[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 3]
[Senate]
[Pages 3348-3365]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. CAMPBELL (for himself, Mr. Bingaman, and Mr. Inouye):
  S. 502. 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.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, today I am pleased to be joined by 
Senator Bingaman and Senator Inouye in introducing the Indian Needs 
Assessment, Program Evaluation and Policy Coordination Act of 2001 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 
adquate 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.
  Within two years 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 the text 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. 502

       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 Needs Assessment and 
     Program Evaluation Act of 2001''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS, PURPOSES.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
       (1) the United States and the Indian tribes have a unique 
     legal and political government-to-government relationship;
       (2) pursuant to the Constitution, treaties, statutes, 
     Executive orders, 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 departments and 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 on the needs of 
     Indians and Indian tribes;
       (4) such lack of information has hampered the ability of 
     Congress to determine the nature, type, and magnitude of such 
     needs as well as its ability to respond to them; and
       (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) require that Federal departments and agencies carefully 
     review and monitor the effectiveness of the programs and 
     services provided to Indians;
       (3) provide for more efficient and effective cooperation 
     and coordination of, and accountability from, the Federal 
     departments and agencies providing programs and services, 
     including technical and business development assistance, to 
     Indians; and
       (4) provide Congress with reliable information regarding 
     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.--
       (1) Immediate assessment.--
       (A) In general.--Not later than 180 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary of the Interior shall 
     contract with an appropriate entity, in consultation and 
     coordination with the Indian tribes, the Secretary of 
     Agriculture, the Secretary of Commerce, the Secretary of 
     Defense, the Secretary of Energy, the Secretary of Health and 
     Human Services, the Secretary of Housing and Urban 
     Development, the Secretary of Labor, the Secretary of the 
     Treasury, the Secretary of Transportation, the Secretary of 
     Veterans Affairs, the Attorney General, the Administrator of 
     the Environmental Protection Agency, and the heads of any 
     other relevant Federal departments or agencies, for the 
     development of a uniform method and criteria, and uniform 
     procedures for determining, analyzing, and compiling the 
     program and service assistance needs of Indian tribes and 
     Indians by each such department or agency. The needs 
     assessment shall address, but not be limited to, the 
     following:
       (i) The location of the service area of each program.
       (ii) The size of the service area of each program.
       (iii) The total population of each tribe located in the 
     service area.
       (iv) The total population of members of other tribes 
     located in the service area.
       (v) The availability of similar programs within the 
     geographical area to tribes or tribal members.
       (vi) The socio-economic conditions that exist within the 
     service area.
       (B) Consultation.--The contractor shall consult with tribal 
     governments in establishing and conducting the needs 
     assessment required under subparagraph (A).
       (2) Ongoing federal needs assessments.--
       (A) In general.--Not later than 2 years after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, and every 5 years thereafter, each 
     Federal department or agency, in coordination with the 
     Secretary of the Interior, shall conduct an Indian Needs 
     Assessment (in this Act referred to as the ``INA'') aimed at 
     determining the actual needs of Indian tribes and Indians 
     eligible for programs and services administered by such 
     department or agency.
       (B) Submission to congress.--Not later than February 1 of 
     any year in which an INA is required to be conducted under 
     subparagraph (A), a copy of the INA shall be submitted to the 
     Committee on Appropriations and the Committee on Resources of 
     the House of Representatives and the Committee on 
     Appropriations and the Committee on Indian Affairs of the 
     Senate.
       (b) Federal Agency Indian Tribal Program Evaluation.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than 180 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary of the Interior shall 
     develop a uniform method and criteria, and uniform procedures 
     for compiling, maintaining, keeping current, and reporting to 
     Congress all information concerning--
       (A) the annual expenditures of the department or agency 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

[[Page 3349]]

     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; and
       (C) the department or agency 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) Submission to Congress.--Not later than 2 years after 
     the date of enactment of this Act, and annually thereafter, 
     each Federal department or agency responsible for providing 
     services or programs to, or for the benefit of, Indian tribes 
     or Indians shall file an Annual Indian Program Evaluation (in 
     this Act referred to as the ``AIPE'') with the Committee on 
     Appropriations and the Committee on Resources of the House of 
     Representatives and the Committee on Appropriations and the 
     Committee on Indian Affairs of the Senate.
       (c) Annual Listing of Tribal Eligible Programs.--Not later 
     than February 1 of each calendar year, each Federal 
     department or agency described in subsection (b)(2), shall 
     develop and publish in the Federal Register a list of all 
     programs and services offered by such department or agency 
     for which Indian tribes or their members are or may be 
     eligible, and shall provide a brief explanation of the 
     program or service.
       (d) Confidentiality.--Any information received, collected, 
     or gathered from Indian tribes concerning program function, 
     operations, or need in order to conduct an INA or an AIPE 
     shall be used only for the purposes of this Act set forth in 
     section 2(b).

     SEC. 4. REPORT TO CONGRESS.

       (a) In General.--Not later than 2 years after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary of the Interior shall 
     develop and submit to the Committee on Appropriations and the 
     Committee on Resources of the House of Representatives and 
     the Committee on Appropriations and the Committee on Indian 
     Affairs of the Senate a report detailing the coordination of 
     Federal program and service assistance for which Indian 
     tribes and their members are eligible.
       (b) Strategic Plan.--Not later than 30 months after the 
     date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of the Interior, 
     in consultation and coordination with the Indian tribes, 
     shall file a Strategic Plan for the Coordination of Federal 
     Assistance for Indians (in this Act referred to as the 
     ``Strategic Plan'').
       (c) Contents of Strategic Plan.--The Strategic Plan 
     required under subsection (b) shall contain the following:
       (1) Identification of reforms necessary to the laws, 
     regulations, policies, procedures, practices, and systems of 
     the Federal departments or agencies involved.
       (2) Proposals for implementing the reforms identified in 
     the Strategic Plan.
       (3) Any other recommendations that are consistent with the 
     purposes of this Act set forth in section 2(b).

