[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 2]
[Senate]
[Pages 2986-2991]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mrs. FEINSTEIN:
  S. 2248. A bill to assist in the development and implementation of 
projects to provide for the control of drainage water, storm water, 
flood water, and other water as part of water-related integrated 
resource management, environmental infrastructure, and resource 
protection and development projects in the Colusa Basin Watershed, 
California; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.


     COLUSA BASIN INTEGRATED RESOURCES MANAGEMENT PLAN LEGISLATION

  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce this bill 
which provides a comprehensive watershed plan to protect against 
flooding in the Colusa Basin. Last year such flooding caused 
approximately $4.9 million in damage. In 1995 a major flood caused an 
estimated $100 million in damages to public and private property and 
crops.
  This bill would provide the necessary authorization for the Secretary 
of Interior to participate in the Colusa Basin project on a cost-shared 
basis. The Colusa Basin project would build the necessary 
infrastructure (small impoundments) to catch flood water, control the 
rate of release, restore wetlands and vegetation and ultimately protect 
the area against flooding. This authorization is needed for the project 
to continue.
  I introduced an identical bill in the 105th Congress which passed 
both Houses of Congress but fell victim to the politics surrounding the 
omnibus budget bill. This bill once again enjoys bipartisan support.
  I urge Congress to consider this bill before the end of the 106th 
Congress.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. GREGG (for himself, Mr. Kerrey, Mr. Breaux, and Mr. Bayh):
  S. 2249. A bill to amend title VII of the Social Security Act to 
require the Commissioner of Social Security to provide Congress with an 
annual report on the Social Security program, and for other purposes; 
to the Committee on Finance.


         the social security reporting improvements act of 2000

  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I want to speak today about the issue we 
are going to take up tomorrow, the Social Security earnings limitation, 
and the fact that we are going to pass a bill tomorrow which will 
eliminate a limitation on the ability of people once they retire to 
make money independent of Social Security benefits they receive and not 
have their Social Security benefits reduced.
  Under present-day law, unfortunately, a retired individual--or not 
even retired person, a person who has reached eligibility age for 
Social Security benefits--the age for eligibility retirement is really 
the wrong term to apply to that individual. That person is penalized if 
he goes out and gets a job because his benefits under Social Security 
are reduced if he makes a certain amount of money under that job.
  That is wrong. It is something I have tried to correct, and a number 
of Members of this Senate have tried to correct, for a number of years.
  I have a bill, cosponsored by Senators Kerrey, Breaux, Grassley, 
Thompson, Robb, and Thomas. It is a very bipartisan bill, obviously, 
and is strongly supported by many of the Members on the Finance 
Committee. That bill is, in substance, a reform bill for the entire 
Social Security system to allow us to have a Social Security system 
which is solvent for the next 100 years. It is a creative and 
imaginative piece of legislation, and it accomplishes that growth which 
is to create solvency in the Social Security system over the next 100 
years and do it without raising taxes.
  One of the elements of that bill is the repeal of the earnings 
limitation. It has been something I have supported and I have backed up 
with legislative language, cosponsored by myself, as I mentioned, and 
also by other Members of the Senate. Over the years, we have worked in 
this area. It is a very appropriate area to go into. However, tomorrow 
when we take up the bill for repealing the earnings limitation, we are 
going to take it up as sort of an isolated event. We are not taking it 
up very much as an isolated event but as part of a Social Security 
reform package. I guess that is where I have my concern, because we 
know the Social Security system, although solvent today and running 
very large surpluses, is headed towards the disastrous crash.
  When the baby boom generation, the Bill Clinton generation, arrives 
at retirement, which starts in the year 2008 and accelerates 
aggressively so that by the year 2014 we actually are running a cash 
deficit within the Social Security system, we will have so many people 
retired in this country during the post-2008 period that we will have 
too many people retired for the younger generation to be able to 
support them effectively under the present structure of the Social 
Security system.
  It will cost the next earnings generation--that generation who are my 
children, the children of the Members of this Senate, and their 
children's children--over $7 trillion in general fund revenues. We are 
not talking about Social Security taxes; we are talking about general 
fund revenues over the period from 2014 to 2034. It will cost $7 
trillion of general fund revenues to keep the Social Security system 
solvent.
  What does $7 trillion in general fund revenues mean? That means there 
will have to be tax increases of $7 trillion in order to pay for those 
benefits, or, alternatively, we will have to cut them.
  Some of us have said let's not force this crisis on the next 
generation, let's not turn to our children and say, Here is the 
problem; we are going to give it to you. Many of us have said let's 
look at the problem today and try to solve it, let's try to put in 
place systems

