; evidentiary hearings; rebuttals; and administrative 
appeals.
  Seeking rate relief under the current process is very costly to 
shippers. The rate relief cases analyzed by the GAO cost shippers 
between $500,000 to $3 million each to file and wade through the 
process and took between a few months and 16 years to resolve. For 
example, the McCarty Farms case took over 16 years to resolve and ended 
up in Federal District Court.
  The GAO surveyed over 700 shippers and found that (a) 75 percent of 
the shippers believed that they are overcharged with unreasonable 
rates; and (b) over 70 percent of the shippers believed that the time, 
complexity, and costs of filing complaints create unsurmountable 
barriers and therefore preclude them from pursuing the rate relief they 
are entitled to under the law. (It is not surprising that the GAO found 
that the railroad monopolies unanimously support the current process 
and see no need for change.)
  The report reviewed all the rate relief filings pending before the 
STB (and its predecessor, the ICC) since 1990. The GAO found that only 
41 rate relief filings were either pending or have been filed since 
1990. About half of these complaints were settled outside of the STB's 
process and therefore dismissed. Of the remaining complaints, 7 were 
decided in favor of the railroad and only 2 have been decided in favor 
of the shipper; 9 are still pending; and 5 were dismissed without 
settlement.
  The GAO also found that, in 1997, only 18 percent of the total 
tonnage shipped via rail in this country is subject to rate regulation 
by the STB. About 70 percent of all shipments is exempt because it is 
shipped under contract and the STB has exempted another 12 percent. 
Thus, the GAO's analysis of barriers to shippers only relates to a 
portion of the total tonnage of rail shipments in the United States.
  The ICC Terminations Act required the STB to develop simplified 
procedures for rate complaint filings. While the STB has developed 
those simplified procedures, the railroad industry has already 
challenged them in court and not a single shipper has filed a complaint 
under these new procedures since the STB issued the simplified 
guidelines in December 1996.
  The GAO survey of shippers found that the vast majority of shippers 
(over 70%) believe that the STB rate relief process is too costly, 
complex, and time consuming. Shippers identified the following barriers 
to obtaining rate relief under the current process:
  The legal costs associated with filing complaints outweighs the 
benefits of winning relief.
  The rate complaint process is too complex and takes too long.
  Developing the stand alone revenue to variable cost model (shippers 
are required to calculate that the rate they are charged exceeds 180% 
of the revenue to variable cost of a hypothetical railroad to provide 
them service) is too costly.
  Most shippers believe that the STB is most likely to decide in favor 
of the railroad so the effort is not worth its costs.
  The discovery process is too difficult because the shipper is 
dependent upon the railroad for all the necessary data to calculate the 
revenue to variable cost ratio.
  Responding to the railroad requests for discovery is too difficult 
and time consuming (note: the GAO identified instances in its analysis 
of the 41 cases filed since 1990 that railroads often extended the 
complaint process through lengthy discovery requests).
  Fear of reprisal from the railroads.
  The STB filing fee in itself is too high to consider filing a rate 
complaint.
  The GAO report found that shippers desire to see (1) a more 
simplified rate complaint process and (2) increased competition in the 
railroad industry that would lower rates and diminish the need for a 
rate complaint process.
  According to the GAO report, the vast majority of shippers believe 
that the following changes in the rate relief process are necessary to 
provide them with the ability to seek the rate relief--
  The STB's time limit for deciding a rate relief case should be 
shortened (the current limit is 16 months).
  The complaint fee required upon fining should be eliminated or 
reduced.
  The market dominance requirement should be simplified.
  Use mandatory binding arbitration between shippers and railroads to 
resolve rate disputes.
  Lower the STB's jurisdictional threshold from the current level of 
180% of revenue to variable cost.
  While shippers contend that the rate complaint process needs serious 
repair, shippers believe that increasing competition in the railroad 
industry would do more to lower rates and diminish the need for a rate 
complaint process. Proposals to increase railroad competition 
identified in this report include the following:
  Require the STB to grant trackage rights; require reciprocal 
switching at the nearest junction or interchange upon request of a 
shipper or competing railroad; and increase rail access for shortline 
and regional railroads.
  Overturn the STB's ``bottle neck'' decision by requiring railroads to 
quote a rate for all route segments.
  Consolidation in the railroad industry has diminished competition, 
thwarting the intended objectives of deregulation to allow competition 
to lower rates and improve service. The rate protection intended for 
shippers without effective competition has been de-railed by a complex; 
costly; and time consuming web of discoveries, findings, and appeals 
that take years and cost millions of dollars. The result is that we 
have more captive shippers whose only recourse for rate protection is 
an impossible process that is simply not worth the expense. This cannot 
continue.
  Small shippers are forced to take on well financed railroad 
corporations populated with hundreds of lawyers who can use the complex 
system to make rate relief an impossible maze of endless filings, 
appeals, and delays. In the GAO's survey, shippers emphasized the time, 
cost, and complexity involved in filing a rate complaint as significant 
enough barriers as to prevent them from attempting to seek rate relief 
through the STB process. Since the railroad industry has blanket 
antitrust immunity--which is a status not enjoyed by another industry--
captive shippers have no recourse and will remain overcharged unless 
Congress takes some action to level the field.
  I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. Attached is a 
summary of the bill's provisions. I ask unanimous consent that the 
summary be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the summary was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