     SEC. 5. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       There are authorized to be appropriated for fiscal year 
     2002 and each fiscal year thereafter, such sums as are 
     necessary to carry out this Act.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. REID (for himself and Mr. Ensign):
  S. 503. A bill to amend the Safe Water Act to provide grants to small 
public drinking water systems; to the Committee on Environment and 
Public Works.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, we have spent a great deal of time, as we 
should, focusing on President Bush's tax cut. There are some 
differences that have been noted on numerous occasions. My point is, 
there are many other issues about which we need to be engaged.
  Yesterday in the Environment and Public Works Committee, we did some 
very good work. We reported a bill out of that committee dealing with 
brownfields. The Acting President pro tempore, who is presiding, was a 
cosponsor of that legislation last year. It is very important 
legislation. It will allow the cleanup of about 450,000 sites that now 
are blighted sites, most of them in city centers--where there may have 
been a dry cleaner there before, or there may have been some business--
and there may be some toxic substances in the ground.
  This legislation will allow the cleanup to go forward. It will allow 
these places to become productive.
  We have already identified, for example, in Nevada, some 30 sites 
that need to be cleaned up, producing hundreds of jobs and millions and 
millions of dollars on the tax rolls. We did this. It shows that we can 
do things on a bipartisan basis.
  The subcommittee is run by Senators Boxer and Chafee. They work very 
well together. There was bipartisan support for this legislation. I am 
very proud of what the committee did.
  I hope, with the schedule that we have, we can have this on the 
floor, and we can pass this out of here, and send it to the House, 
within the next month. It is good legislation.
  Mr. President, communities in Nevada and nationwide are facing a 
crisis in their ability to provide clean, affordable drinking water to 
the public.
  Dramatic population growth in some areas of the country has only 
increased the demand for more drinking water.
  At the same time, standards are being adopted by local, State, and 
Federal Governments to assure the safety of drinking water supplies.
  Because of this, communities all across the country are facing the 
need to install, upgrade, and replace their drinking water 
infrastructure. That is why I and Senator Ensign are introducing the 
Small Community Safe Drinking Water Funding Act.
  However, the cost of putting this infrastructure in place is 
staggeringly high. The Environmental Protection Agency has recently 
estimated that to meet the Nation's needs, our communities' drinking 
water infrastructure will require an investment of more than $150 
billion over the next 20 years.
  While communities of all sizes face the crisis in drinking water 
infrastructure, the greatest burden is on small communities.
  For example, the per-household cost for water infrastructure 
improvements is almost four times higher for small systems than for 
large ones.
  One reason for this disproportionate impact is that small public 
drinking water systems are so numerous--representing nearly 95 percent 
of all systems. It is that way in Nevada and most Western States.
  In my home State of Nevada, the percentage is even greater. Upwards 
of 98 percent of public drinking water systems in the Silver State are 
small systems.
  Also, because small communities lack the tax base and economies-of-
scale of larger communities, they typically incur much higher per-
household costs in upgrading their drinking water infrastructure 
improvements.
  In Nevada alone, small communities will need to invest hundreds of 
millions of dollars over the next 20 years in drinking water 
infrastructure.
  The dilemma faced by small communities has been highlighted recently 
by EPA's new drinking water standard for arsenic.
  Arsenic is a naturally occurring contaminant that impacts drinking 
water supplies in Nevada, and other States throughout the west and 
northeast.
  The public health threat posed by arsenic in drinking water is well-
established by scientists.
  Despite the public health need, many small communities will find it 
extremely difficult to finance improvements needed to meet the arsenic 
standard.
  This is because EPA estimates that compliance with this standard will 
increase annual household water costs in communities of less than 
10,000 people from between $38 to $327--an increase in water costs 
roughly 10 times greater than for communities with more than 10,000 
people.
  In Nevada, we have very few communities of more than 10,000. We have 
Las Vegas, Reno, Henderson, Sparks, Elko, and Carson City. This has a 
tremendous impact in Nevada.
  Due to these costs to small communities, some have called for the 
standard to be rolled back. In fact, the Bush administration has held 
up the implementation of the regulation, and is currently considering 
whether or not to nullify it.
  A roll-back of the new arsenic drinking water standard would be a 
serious mistake.
  The old drinking water standard for arsenic had not been revised in 
over 55 years.
  In 1999, the National Academy of Sciences reviewed the scientific 
data on arsenic and urged EPA to implement a lower, more protective 
standard as quickly as possible.
  The new EPA arsenic standard--the one currently under review by the 
Bush administration--was set at the very level as the standard adopted 
by the World Health Organization almost a decade ago.

[[Page 3350]]