[[Page 2987]]

that will allow us to build up a process which will protect our 
children from having to face the catastrophe of having to support our 
generation in retirement at levels which they could not possibly afford 
to support and which would put an undue burden on the next generation 
in the area of tax increases.
  We have put together substantive pieces of legislation. The one I 
mentioned, for example, the Gregg-Kerrey-Breaux-Grassley-Thompson-
Thomas-Robb--Senator Roth is also on that--is one of the proposals.
  There is another bill in the House called Kolbe-Stenholm, an 
aggressive piece of legislation. Senator Moynihan has a piece of 
legislation. Senator Gramm from Texas has a piece of legislation. The 
chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, Congressman Archer, and 
Congressman Shaw have proposals. Congressman Kasich and Congressman 
Smith have proposals.
  There are a lot of proposals out there. Many of them are very 
substantive and thoughtful. I would like to think ours is. Almost all 
of them will do a lot more than we are doing today trying to put in 
place and under control a system that will address the Social Security 
problem as it is facing us and as it is facing the next generation.
  I see the pages down here. These folks are going to end up paying a 
huge bill as a result of our inaction today in Congress. It is not fair 
and not right for us to put the next generation in this position.
  As we take up the earnings limitation repeal tomorrow, it is 
necessary and appropriate. It is something we should do. But we should 
be much more aggressive on this issue. We should be addressing the 
fundamental problems that are facing us in the Social Security system, 
the most fundamental of which is that it is an unfunded liability.
  Essentially, the Social Security system says we promise you, the baby 
boom generation, all of these benefits. But we don't do anything about 
getting the baby boom generation into a position where we can pay those 
Social Security benefits. Rather, we go on a pay-as-you-go basis. One 
dollar taken in today is paid out today, or spent on some other 
operation of government today. So when the baby boom generation 
retires, there are no dollars available for them to support their 
benefit structure.
  We ought to address that. The best way to address it is to do 
something which will be called prefunding liability. That is probably a 
technical term which is sort of lost in its translation. It basically 
means giving people savings, assets, and gives people something they 
can physically own and possess, so that when they retire, they will 
have assets they can use to pay for their retirement benefits under the 
Social Security system.
  In our proposal, this is called a personal savings account. 
Essentially, we reduce the payroll tax today. We say let's reduce the 
payroll tax today because it is running a surplus, take that money we 
save on payroll taxes and give it to all of the Social Security earners 
today, and allow those Social Security earners to save that money for 
themselves. So that by the time they retire, they will have a nest egg, 
a physical nest egg that is based in stocks, Treasury notes, and bonds, 
which will be available to them to spend on their retirement. It is 
called free-funding liability, so their actual assets are there when 
they retire. They actually physically own something they can use to 
benefit them in their retirement and to support the costs of their 
retirement structure in Social Security.
  That is the essence of what we propose in our bill--to prefund the 
liability through personal savings accounts. It is an idea for which 
the time appears to be coming.
  I notice Governor Bush is talking about this aggressively. Other 
people who are running for the Presidency are talking about this 
aggressively. Regrettably, this administration has not been willing to 
talk about this aggressively. This administration has walked away from 
the opportunity to fundamentally reform and improve Social Security so 
we can past on to our children a solvent system instead of passing on 
to them an insolvent system.
  I and a number of Members on the other side of the aisle have great 
frustrations. I know Senator Kerrey from Nebraska has on numerous 
occasions--and will tomorrow, I suspect, when he offers his amendment--
expressed the frustration he feels and many of us feel about the fact 
we are unable to get White House leadership on this critical issue of 
moving forward Social Security reform so the next generation isn't 
passed a sour lemon but is given an opportunity to have a lifestyle 
that is equal to ours, or hopefully significantly better, and isn't 
instead passed a huge bill from our generation that they have to pay 
off in order to support our generation's retirement. I believe this 
administration refuses to take any aggressive action in this area for 
political reasons because they want to keep the issue alive for the 
next election cycle.
  Clearly, there is bipartisan support in the Senate. As I mentioned, 
the Members of the Senate supporting the bill are Senator Kerrey, 
Senator Breaux, and Senator Grassley--a bipartisan group. Their 
philosophies are significantly different. We could build a coalition in 
this Senate to pass substantial Social Security reform which would make 
the system solvent for the next 100 years without raising taxes on the 
next generation.
  If we could get leadership and assistance from the White House, we 
could do that. Unfortunately, we have not gotten that. Instead, we are 
getting one little snippet of the Social Security issue, the earnings 
limitation test. It has been passed by the Senate, passed by the House, 
and the President says he will sign it if it is a clean bill.
  What is the effect of taking up one little part of the whole puzzle? 
This happens to be a part of the puzzle that ends up costing more money 
to the system. In other words, when we repeal the earnings limitation, 
we end up actually putting the system in a less financially sound 
position than it is today. It is an appropriate thing to do because the 
earnings limitation is bad public policy. We should not be saying to 
senior citizens: You shouldn't go out and work; or, if you do work, we 
will reduce your Social Security benefit.
  That is bad policy, especially bad policy when we have a potentially 
large soon-to-retire generation, the baby boom generation. When our 
generation retires, as a nation we are going to need to keep people 
working even though they may be retiring. We won't have enough workers 
in this country. That is going to be a demographic fact.
  The earnings limitation is bad policy. It has a negative impact on 
Social Security long-term solvency. It aggravates the problem for the 
next generation by repealing it as a freestanding event. It should, 
rather, be repealed in the context of an overall reform effort. By 
doing that, we can adjust for the fact that this may negatively impact 
the financial situation of the Social Security system, while other 
things could positively impact it, and we can weigh them off.
  But we are not going to do that. We are doing just Social Security 
limitations. If that is all we can do, that is what we should do. But 
we should be honest with the American people. We should tell them what 
the effect of it will be. More importantly, we should tell them the 
present status and the future status of the Social Security trust 
funds. We shouldn't continue this babble about how solvent the Social 
Security trust fund is. Although it is running a surplus today, it is 
as predictable as night follows day, as the sun rises in the east and 
sets in the west, it is an absolute known fact that beginning in the 
year 2008, as the large baby boom generation retires, we are going to 
see the system head toward massive insolvency if we don't have massive 
tax increases or major benefit cuts.
  We ought to tell the American people so they know it is coming and 
they can plan. If the Congress isn't going to plan, if the White House 
isn't going to plan, at least give the American people the information 
they need to plan.