       Railroad Competition and Service Improvement Act--Summary


                         section 1. short title

       The ``Railroad Competition and Service Improvement Act of 
     1999''


                          section 2. purposes

       The purpose of the legislation is to require the STB to 
     accord greater weight to increase rail competition; to 
     eliminate unreasonable barriers to competition; ensure 
     reasonable rates in the absence of competition; and remove 
     unnecessary regulatory barriers that impede the ability of 
     rail shippers to obtain rate relief.


                          section 3. findings

       The Congress finds that the railroad industry has become 
     concentrated and that rail industry consolidation has 
     diminished competition, creating a greater dependence upon 
     the Surface Transportation Board's rate relief process, whose 
     procedures for obtaining rate relief, according to a report 
     issued by the General Accounting Office, ``are highly complex 
     and time-consuming.''
       The GAO also found that--
       75 percent of the shippers believed that they are 
     overcharged with unreasonable rates and over 70 percent of 
     the shippers believed that the time, complexity, and costs

[[Page 4453]]

     of filing complaints create unsurmountable barriers and 
     therefore precluded them from pursuing the rate relief they 
     are entitled to under the law;
       The STB rate relief process cost shippers between $500,000 
     to $3 million per complaint and took between a few months and 
     16 years to resolve;
       Over ``70 percent [of shippers] believe that the time, 
     complexity, and costs of filing complaints are barriers that 
     often preclude them from seeking relief''; and
       While shippers contend that the rate complaint process 
     needs serious repair, shippers believe that increasing 
     competition in the railroad industry would do more to lower 
     rates and diminish the need for a rate complaint process.
       Consolidation in the railroad industry has diminished 
     competition, thwarting the intended objectives of 
     deregulation to allow completion to lower rates and improve 
     service. The rate protection intended for shippers without 
     effective competition has been de-railed by a complex; 
     costly; and time consuming web of discoveries, findings, and 
     appeals that take years and cost millions of dollars.


           section 4. clarification of transportation policy

       The legislation requires the STB to give priority to the 
     following policy objectives:
       (1) ensuring effective competition among rail carriers;
       (2) maintaining reasonable rates where there is an absence 
     of effective competition;
       (3) maintaining consistent and efficient service to 
     shippers, including the timely provision of railcars 
     requested by shippers.


                 section 5. fostering rail competition

       The bill overturns the STB's ``bottle neck'' decision that 
     has been disappointing for shippers. Under the legislation, 
     rail carriers would have to quote a rate for transportation 
     over a segment of line upon the request of a shipper. If the 
     rail carrier refuses, the STB shall establish the rate.


          section 6. relief for certain agricultural shippers

       Places a $1,000 limit on filing fees on rate complaints 
     filed by small, captive agricultural shippers; establishes a 
     simplified and streamlines rate complaint process for small, 
     captive agricultural shippers; and would allow a small, 
     captive agricultural shipper to request service from another 
     railroad or file for damages when their carrier fails to 
     honor railcar orders.


         section 7. competitive rail service in terminal areas

       Eliminates the requirement that evidence of anti-
     competitive conduct be produced when the STB determines the 
     outcome of requests to allow another railroad access to rail 
     customer facilities within an area served by the tracks of 
     more than one railroad.


          section 8. simplified standards for market dominance

       The market dominance standard (which establishes the terms 
     in which rail shippers may have standing to challenge the 
     reasonableness of a rate) is simplified in a goal to minimize 
     the regulatory burdens confronting captive rail shippers. 
     Under this legislation, a rail carrier will be presumed to 
     have market dominance if the shipper is served by only one 
     rail carrier and if the rail shipper can demonstrate that the 
     carrier's rate is above 180% revenue to variable cost. 
     [Currently, a shipper must demonstrate--in addition to the 
     above criteria--there is no geographic or product 
     competition. This legislation would eliminate those hurdles 
     for the shipper.]


               section 9. revenue adequacy determinations

       Repeals the revenue adequacy test [which is a determination 
     by the STB on the financial fitness of the railroads and 
     creates another obstacle for shippers seeking rate relief 
     from the STB].


                section 10. service performance reports

       Requires the railroads to submit service performance 
     reports to the Department of Transportation.

                          ____________________