  Undoing EPA's new arsenic standard would deny millions of American 
families access to safe drinking water.
  Rolling back this standard is simply the wrong way to ensure clean, 
reliable, and affordable water to all Americans.
  The right way to address the new arsenic standard, as well as the 
crisis this country faces with its drinking water infrastructure, is 
for the Federal Government to provide a helping hand to communities to 
meet their drinking water needs.
  Take my home State of Nevada for example. The city of Fallon, a 
small, rural community in the northwest part of the State, has been 
wrestling with high levels of naturally-occurring arsenic in its public 
water supply for decades. When I served in the State legislature in the 
1960's, this was a problem. It still is.
  Despite the difficulties involved in solving its arsenic problem, the 
city is not asking for a roll-back of EPA's new arsenic standard.
  On the contrary, the city very much wants to meet the new standard so 
that it can provide safe drinking water to its citizens.
  What the city needs, in order to accomplish this, is our financial 
help. It is a national problem, and we should help.
  I should add, even though there is naturally occurring arsenic in the 
water in Fallon, it may have been exacerbated by a Federal project, the 
first Bureau of Reclamation project in the history of the country, in 
1902, when it sent water from the Truckee River into Churchill County. 
It may have raised the arsenic level higher than it would have been 
otherwise.
  Currently, the primary source of Federal assistance for local 
drinking water projects is the EPA's Drinking Water State Revolving 
Loan Fund.
  This fund--which I, along with others on the Senate Environment and 
Public and Works Committee, helped add to the Safe Drinking Water Act 
when it was amended in 1996--has been an overwhelming success.
  Since its inception, the fund has allowed States to provide more than 
1,200 low-interest loans totaling over $2.3 billion for upgrading and 
installing drinking water systems.
  However, many small and disadvantaged communities are left out of the 
State revolving fund program.
  Many of these communities do not attempt to participate in the 
program because they lack the financial resources to meet the terms of 
loans.
  Although we added a provision to the act in 1996 allowing loans to be 
subsidized for disadvantaged communities, a significant number of 
States have not taken advantage of it.
  Therefore, many small, cash-strapped communities receive little or no 
financial assistance form the Federal Government, at a time when they 
are faced with costly improvements to systems like that of Fallon, NV.
  Today, I and Senator Ensign introduce a bill to address the needs of 
communities that face the greatest difficulties in ensuring clean 
drinking water for their residents.
  It will ensure that our Nation's small, disadvantaged communities 
have access to the financial help they need to provide safe, reliable, 
and affordable drinking water.
  This bill, the Small Community Safe Drinking Water Funding Act, 
accomplishes this goal by establishing a program to provide almost $750 
million annually to Indian tribes and States, so they can make grants 
to public water systems that serve small communities.
  I would like to highlight several key aspects of the bill:
  First, the Small Community Safe Drinking Water Act provides 
substantial flexibility to States.
  Each State choosing to participate in the grant program will receive 
an allocation of money from EPA, based on the drinking water 
infrastructure needs of that State.
  The State can then distribute this money as grants according to the 
State's own prioritization of communities' needs.
  Second, the act streamlines the workload associated with a new grant 
program by taking advantage of procedures already in place through the 
Drinking Water State Revolving Fund program.
  The identification of communities in most need of grant support is 
coordinated with the annual ``Intended Use Plans'' already required of 
States by the State revolving fund.
  States can also administer grants through the same agencies that 
currently administer State revolving fund loans.
  Third, the drinking water treatment needs of Indian tribes and 
Alaskan native villages are addressed through a $22.5 million EPA-
administered grants program modeled after the one established for 
States.
  This money will be targeted, in the form of grants, to those small 
communities determined to be in most need of drinking water system 
improvements.
  Finally, the act ensures that small, disadvantaged communities 
receiving grants have access to technical assistance through non-profit 
organizations.
  These organizations have established relationships with small 
communities, as well as a solid track record in helping these 
communities to solve their drinking water problems.
  These organizations will be able to assist small communities to plan, 
implement, and maintain the drinking water projects funded through 
grants.
  Nevada's small communities are facing a drinking water infrastructure 
crisis.
  These communities, and other small communities nationwide, confront 
increasing demand for clean, reliable, and affordable drinking water.
  But it is simply too costly for small communities, alone, to address 
this water infrastructure crisis.
  They need a financial helping hand from the Federal Government.
  The bill I and Senator Ensign are introducing today will provide this 
much-needed Federal helping hand.
  I urge my colleagues to cosponsor this important legislation and work 
with us to see that it is swiftly enacted.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. CAMPBELL (for himself, Mr. Inouye, and Mr. Bingaman):
  S. 504. A bill for administrative procedures to extend Federal 
recognition to certain Indian groups, and for other purposes; to the 
Committee on Indian Affairs.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined by Senators 
Inouye and Bingaman in introducing the Indian Tribal Federal 
Recognition Administrative Procedures Act of 2001. 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 Federal recognition is the purpose of 
the legislation I am introducing today.
  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 may be accomplished in two ways: through the 
enactment of federal legislation; or through the administrative process 
that occurs, or more accurately does not occur, within the Branch of 
Acknowledgement and Research, BAR.
  Over the years, the length of time the Bureau has taken to process 
certain petitions and the process for which applications for 
recognition are considered has increased. At a hearing on similar 
legislation in 2000, one group testified that its petition has been 
pending since 1970!
  The process in the Department of the Interior is time consuming and 
costly, although it has improved from its original state. It has 
frequently been hindered by a lack of staff and resources which are 
needed to fairly and promptly review all petitions.

[[Page 3351]]

  The cases on active consideration, including those with proposed 
findings, have been in the process for anywhere from 2 to 9 years.
  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 of Interior.
  Since that time tribal groups have filed 250 letters of intent and 
petitions for review and consideration. Of those, 51 have been 
resolved, 34 by the BAR.
  The remainder are in various stages of consideration by the 
Department either ready for active status or are already placed on 
active status.
  In the last twenty years, the Committee on Indian Affairs has held 
several oversight hearings on the Federal recognition process. At those 
hearings the record clearly showed that the process does not work. 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 Tribal Federal Recognition Administrative 
Procedures Act of 2001, 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 principal purpose is to 
remove the Federal acknowledgment process from the BAR and transfer the 
responsibility for the process to a temporary and independent 
Commission on Indian Tribal 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, some petitioners have waited ten years or more for 
even a cursory review of their petition.
  This bill will allow for a cost-effective process for the BIA and the 
petitioners, it 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 that the views and comments of all affected parties are 
considered, the bills directs the Commission to consider evidence and 
materials submitted by states, local communities, and State attorneys 
general.
  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 with 8 years after the date of enactment and requiring the 
Commission to complete to work within 12 years from enactment.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text 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. 504

       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 Federal 
     Recognition Administrative Procedures Act of 2001''.

     SEC. 2. PURPOSES.

       The purposes of this Act are as follows:
       (1) 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 Tribal 
     Recognition.
       (2) To establish a Commission on Indian Tribal Recognition 
     to review and act upon documented petitions submitted by 
     Indian groups that apply for Federal recognition.
       (3) To establish an administrative procedure under which 
     petitions for Federal recognition filed by Indian groups will 
     be considered.
       (4) To provide clear and consistent standards of 
     administrative review of documented petitions for Federal 
     acknowledgment.
       (5) To clarify evidentiary standards and expedite the 
     administrative review process by providing adequate resources 
     to process documented petitions.
       (6) 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.
       (7) 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.
       (8) 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.

     SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act:
       (1) Acknowledgment.--The term ``acknowledgment'' means a 
     determination by the Commission on Indian Tribal Recognition 
     that an Indian group constitutes an Indian tribe with a 
     government-to-government relationship with the United States.
       (2) 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, the 
     term shall be understood in the context of the history, 
     geography, culture, and social organization of the 
     petitioner.
       (3) Bureau.--The term ``Bureau'' means the Bureau of Indian 
     Affairs of the Department.
       (4) Commission.--The term ``Commission'' means the 
     Commission on Indian Tribal Recognition established under 
     section 4.
       (5) Community.--
       (A) In general.--The term ``community'' means any group of 
     people, living within a reasonable territory, 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.
       (6) Continuous or continuously.--With respect to a period 
     of history of a group, the term ``continuous'' or 
     ``continuously'' means extending from 1900 throughout the 
     history of the group to the present substantially without 
     interruption.
       (7) Department.--The term ``Department'' means the 
     Department of the Interior.
       (8) 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.
       (9) Historically, historical, history.--The terms 
     ``historically'', ``historical'', and ``history'' refer to 
     the period dating from 1900.
       (10) Indian group.--The term ``Indian group'' means any 
     Indian band, pueblo, village, or community that is not 
     acknowledged to be an Indian tribe.
       (11) Interested parties.--The term ``interested parties'' 
     means any person, organization, or other entity who can 
     establish a legal, factual, or property interest in an 
     acknowledgement determination and who requests an opportunity 
     to submit comments or evidence or to be kept informed of 
     Federal actions regarding a specific petitioner. The term 
     includes the government and attorney general of the State in 
     which a petitioner is located, and may include, but is not 
     limited to, local governmental units, and any recognized 
     Indian tribes and unrecognized Indian groups that might be 
     affected by an acknowledgement determination.
       (12) Letter of intent.--The term ``letter of intent'' means 
     an undocumented letter or resolution that--