[[Page 2988]]

  I hope to have this bill agreed to because I think it is reasonable. 
I am introducing a proposal which was essentially the proposal put 
forward in November 1999 by the Technical Panel On Assumptions and 
Methods of the Social Security Advisory Board. It is a professional 
group, an independent bipartisan group set up by the Social Security 
trustees for the purpose of reviewing what should be done with the 
Social Security system. This Technical Panel on Assumptions and Methods 
of the Social Security Advisory Board put out a series of 
recommendations regarding information that should be available in plain 
English--they stress ``in plain English''--to the American people. I 
have suggested we amend this effort by putting in place that 
recommendation, have the panel's recommendations become a requirement 
of law, and thus they will be disclosed to the American people.
  What will be disclosed? The following:
  What the program will cost each year;
  What is the projected cash-flow deficit in dollars, real and nominal;
  What are the benefits the system can actually fund as opposed to what 
we tell the public;
  What is the impact of all of the above on the Federal budget.
  These are not complicated. These can be simply stated. But they are 
very important facts for the American people to know.
  Some don't want the American people to have this information. They 
realize if people were actually informed about the significant 
financial crisis we are facing in the Social Security system beginning 
when the baby boom generation retires, people would get pretty upset. 
They would ask: Why hasn't Congress acted? Why isn't the White House 
displaying leadership? Some would rather not have this information on 
the table. It is ``vanilla'' information. It is information the 
American people have the right to know. It is information I am 
suggesting be made available. It is information the Social Security 
Advisory Board is suggesting be made available. It is not a partisan 
effort on my part; it is simply a desire to, hopefully, further the 
effort to inform the American people of the problems we face if we do 
not get on this issue of Social Security and begin to solve it.
  That is the amendment I will offer. That is the bill I am introducing 
today. I see the Senator from Iowa, the ranking Republican on the 
Finance Committee. He has been a leader on the issue of Social Security 
reform in this Congress. I greatly appreciate his support, 
cosponsorship, and initiation in drafting the bill which solves the 
overall problem. I thank him for his support.
  I thank the Chair for its indulgence, and I yield the floor.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. GRASSLEY:
  S. 2252. A bill to provide for the review of agriculture mergers and 
acquisitions by the Department of Agriculture and to outlaw unfair 
practices in the agriculture industry, and for other purposes; to the 
Committee on the Judiciary.