[[Page 3352]]

       (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 
     documented petition for Federal acknowledgment.
       (13) Petitioner.--The term ``petitioner'' means any group 
     that submits a letter of intent to the Commission requesting 
     acknowledgment.
       (14) 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.
       (15) 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 administrative 
     action by the Executive Branch or legislation enacted by 
     Congress expressly terminating that status.
       (16) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
     of the Interior.
       (17) 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 or 
     the colonial government which was the predecessor to the 
     United States 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.
       (18) 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.

     SEC. 4. COMMISSION ON INDIAN TRIBAL RECOGNITION.

       (a) Establishment.--There is established the Commission on 
     Indian Tribal 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 groups and Indian 
     tribes; and
       (ii) individuals who have a background or who have 
     demonstrated expertise and experience in Indian law or 
     policy, anthropology, genealogy, or Native American history.
       (C) Background information.--No individual shall be 
     eligible for any appointment to, or continue service on the 
     Commission, who--
       (i) has been convicted of a felony; or
       (ii) has any financial interest in, or management 
     responsibility for, any Indian group.
       (2) Political affiliation.--Not more than 2 members of the 
     Commission may be members of the same political party.
       (3) Terms.--Each member of the Commission shall be 
     appointed for a term of 6 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 the 
     member is engaged in the actual performance of duties 
     authorized by the Commission.
       (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

[[Page 3353]]

     is 12 years after the date of the first meeting of the 
     Commission.
       (h) Appointments.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     this Act, the Secretary shall continue to exercise those 
     authorities vested in the Secretary relating to supervision 
     of Indian recognition regulated under part 83 of title 25 of 
     the Code of Federal Regulations until such time as the 
     Commission is organized and prescribes regulations. The 
     Secretary shall provide staff and support assistance to 
     facilitate an orderly transition to regulation of Indian 
     recognition by the Commission.

     SEC. 5. DOCUMENTED PETITIONS FOR RECOGNITION.

       (a) In General.--
       (1) Letters of intent and documented petitions.--Subject to 
     subsection (d) and except as provided in paragraph (3), any 
     Indian group may submit to the Commission letters of intent 
     and a documented petition requesting that the Commission 
     recognize the group as an Indian tribe.
       (2) Hearing.--
       (A) In general.--Indian groups that have been denied or 
     refused recognition as an Indian tribe under regulations 
     prescribed by the Secretary shall be entitled to an 
     adjudicatory hearing under section 9 before the Commission, 
     if the Commission determines that the criteria established by 
     this Act changes the merits of the Indian group's documented 
     petition submitted to the Department.
       (B) Hearing record.--For purposes of subparagraph (A), the 
     Commission shall review the administrative record containing 
     the documented petition that formed the basis of the 
     determination to the Indian group by the Secretary.
       (C) Treatment of secretary's final determination.--For 
     purposes of the adjudicatory hearing, the Secretary's final 
     determination shall be considered a preliminary determination 
     under section 8(b)(1)(B).
       (D) Official government actions to be considered concerning 
     evidence of criteria.--A statement and an analysis of facts 
     submitted under this section may establish that, for any 
     given period of time for which evidence of criteria is 
     lacking, such absence of evidence corresponds in time with 
     official acts of the Federal or relevant State Government 
     which prohibited or penalized the expression of Indian 
     identity. For such periods of time, the absence of evidence 
     shall not be the basis for declining to acknowledge the 
     petitioner.
       (3) Exclusion.--The following groups and entities shall not 
     be eligible to submit a documented 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 the 
     documented petition as an autonomous Indian tribal entity.
       (C) Certain groups that have previously submitted 
     documented 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 based 
     on the merits of their petition as an Indian tribe under 
     regulations prescribed by the Secretary (other than an Indian 
     group described in paragraph (2)(A)). Nothing in this 
     subparagraph shall be construed as excluding any group that 
     Congress has identified as Indian, but has not identified as 
     an Indian tribe.
       (D) Indian groups subject to termination.--Any Indian group 
     whose relationship with the Federal Government was expressly 
     terminated by an Act of Congress.
       (4) Transfer of documented 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 documented petitions and 
     letters of intent pending before the Department that request 
     the Secretary 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.
       (C) Determination of order of submission of transferred 
     documented petitions.--Documented 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 documented petitions 
     were submitted to the Department.
       (b) Documented Petition Form and Content.--Except as 
     provided in subsection (c), any documented petition submitted 
     under subsection (a) by an Indian group shall be in any 
     readable form that clearly indicates that the documented 
     petition is a documented 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 and an 
     analysis of such facts establishing that the petitioner has 
     been identified as an American Indian entity on a 
     substantially continuous basis since 1900. 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.
       (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 and an analysis of 
     such 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 criteria 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 criteria set 
     forth in paragraph (3).
       (x) Extended kinship ties.--Not less than 50 percent of the 
     tribal members exhibit collateral kinship ties through 
     generations to the third degree.

[[Page 3354]]

       (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 \1/3\ 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 50 percent 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 and an analysis of 
     such 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 
     documented 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 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.
       (vi) Continuous line of group leaders.--A continuous line 
     of group leaders with a description of the means of selection 
     or acquiescence by a majority of the group's members.
       (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 lineages 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 documented 
     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 
     based upon firsthand experience of historians, 
     anthropologists, and genealogists with established expertise 
     on the petitioner or Indian entities in general, 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.
       (c) Exceptions.--A documented 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 
     documented petition.
       (d) Deadline for Submission.--
       (1) Documented Petitions.--No Indian group may submit a 
     documented petition to the Commission after 8 years after the 
     date of the first meeting of the Commission.
       (2) Letters of intent.--In the case of a letter of intent, 
     the Commission shall publish in the Federal Register a notice 
     of such receipt, including the name, location, and mailing 
     address of the petitioner. A petitioner who has submitted a 
     letter of intent or had a letter of intent transferred to the 
     Commission under section 5 shall be required to submit a 
     documented petition within 3 years after the date of the 
     first meeting of the Commission to the Commission. No letters 
     of intent will be accepted by the Commission after 3 years 
     after the date of the first meeting of the Commission.

     SEC. 6. NOTICE OF RECEIPT OF DOCUMENTED PETITION.

       (a) Petitioner.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than 30 days after a documented 
     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 documented 
     petition and the date the documented petition was received by 
     the Commission;
       (ii) indicates where a copy of the documented petition may 
     be examined; and
       (iii) indicates whether the documented petition is a 
     transferred documented petition that is subject to the 
     special provisions under paragraph (2).
       (2) Special provisions for transferred documented 
     petitions.--
       (A) In general.--With respect to a documented petition that 
     is transferred to the Commission under section 5(a)(4), the 
     notice provided to the petitioner, shall, in addition to 
     providing the information specified in paragraph (1), inform 
     the petitioner whether the documented petition constitutes a 
     documented petition that meets the requirements of section 5.

[[Page 3355]]

       (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 120 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 documented 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 
     involved with the petitioners to submit factual or legal 
     arguments in support of, or in opposition to, the documented 
     petition.
       (B) Copy to petitioner.--A copy of any submission made 
     under subparagraph (A) shall be provided to the petitioner 
     within 90 days upon receipt by the Commission.
       (C) Response.--The petitioner shall be provided an 
     opportunity to respond within 90 days to any submission made 
     under subparagraph (A) before a determination on the 
     documented petition by the Commission.

     SEC. 7. PROCESSING THE DOCUMENTED 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 documented 
     petition, supporting evidence, and the factual statements 
     contained in the documented 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 documented petition and obtaining additional 
     information about the status of the petitioner; and
       (B) consider such evidence as may be submitted by 
     interested 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, documented 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 documented petition with the Commission (or the 
     Department if the documented petition is transferred to the 
     Commission pursuant to section 5(a)(4) or is an amended 
     petition submitted pursuant to section 6(a)(2)(B)). The 
     Commission shall establish a priority register that includes 
     documented petitions that are pending before the Department 
     as of the date of the first meeting of the Commission.
       (2) Priority consideration.--Each documented 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 documented 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, which shall in no instance be 
     held later than 180 days after receipt of the documented 
     petition. At the preliminary hearing, the petitioner and any 
     other interested 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 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) not later than 30 days after the date of such 
     determination, 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 sections 554, 556, and 557 of title 5, 
     United States Code.
       (b) Testimony From Staff of Commission.--In any hearing 
     held under subsection (a), the Commission shall require 
     testimony from the acknowledgement and research staff of the 
     Commission or other witnesses involved in the preliminary 
     determination. 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--
       (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.

[[Page 3356]]

       (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 the first meeting of the Commission, 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 documented petitions pending at the 
     beginning of the year and the names of the petitioners;
       (B) the number of documented petitions received during the 
     year and the names of the petitioners;
       (C) the number of documented petitions the Commission 
     approved for acknowledgment during the year and the names of 
     the acknowledged petitioners;
       (D) the number of documented petitions the Commission 
     denied for acknowledgment during the year and the names of 
     the petitioners; and
       (E) the status of all pending documented 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 
     the first meeting of the Commission, the Commission shall 
     make available to Indian groups suggested guidelines for the 
     format of documented petitions, including general suggestions 
     and guidelines concerning where and how to research 
     information that is required to be included in a documented 
     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 
     documented petitions under this Act; and
       (B) prepare documentation necessary for the submission of a 
     documented 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. PROTECTION OF CERTAIN PRIVILEGED INFORMATION.

       Notwithstanding any other provision of law, upon the 
     effective date of this Act, when responding to any requests 
     for information on petitions and related materials filed by a 
     group seeking Federal recognition as an Indian tribe pursuant 
     to part 83 of title 25 of the Code of Federal Regulations, 
     including petitions and related materials transferred to the 
     Commission from the Department under section 5(a)(4), as well 
     as related materials located within the Department that have 
     yet to be transferred to the Commission, the Department and 
     the Commission shall exclude materials identified by the 
     petitioning group as information related to religious 
     practices or sacred sites, and which the group is forbidden 
     to disclose except for the limited purpose of Department and 
     Commission review.

     SEC. 19. 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 2002 
     through 2014.
       (b) Secretary of HHS.--There are authorized to be 
     appropriated to the Secretary of Health and Human Services to 
     carry out section 17 such sums as are necessary for each of 
     fiscal years 2002 through 2014.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mrs. FEINSTEIN (for herself, Mr. Schumer, and Mr. Kennedy):
  S. 505. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to regulate 
certain .50 caliber sniper weapons in the same manner as machine guns 
and other firearms, and for other purposes; to the Committee on 
Finance.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise on behalf of myself, Senator 
Schumer, and Senator Kennedy to re-introduce the Military Sniper Weapon 
Regulation Act. This bill, which I first introduced with Senator 
Lautenberg in 1999, will reclassify powerful .50 caliber military 
sniper rifles under the National Firearms Act, thus making it much more 
difficult for terrorists, doomsday cults, and criminals to obtain these 
guns for illegitimate use. It is my sincere hope that in this new, 50-
50 Senate, we can finally make some progress on this bill and limit the 
use of these powerful guns.
  Fifty caliber sniper rifles, manufactured by a small handful of 
companies and individuals, are deadly, military style assault weapons, 
designed for armed combat with wartime enemies. They weigh up to 28 
pounds and are capable of piercing light armor at more than 4 miles. 
The guns enable a single shooter to destroy enemy jeeps, tanks, 
personnel carriers, bunkers, fuel stations, and even communication 
centers. As a result, their use by military organizations worldwide has 
been spreading rapidly.
  But along with the increasing military use of the gun, we have also 
seen increased use of the weapon by violent criminals and terrorists 
around the world. The weapons are deadly accurate up to 2,000 yards. 
This means that a shooter using a 50 caliber weapon can reliably hit a 
target more than a mile away. In fact, according to a training manual 
for military and police snipers published in 1993, a bullet from this 
gun ``even at one and a half miles crashes into a target with more 
energy than Dirty Harry's famous .44 magnum at point-blank'' range.
  And the gun is ``effective'' up to 7,500 yards. In other words, 
although it may be hard to aim at that distance, the gun will have its 
desired destructive effect at that distance--more than 4 miles from the 
target.
  The weapon can penetrate several inches of steel, concrete, or even 
light armor. In fact, many ranges used for target practice do not even 
have enough safety features to accommodate these guns, it is just too 
powerful.