              The Agriculture Competition Enhancement Act

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, as most of my colleagues know, 
agriculture is one of the most crucial industries to my State, Iowa. 
The small, independent family farmer is a common thread running 
throughout the cultural, economic and social fabric of my State. I 
firmly believe that if that thread is pulled, the entire fabric of Iowa 
could come unraveled.
  All my life I have lived and worked on a farm. I recognize that Iowa 
and the world are changing and that agriculture cannot stagnate and 
stay the same decade after decade. If we are to continue to survive and 
thrive into the 21st century, Iowa must diversify and adapt. But the 
best way to do that is not by throwing away the past and the present. 
The best way to prepare for the future is to build on the best of our 
heritage. And the family farmer is one of the best things about Iowa's 
heritage. I am committed to preserving and supporting this valuable 
member of Iowa's communities.
  Any farmer knows that agriculture is a risky business. If you are 
going to be a farmer, you had better be prepared for ups and downs. But 
farmers feel more vulnerable now than at just about any time I can 
recall and with good reason.
  We all know there's been a so-called ``merger-mania'' going on 
throughout our nation's economy. Large corporations are joining forces 
with other large corporations to form new business giants in every 
sector of the economy and agriculture is no exception.
  In the last couple of years, the AG industry has seen a significant 
number of multi-million and multi-billion dollar mergers affecting 
grain and livestock. In the face of all these mergers and new 
alliances, the independent producer farming a thousand acres or less, 
sees himself getting smaller and smaller in comparison to many of his 
competitors. He sees himself having fewer and fewer choices of who to 
buy from and sell to. Yet, those farmers know, as I do, that the 
independent farmer is one of the most efficient businessmen in our 
nation's economy. That's why the United States can feed itself and a 
good portion of the world. So long as the market place is fair and 
open, the family farmer can compete.
  I am not suggesting that all mergers are in and of themselves wrong 
or unfair to family farmers. Businesses may be in situations where 
their survival and success is dependent on joining forces with another. 
That right is a fundamental principle of a capitalist system and has to 
be preserved. Indeed, I believe that farmers do not need to be 
protected from the marketplace. But I believe we should protect their 
access to the marketplace.
  That is why I will be introducing legislation to guarantee greater 
openness and accountability to the merger review process as it pertains 
to agri-business.
  My bill will give USDA, the Federal department with the background 
and expertise in agriculture, a more prominent role in assessing AG 
mergers. Furthermore, my bill will provide a much-needed balance in the 
focus of AG merger reviews.
  Currently, when the Department of Justice assesses a proposed merger, 
their focus is weighted towards the impact a merger would have on 
consumers. No one, certainly not I, would argue against ensuring that a 
merger does not harm consumers. However, given the fact that AG 
mergers, more so than other kinds of mergers, impact a way of life, not 
just an industry, it is critical that we give equal importance to the 
effect these mergers have on producers.
  My bill will do just that by requiring USDA to do an assessment of 
how a proposed corporate union will affect producers and their access 
to the market. My bill will keep DOJ in the driver's seat on mergers, 
but will make the expertise and knowledge of USDA a prominent part of 
the merger review record.
  I am aware other proposals reforming the agri-business merger review 
process are being crafted. I am certainly willing to consider all 
suggested reforms. Nonetheless, I believe my bill is strong and 
balanced in several respects. As I mentioned, my bill provides a 
heightened role for USDA in the merger review process, giving producers 
a seat at the table when mergers and acquisitions are being reviewed by 
DOJ or FTC.
  In addition, I would like to highlight the following provisions in my 
bill.
  There is a requirement that USDA do a merger review that focuses on 
the needs of producers and whether the transaction would cause 
substantial harm to farmers' ability to compete in the marketplace. 
This review will be conducted simultaneously with the Hart-Scott-Rodino 
review now done by DOJ. There is no disruption in the current DOJ/FTC 
merger review process. My legislation allows for negotiations between 
USDA and the parties to a proposed merger in order to work out any 
concerns USDA has.
  Under my bill, if USDA's concerns are not satisfied, USDA may 
challenge the merger in court to either stop the merger or impose 
conditions on the transaction.
  Furthermore, this measure calls for the creation of a special counsel 
in

[[Page 2989]]