[[Page 3357]]

  Recent advances in weapons technology allow this gun to be used by 
civilians against armored limousines, bunkers, individuals, and even 
aircraft, in fact, one advertisement for the gun apparently promoted 
the weapon as able to ``wreck several million dollars' worth of jet 
aircraft with one or two dollars' worth of cartridge.''
  This gun is so powerful that one dealer told undercover GAO 
investigators ``You'd better buy one soon. It's only a matter of time 
before someone lets go a round on a range that travels so far, it hits 
a school bus full of kids. The government will definitely ban .50 
calibers. This gun is just too powerful.''
  When I first introduced this bill, I commented that a study by the 
General Accounting Office revealed some eye-opening facts about how and 
where this gun is used, and how easily it is obtained. The GAO reports 
that many of these guns wind up in the hands of domestic and 
international terrorists, religious cults, outlaw motorcycle gangs, 
drug traffickers, and violent criminals.
  One doomsday cult headquartered in Montana purchased 10 of these guns 
and stockpiled them in an underground bunker, along with thousands of 
rounds of ammunition and other guns. At least one .50 caliber gun was 
recovered by Mexican authorities after a shoot-out with an 
international drug cartel in that country. The gun was originally 
purchased in Wyoming, so it is clear that the guns are making their way 
into the hands of criminals worldwide.
  Another .50 caliber sniper rifle, smuggled out of the United States, 
was used by the Irish Republican Army to kill a large number of British 
soldiers.
  And ammunition for these guns is also readily available, even over 
the Internet. Bullets for these guns include ``armor piercing 
incendiary'' ammunition that explodes on impact, and even ``armor 
piercing tracing'' ammunition reminiscent of the ammunition that lit up 
the skies over Baghdad during the Persian Gulf war.
  Several ammunition dealers were willing to sell armor piercing 
ammunition to an undercover GAO investigator even after the 
investigator said he wanted the ammunition to pierce an armored 
limousine or maybe to ``take down'' a helicopter. In fact, our own 
military helps to provide thousands of rounds of .50 caliber 
ammunition, by essentially giving away tons of spent cartridges, many 
of which are then refurbished and sold on the civilian market.
  This bill will begin the process of making these guns harder to get 
and easier to track.
  Current law classifies .50 caliber guns as ``long guns,'' subject to 
the least government regulation for any firearm. Sawed-off shotguns, 
machine guns, and even handguns are more highly regulated than this 
military sniper rifle. In fact, many states allow possession of .50 
caliber guns by those as young as 14 years old, and there is no 
regulation on second-hand sales.
  Essentially, this bill would re-classify .50 caliber guns under the 
National Firearms Act, which imposes far stricter standards on powerful 
and destruction weapons. For instance:
  NFA guns may only be purchased from a licensed dealer, and not 
second-hand. This will prevent the sale of these guns at gun shows and 
in other venues that make it hard for law enforcement to track the 
weapons.
  Second, purchasers of NFA guns must fill out license transfer 
applications and provide fingerprints to be processed by the FBI in 
detailed criminal background checks. By reclassifying the .50 caliber, 
Congress will be making a determination that sellers should be more 
careful about to whom they give these powerful, military guns.
  ATF reports that this background check process takes about 60 days, 
so prospective gun buyers will face some delay. However, legitimate 
purchasers of this $7,000 gun can certainly wait that long.
  Clearly, placing a few more restrictions on who can get these guns 
and how is simply common sense. This bill will not ban the sale, use or 
possession of .50 caliber weapons. The .50 caliber shooting club will 
not face extinction, and ``legitimate'' purchasers of these guns will 
not lose their access--even though that, too, might be a reasonable 
step, since I cannot imagine a legitimate use of this gun.
  The bill will simply place stricter requirements on the way in which 
these guns can be sold, and to whom. The measure is meant to offer a 
reasoned solution to making it harder for terrorists, assassins, and 
other criminals to obtain these powerful weapons. If we are to continue 
to allow private citizens to own and use guns of this caliber, range, 
and destructive power, we should at the very least take greater care in 
making sure that these guns do not fall into the wrong hands.
  I urge my colleagues to support this bill.
  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. 505

       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 ``Military Sniper Weapon 
     Regulation Act of 2001''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       The Congress finds that--
       (1) certain firearms originally designed and built for use 
     as long-range 50 caliber military sniper weapons are 
     increasingly sold in the domestic civilian market;
       (2) the intended use of these long-range firearms, and an 
     increasing number of models derived directly from them, is 
     the taking of human life and the destruction of materiel, 
     including armored vehicles and such components of the 
     national critical infrastructure as radars and microwave 
     transmission devices;
       (3) these firearms are neither designed nor used in any 
     significant number for legitimate sporting or hunting 
     purposes and are clearly distinguishable from rifles intended 
     for sporting and hunting use;
       (4) extraordinarily destructive ammunition for these 
     weapons, including armor-piercing and armor-piercing 
     incendiary ammunition, is freely sold in interstate commerce; 
     and
       (5) the virtually unrestricted availability of these 
     firearms and ammunition, given the uses intended in their 
     design and manufacture, present a serious and substantial 
     threat to the national security.

     SEC. 3. COVERAGE OF 50 CALIBER SNIPER WEAPONS UNDER NATIONAL 
                   FIREARMS ACT.

       (a) In General.--Section 5845(a) of the Internal Revenue 
     Code of 1986 (defining firearm) is amended by striking ``(6) 
     a machine gun; (7) any silencer (as defined in section 921 of 
     title 18, United States Code); and (8) a destructive 
     device.'' and inserting ``(6) a 50 caliber sniper weapon; (7) 
     a machine gun; (8) any silencer (as defined in section 921 of 
     title 18, United States Code); and (9) a destructive 
     device.''
       (b) 50 Caliber Sniper Weapon.--
       (1) In general.--Section 5845 of the Internal Revenue Code 
     of 1986 is amended by redesignating subsections (d) through 
     (m) as subsections (e) through (n), respectively, and by 
     inserting after subsection (c) the following new subsection:
       ``(d) 50 Caliber Sniper Weapon.--The term `50 caliber 
     sniper weapon' means a rifle capable of firing a center-fire 
     cartridge in 50 caliber, .50 BMG caliber, any other variant 
     of 50 caliber, or any metric equivalent of such calibers.''
       (2) Modification to definition of rifle.--Subsection (c) of 
     section 5845 of such Code is amended by inserting ``or from a 
     bipod or other support'' after ``shoulder''.
       (3) Conforming amendment.--Section 5811(a) of such Code is 
     amended by striking ``section 5845(e)'' and inserting 
     ``section 5845(f)''.
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. MURKOWSKI:
  S. 506. A bill to amend the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act, to 
provide for a land exchange between the Secretary of Agriculture and 
the Huna Totem Corporation, and for other purposes; to the Committee on 
Energy and Natural Resources.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation today 
on behalf of the Huna Totem Corporation and the residents of Hoonah, 
Alaska.
  This bill would require the Huna Totem Corporation to convey 
ownership of approximately 1,999 acres of land to the United States 
Forest Service. In exchange for these lands the Huna Totem Corporation 
will be allowed to select other lands readily accessible to Hoonah in 
order to fulfill their ANCSA entitlement. This legislation also 
requires the exchange of lands

[[Page 3358]]

to be of equal value and provides for additional compensation if 
needed. Lastly, the legislation requires that any potential timber 
harvested from land acquired by Huna Totem Corporation not be available 
for export.
  The city of Hoonah is located in Southeast Alaska on the northeast 
part of Chichagoff Island. Hoonah has been the home of the Huna people 
since the last advance of the great ice masses into Glacier Bay, 
forcing the Huna people to look for new homes. Since the Huna people 
had traditionally used the Hoonah area each summer as a subsistence 
harvesting area, it was natural for them to settle in the area now 
called Hoonah. The community has a population of approximately 918 
residents and is located forty miles from Juneau; Alaska's capital 
city.
  Within the city of Hoonah is located the Huna Totem Corporation, an 
Alaska Native Corporation formed pursuant to the Alaska Native Claims 
Settlement Act, ANCSA. Huna Totem is the largest Tlingit Indian Village 
Corporation in Southeast Alaska. Under the terms of ANCSA each village 
corporation had to select lands within the core township or townships 
in which all or part of the Native village is located.
  In 1975, Huna Totem filed its ANCSA land selections within the two 
mile radius of the city of Hoonah as mandated by ANCSA. Since the 
community of Hoonah is located along the shoreline at the base of 
Hoonah Head Mountain, the surrounding lands are steep hillsides, 
cliffs, or are designated watershed for the municipal water sources. 
Most of the acres, approximately 1,999, of this land are not suitable 
for economic purposes due to the topography and watershed limitations.
  Therefore in order for the Huna Totem Corporation to receive full 
economic benefit of the lands promised to them under ANCSA, and for the 
city of Hoonah to protect its watershed, alternative lands must be 
sought for Huna Totem to seek revenue from.
  The legislation I am offering today would achieve these goals. By 
authorizing a land exchange between the Huna Totem Corporation and the 
U.S. Forest Service the residents of Hoonah will be able to fully 
recognize the benefits promised under the Alaska Native Claims 
Settlement Act.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. MURKOWSKI:
  S. 509. A bill to establish the Kenai Mountains-Turnagain Arm 
National Heritage Area in the State of Alaska, and for other purposes; 
to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill to 
establish the Kenai Mountains-Turnagain Arm National Heritage Corridor 
in my State of Alaska.
  The national heritage corridor, when enacted, will include the first 
leg of the Iditarod National Historic Trail and most of the Seward 
Highway National Scenic Byway. National heritage designation will give 
us the ability to tell the American public about the critical role that 
this transportation corridor played in shaping the traditions and 
values of the residents of south-central Alaska. From native trade-
routes to shipping ports, from trails to railroads and later highways, 
these are the themes of our national heritage and the settling of the 
North.
  This would be the first among the 16 existing national heritage areas 
that highlights the experience of settling the northern frontier. The 
fact that it would be one of a kind strengthens the case for 
designation.
  Unlike any of the existing national heritage areas, the Kenai 
Mountains-Turnagain Arm National Heritage Corridor will highlight the 
experience of the northern frontier--of transportation and settlement 
in a harsh landscape, of the gold rush and resource development in a 
remote area. These are the themes of the proposal, themes that form our 
perception of ourselves as a nation. The proposed heritage corridor 
wonderfully expresses these themes.
  Within the proposed heritage corridor there are a number of small 
historic communities that developed around transportation and the gold 
rush. Dwarfed by the sweeping landscapes around them, these small 
communities are today still tied to cycles of nature: summer runs of 
salmon, the fall migration of wildlife, the deep snows of winter, and 
the rush of springtime melt. National heritage designation is about the 
relationship that people develop with their surroundings. This 
relationship remains intact in the proposed corridor and has had a 
lasting impact on the values of the residents who live there today.
  Turnagain Arm, once a critical transportation link, has the world's 
second largest tidal range. Visitors can stand along the shore lines 
and actually watch 30 foot tides move in and out of the arm. On 
occasion, the low roar of an oncoming bore tide can be heard as a wall 
of water sweeps up the Turnagain.
  A traveler through the alpine valleys and mountain passes of the 
heritage corridor can witness a landscape shaped by powerful geologic 
forces: retreating glaciers, earthquake subsidence, and avalanche 
scars. The area is home to variety of wildlife: Dall sheep, Beluga 
whales, moose, bald eagles, trumpeter swans, and Arctic terns to name a 
few.
  Bounded by saltwater on either side, the proposed corridor has been 
an important transportation route from the resource rich Kenai 
Peninsula into the rest of Alaska. Alaskan natives established trade 
routes following river valleys and around like the fjord-like lakes. 
Later, Russian fur-traders, gold rush stampeders, missionaries, and 
others arrived all seeking access into the resource-rich land. The 
famous Iditarod Trail to Nome, which was used to haul mail in and gold 
out, started on the Kenai Peninsula.
  A series of starts and stops by railroad entrepreneurs eventually 
culminated in the completion of the Alaska Railroad from Seward to 
Fairbanks by the federal government. President Harding boarded the 
train in Seward in 1923 to drive the golden spike at Nenana (and died 
on the boat returning to Seattle). It was only in the last half of this 
century that the highway from Seward to Anchorage was opened. Before 
then the small communities of the area were linked to the rest of 
Alaska by wagon trail, rail, and by boat across Turnagain Arm and the 
Kenai River.
  The Heritage corridor contains one of the earliest mining regions in 
Alaska. Russians left evidence of their search for gold at Bear Creek 
near Hope. In 1895, discovery of a rich deposit at Canyon Creak 
precipitated the Turnagain Arm Gold Rush, predating the stampede to the 
Klondike.
  The early settlements and communities of the area are still very much 
as they were in the past. But, as in the early days, this is a region 
where ``nature is boss,'' and historic trails and evidence of mining 
history are often embedded and nearly hidden in the landscape. What can 
be seen stands as powerful testimony to the human fortitude, 
perseverance, and resourcefulness that is America's proudest heritage 
from the people who settled the Alaskan frontier.
  People living in the Kenai Mountains-Turnagain Arm Corridor share a 
sense that it is a special place. In part, this is simply because of 
the sheer natural beauty; but it is also because the Alaska frontier is 
relatively recent. Memories of the times when the inhabitants were 
dependent on their own resources, and on each other, are still very 
much alive.
  Communities are small, but they are alive with volunteerism. All have 
active historical societies. Groups in Seward and Girdwood have 
organized to rebuild the Iditarod Trail. In town of Hope citizens 
constructed a museum of mining history, building it themselves out of 
logs and donated materials. Local people have conducted historic 
building surveys, written books and short histories, collected and 
published old diaries, and created web pages to record and share the 
history of their communities. Seward, the corridor's gateway, has 
created a delightful array of visitor opportunities that display and 
interpret the region's natural setting, Native culture, and history. 
National heritage area designation would greatly encourage and expand 
these good efforts.
  Mr. President, it is important to note that this national heritage 
area is a