USDA for competition matters, which is subject to Senate consideration. 
My bill provides money for additional staff at USDA and DOJ.
  This measure also prohibits the enforcement of confidentiality 
clauses in livestock production contracts that prevent producers from 
getting the advice they need to make business decisions in their best 
interests.
  My bill provides contract poultry growers the same protections under 
GIPSA that other livestock producers have.
  Finally, under my bill, the competition protection authorities of 
USDA's packers and stockyards division is extended to include 
anticompetitive practices by dealers, processors and commission 
merchants of all AG commodities.
  Several components of this bill are based on proposals by the 
American Farm Bureau, the largest organization representing producers 
of all commodities.
  I believe that bringing to the table a greater understanding of AG 
producers' needs when examining AG mergers is the biggest missing 
element to make the merger review process as fair as possible. Closing 
this gap is the heart of my proposal.
  I realize that DOJ currently has consultations with USDA on AG 
mergers. But I believe the current process is not consistent or open 
enough to assure producers' their concerns are adequately addressed.
  The approach I advocate will ensure that producers' concerns and 
needs are fully discussed when Federal agencies examine proposed AG 
business mergers. By guaranteeing inclusion and openness for small, 
independent producers, we can go a long way toward alleviating their 
understandable anxiety.
  As my colleagues from rural states know, AG concentration is one of 
the most important issues in agriculture today. It is imperative that 
we make meaningful progress on this issue before this Congress 
adjourns. As I stated earlier, I am aware of other efforts, principally 
by Senator Daschle and Senator Leahy, to craft a legislative response 
to the recent wave of AG mergers.
  I commend them for their hard work and I appreciate their efforts to 
keep me informed of their progress. I did not feel I could offer my 
unreserved endorsement of the proposal they have crafted thus far and I 
have chosen to introduce my own bill.
  However, I believe our proposals are close enough in scope, direction 
and intent that we can achieve a bipartisan compromise sooner rather 
than later. I want it to be clearly understood that it is my desire to 
work with Members from both sides of the aisle to calm farmers' fears 
about high levels of AG concentration.
  I am certain Congress will need to take additional steps to secure 
the freedom of small producers to compete in the marketplace.
  But my bill will assure that when AG mergers are given the necessary 
review, the small, independent family farmer who I am proud to serve, 
will not be left out.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in holding the door open for farmers 
across the country and I ask for the support of all those who want to 
preserve the best of our Nation's agriculture heritage and ensure the 
superiority of U.S. Agriculture for decades to come.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. MURKOWSKI:
  S. 2253. A bill to authorize the establishment of a joint United 
States-Canada commission to study the feasibility of connecting the 
rail system in Alaska to the North American continental rail system, 
and for other purposes; to the Committee on Foreign Relations.


                     rails to resources act of 2000

  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, today I am introducing a bill to 
establish a bilateral U.S. and Canadian commission to study the 
feasibility of extending the continental railroad system to Alaska via 
a land link through Canada.
  Mr. President, there are three things critical to the establishment 
of long-term economic stability for any state, region or country. The 
first is the availability of resources necessary to the production of 
goods. The second is the availability of labor to manufacture those 
goods. And the third is the availability of transportation systems to 
get those goods to market.
  My State of Alaska, unfortunately, remains deficient in the third of 
these critical elements. We have the resources, and we have the labor, 
but we do not yet have the same essential transportation 
infrastructure.
  The idea of connecting the transcontinental rail system to Alaska is 
not a new one. The original congressional action to establish the 
Alaska Railroad called for laying 1,000 miles of track in Alaska, which 
would have been sufficient to carry it to the Alaska-Yukon border. 
Canada has at various times also looked at rail connections to the 
north country. Unfortunately, none of these have been carried through.
  During World War II, the United States actually surveyed a route from 
Prince George, British Columbia all the way through Alaska to tidewater 
at Teller, on Alaska's Seward Peninsula. But again, this effort was 
never completed, largely due to wartime shortages of steel.
  While someday it would be beneficial to follow through on that World 
War II plan, what I am proposing today is far less grandiose.
  My bill would create a process for appointing members to the U.S. 
side of a bilateral commission to study the feasibility of extending 
the current continental rail system from its present terminus in 
British Columbia, through the Yukon Territory, to the present terminus 
of the Alaska Railroad near Fairbanks. The distance to be traversed is 
on the order of 1,200 miles. Mr. President, this is not pie in the sky. 
I believe that the extension of the railroad would pay for itself, not 
immediately, but in the forseeable future.
  The area through which the rail line would pass holds some of the 
richest mineral prospects in North America. The Yukon-Tanana uplands 
stretch from Fairbanks down through much of the Yukon. This heavily 
mineralized area holds gold, silver, copper, nickel, lead and zinc in 
great quantities, plus substantial amounts of other elements. Further 
south along the possible routes, there are large quantities of high 
value timber, and vast amounts of lower quality wood that we now 
utilize for paper, fiberboard and other products.
  Mr. President, some individuals and organizations will no doubt argue 
against even exploring this prospect because of a bias against the use 
of natural resources, or opposition to ``development'' in the 
wilderness. To them I would suggest that the construction of a railroad 
is an opportunity to control development--to avoid areas of particular 
sensitivity--which would be impossible with other transportation 
systems. A rail line has far less of a ``footprint'' than even a one-
lane road, and its stops are known quantities. Properly constructed, a 
rail line would make possible the development of vast resources, 
without creating the kind of uncontrolled situation that can lead to 
the degradation of highly valued wild lands.
  Others may point to the current volume of freight moving to and from 
Alaska and say, ``There is no way such a tiny amount of freight can 
support a railroad.'' They would be missing the point. The question is 
not whether rail is a more effective means to carry the existing 
volume, it is whether access to rail would spur enough new economic 
activity to support the venture. I suggest that it might. Experts have 
suggested there may be the potential for up to 120 million tons of 
freight per year, which would be more than enough to pay back any 
investment.
  I am not an expert. I cannot verify that contention, any more than I 
can refute it. That is why we need a comprehensive feasibility study.
  In January, a conference to discuss the potential for such an 
extension was held in Vancouver, British Columbia. Participants were 
extraordinarily supportive, adopting a strong resolution in favor of 
proceeding with a joint U.S.-Canada study.
  I have drawn from that resolution to prepare the legislation I am 
introducing today. Specifically, it would

[[Page 2990]]

provide authorization to for a $6 million, five-year effort to refine 
our understanding of both the positives and the negatives of a rail 
extension.
  This is in no way an attempt to second-guess the feasibility process. 
We need an objective, thorough survey of both costs and opportunities.
  To that end, I am suggesting that the United States component of the 
commission include local government, business, academic and Alaska 
Native leaders with expertise in the relevant fields. I am confident 
that Canada will choose similarly well-qualified individuals for its 
own side of the commission.
  Let's make no mistake about this--it is not universally supported, 
and I want my colleagues to be aware of that from the very beginning. 
Most of those who currently operate companies carrying goods to and 
from Alaska by truck and by water will find all kinds of reasons to 
suggest that there is no way a railroad can be made to work.
  Mr. President, it is only natural that those with a vested interest 
in the status quo should oppose change. It is their absolute right to 
do so. But it is wrong to stifle debate. We should be free to accept 
and explore new ideas. That is what this commission is all about.
  If the railroad connection is economically and environmentally and 
socially sound, then let's move ahead. If it is not, then let's drop 
it. But at the very least, let's give it an honest hearing. That's what 
this bill is about.
  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. 2253

       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 ``Rails to Resources Act of 
     2000.''

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       Congress finds that--
       (1) rail transportation is an essential component of the 
     North American intermodal transportation system;
       (2) the development of economically strong and socially 
     stable communities in the western United States and Canada 
     was encouraged significantly by government policies promoting 
     the development of integrated transcontinental, interstate 
     and inter-provincial rail systems in the states, territories 
     and provinces of the two countries;
       (3) U.S. and Canadian federal support for the completion of 
     new elements of the transcontinental, interstate and 
     interprovincial rail systems was halted before rail 
     connections were established to the state of Alaska and the 
     Yukon Territory;
       (4) Both public and private lands in Alaska, the Yukon 
     territory and northern British Columbia, including lands held 
     by aboriginal peoples, contain extensive deposits of oil, 
     gas, coal and other minerals as well as valuable forest 
     products which presently are inaccessible, but which could 
     provide significant economic benefit to local communities and 
     to both nations if an economically efficient transportation 
     system was available;
       (5) per ton of freight moved, rail transportation systems 
     emit lower levels of carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides and 
     volatile organic compounds than other modes of freight 
     transportation;
       (6) rail transportation systems are capable of moving cargo 
     with up to nine times the energy efficiency of highway 
     transportation;
       (7) rail transportation in otherwise isolated areas 
     facilitates controlled access and reduced overall impact to 
     environmentally sensitive areas;
       (8) the extension of the continental rail system through 
     northern British Columbia and the Yukon territory to the 
     current terminus of the Alaska Railroad would significantly 
     benefit the U.S. and Canadian visitor industries by 
     facilitating the comfortable movement of passengers over long 
     distances while minimizing effects on the surrounding areas;
       (9) extension of the Alaska Railroad system to the Canadian 
     border is consistent with the intent of Congress as expressed 
     in the Alaska Railroad Organic Act of 1914, which called for 
     a system of up to 1,000 miles in length; and,
       (10) ongoing research and development efforts in the rail 
     industry continue to increase the efficiency of rail 
     transportation, ensure safety, and decrease the impact of 
     rail service on the environment.

     SEC. 3. AGREEMENT FOR A UNITED STATES-CANADA BILATERAL 
                   COMMISSION.

       The President is authorized and urged to enter into an 
     agreement with the government of Canada to establish a joint 
     commission to study the technological and economic 
     feasibility of linking the rail system in Alaska to the 
     nearest appropriate point on the North American continental 
     rail system.

     SEC. 4. COMPOSITION OF COMMISSION.

       (a) Membership.--
       (1) Total membership.--The Agreement should provide for the 
     Commission to be composed of 18 members, of which 9 members 
     are appointed by the President and 9 members are appointed by 
     the government of Canada.
       (2) General qualifications.--The Agreement should provide 
     for the membership of the Commission, to the maximum extent 
     practicable, to be representative of--
       (A) the interests of the local communities (including the 
     governments of the communities), aboriginal peoples, and 
     businesses that would be affected by the connection of the 
     rail system in Alaska to the North American continental rail 
     system; and
       (B) a broad range of expertise in areas of knowledge that 
     are relevant to the significant issues to be considered by 
     the Commission, including economics, engineering, management 
     of resources (such as minerals and timber), social sciences, 
     fish and game management, environmental sciences, and 
     transportation.
       (b) United States Membership.--Under the Agreement, the 
     President shall appoint the United States members of the 
     Commission as follows:
       (1) Two members from among persons who are qualified to 
     represent the interests of communities and local governments 
     of Alaska.
       (2) One member representing the State of Alaska, to be 
     nominated by the Governor of Alaska.
       (3) One member from among persons who are qualified to 
     represent the interests of Native Alaskans residing in the 
     area of Alaska that would be affected by the extension of 
     rail service.
       (4) Four members from among persons involved in commercial 
     activities in Alaska who are qualified to represent 
     commercial interests in Alaska, of which one shall be a 
     representative of the Alaska Railroad Corporation.
       (5) Two members from among scholars employed in 
     institutions of higher education in Alaska, at least one of 
     whom must be an engineer with expertise in subarctic 
     transportation.
       (c) Canadian Membership.--The Agreement should provide for 
     the Canadian membership of the Commission to be 
     representative of broad categories of interests of Canada as 
     the government of Canada determines appropriate, consistent 
     with subsection (a)(2).

     SEC. 5. GOVERNANCE AND STAFFING OF COMMISSION.

       (a) Chairman.--The Agreement should provide for the 
     Chairman of the Commission to be elected from among the 
     members of the Commission by a majority vote of the members.
       (b) Compensation and Expenses of United States Members.--
       (1) Compensation.--Each member of the Commission appointed 
     by the President who is not an officer or employee of the 
     Federal Government shall be compensated at a rate equal to 
     the daily equivalent of the annual rate of basic pay 
     prescribed for level IV of the Executive Schedule under 
     section 5315 of title 5, United States Code, for each day 
     (including travel time) during which such member is engaged 
     in the performance of the duties of the Commission. Each such 
     member who is an officer or employee of the United States 
     shall serve without compensation in addition to that received 
     for services as an officer or employee of the United States.
       (2) Travel expenses.--The members of the Commission 
     appointed by the President 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 Commission.
       (c) Staff.--
       (1) In general.--The Agreement should provide for the 
     appointment of a staff and an executive director to be the 
     head of the staff.
       (2) Compensation.--Funds made available for the Commission 
     by the United States may be used to pay the compensation of 
     the executive director and other personnel at rates fixed by 
     the Commission that are not in excess of the rate payable for 
     level V of the Executive Schedule under section 5316 of title 
     5, United States Code.
       (d) Office.--The Agreement should provide for the office of 
     the Commission to be located in a mutually agreed location 
     within the impacted areas of Alaska, the Yukon Territory, and 
     northern British Columbia.
       (e) Meetings.--The Agreement should provide for the 
     Commission to meet at least biannually to review progress and 
     to provide guidance to staff and others, and to hold, in 
     locations within the affected areas of Alaska, the Yukon 
     Territory and northern British Columbia, such additional 
     informational or public meetings as the Commission deems 
     necessary to the conduct of its business.
       (f) Procurement of Services.--The Agreement should 
     authorize and encourage the Commission to procure by 
     contract, to the maximum extent practicable, the services 
     (including any temporary and intermittent

[[Page 2991]]

     services) that the Commission determines necessary for 
     carrying out the duties of the Commission. In the case of any 
     contract for the services of an individual, funds made 
     available for the Commission by the United States may not be 
     used to pay for the services of the individual at a rate that 
     exceeds 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.

     SEC. 6 DUTIES.

       (a) Study.--
       (1) In general.--The Agreement should provide for the 
     Commission to study and assess, on the basis of all available 
     relevant information, the technological and economic 
     feasibility of linking the rail system in Alaska to the North 
     American continental rail system through the continuation of 
     the rail system through the continuation of the rail system 
     in Alaska from its northeastern terminus to a connection with 
     the continental rail system in Canada.
       (2) Specific issues.--The Agreement should provide for the 
     study and assessment to include the consideration of the 
     following issues:
       (A) Railroad engineering.
       (B) Land ownership.
       (C) Geology.
       (D) Proximity to mineral, timber and other resources.
       (E) Market outlook.
       (F) Environmental considerations.
       (G) Social effects, including changes to the use or 
     availability of natural resources.
       (H) Potential financial mechanisms.
       (3) Route.--The Agreement should provide for the 
     Commission, upon finding that it is technologically and 
     economically feasible to link the rail system in Alaska as 
     described in paragraph (1), to determine one or more 
     recommended routes for the rail segment that establishes the 
     linkage, taking into consideration cost, distance, access to 
     potential freight markets, environmental matters, and such 
     other factors as the Commission determines relevant.
       (4) Combined corridor evaluation.--The Agreement should 
     also provide for the Commission to consider whether it would 
     be useful and technologically and economically feasible to 
     combine the power transmission infrastructure and petroleum 
     product pipelines of other utilities into one corridor with a 
     rail extension of the rail system in Alaska.
       (b) Report.--The Agreement should require the Commission to 
     submit to Congress and the Secretary of Transportation and to 
     the Minister of Transport of the government of Canada, not 
     later than 5 years after the Commission commencement date, a 
     report on the results of the study, including the following:
       (1) Feasibility.--The Commission's findings regarding the 
     technological and economical feasibility of linking the rail 
     system in Alaska as described in subsection (a)(1).
       (2) Route.--If such an action is determined technologically 
     and economically feasible, the Commission's recommendations 
     regarding the preferred route and any alternative routes for 
     the rail segment establishing the linkage.

     SEC. 7. COMMENCEMENT AND TERMINATION OF COMMISSION.

       (a) Commencement.--The Agreement should provide for the 
     Commission to begin to function on the date on which all 
     members are appointed to the Commission as provided for in 
     the Agreement.
       (b) Termination.--The Commission shall terminate 90 days 
     after the date on which the Commission submits its report 
     under section 6.

     SEC. 8. FUNDING.

       (a) Rails to Resources Fund.--The Agreement should provide 
     for the following:
       (1) Establishment.--The establishment of an interest-
     bearing account to be known as the ``Rails to Resources 
     Fund''.
       (2) Contributions.--The contribution by the United States 
     and the government of Canada to the Fund of amounts that are 
     sufficient for the Commission to carry out its duties.
       (3) Availability.--The availability of amounts in the Fund 
     to pay the costs of Commission activities.
       (4) Dissolution.--Dissolution of the Fund upon the 
     termination of the Commission and distribution of the amounts 
     in the Fund between the United States and the government of 
     Canada.
       (b) Authorization of Appropriations.--Funds are hereby 
     authorized to be appropriated to any Fund established as 
     described in subsection (a)(1) in the total amount of 
     $6,000,000, to remain available until expended.

     SEC. 9. DEFINITIONS.

       In this section:
       (1) Agreement.--The term ``Agreement'' means an agreement 
     described in section 2.
       (2) Commission.--The term ``Commission'' means a commission 
     established pursuant to any Agreement.
       (3) Commission commencement date.--The date determined 
     under section 6(a).-

                          ____________________