[[Page 3359]]

local grass roots effort and it will remain a locally driven grass 
roots effort. Decisions will be made by locals, not by Federal 
bureaucrats. The only role of the Federal Government is to provide 
technical expertise, mostly in the areas of the interpretation of the 
many historic sites and tremendous natural resource features that are 
found throughout the entire region. There will be no additional land 
ownership by the Federal Government or by the local management entity 
that is charged with putting together a coordinated plan to interpret 
the heritage area. The heritage area is about local people working 
together.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the bill be printed in the 
Record, in its entirety, immediately after my remarks and I urge my 
colleagues to support this legislation.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 509

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Kenai Mountains-Turnagain 
     Arm National Heritage Area Act of 2001''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSES.

       (a) Findings.--Congress find that--
       (1) The Kenai Mountains-Turnagain Arm transportation 
     corridor is a major gateway to Alaska and includes a range of 
     transportation routes used first by indigenous people who 
     were followed by pioneers who settled the nation's last 
     frontier;
       (2) the natural history and scenic splendor of the region 
     are equally outstanding; vistas of nature's power include 
     evidence of earthquake subsidence, recent avalanches, 
     retreating glaciers and tidal action along Turnagain Arm, 
     which has the world's second greatest tidal range;
       (3) the cultural landscape formed by indigenous people and 
     then by settlement, transportation and modern resource 
     development in this rugged and often treacherous natural 
     setting stands as powerful testimony to the human fortitude, 
     perseverance, and resourcefulness that is America's proudest 
     heritage from the people who settled the frontier;
       (4) there is a national interest in recognizing, 
     preserving, promoting, and interpreting these resources;
       (5) the Kenai Mountains-Turnagain Arm region is 
     geographically and culturally cohesive because it is defined 
     by a corridor of historic routes--trail, water, railroad, and 
     roadways through a distinct landscape of mountains, lakes, 
     and fjords;
       (6) national significance of separate elements of the 
     region include, but are not limited to, the Iditarod National 
     Historic Trail, the Seward Highway National Scenic Byway, and 
     the Alaska Railroad National Scenic Railroad;
       (7) national heritage area designation provides for the 
     interpretation of these routes, as well as the national 
     historic districts and numerous historic routes in the region 
     as part of the whole picture of human history in the wider 
     transportation corridor including early Native trade routes, 
     connections by waterway, mining trail, and other routes;
       (8) national heritage area designation also provides 
     communities within the region with the motivation and means 
     for ``grass roots'' regional coordination and partnerships 
     with each other and with borough, State, and Federal 
     agencies; and
       (9) national heritage area designation is supported by the 
     Kenai Peninsula Historical Association, the Seward Historical 
     Commission, the Seward City Council, the Hope and sunrise 
     Historical Society, the Hope Chamber of Commerce, the Alaska 
     Association for Historic Preservation, the Cooper Landing 
     Community Club, the Alaska Wilderness Recreation and Tourism 
     Association, Anchorage Historic Properties, the Anchorage 
     Convention and Visitors Bureau, the Cook Inlet Historical 
     Society, the Moose Pass Sportsman's Club, the Alaska 
     Historical Commission, the Girdwood Board of Supervisors, the 
     Kenai River Special Management Area Advisory Board, the Bird/
     Indian Community Council, the Kenai Peninsula Borough Trails 
     Commission, the Alaska Division of Parks and Recreation, the 
     Kenai Peninsula Borough, the Kenai Peninsula Tourism 
     Marketing Council, and the Anchorage Municipal Assembly.
       (b) Purposes.--The purposes of this Act are--
       (1) to recognize, preserve, and interpret the historic and 
     modern resource development and cultural landscapes of the 
     Kenai Mountains-Turnagain Arm historic transportation 
     corridor, and to promote and facilitate the public enjoyment 
     of these resources; and
       (2) to foster, through financial and technical assistance, 
     the development of cooperative planning and partnerships 
     among the communities and borough, State, and Federal 
     Government entities.

     SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act:
       (1) Heritage area.--The term ``Heritage Area'' means the 
     Kenai Mountains-Turnagain Arm National Heritage Area 
     established by section 4(a) of this Act.
       (2) Management entity.--The term ``management entity'' 
     means the 11 member Board of Directors of the Kenai 
     Mountains-Turnagain Arm National Heritage Corridor 
     Communities Association.
       (3) Management plan.--The term ``management plan'' means 
     the management plan for the Heritage Area.
       (4) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
     of the Interior.

     SEC. 4. KANAI MOUNTAINS-TURNAGAIN ARM NATIONAL HERITAGE AREA.

       (a) Establishment.--There is established the Kenai 
     Mountains-Turnagain Arm National Heritage Area.
       (b) Boundaries.--The Heritage Area shall comprise the lands 
     in the Kenai Mountains and upper Turnagain Arm region 
     generally depicted on the map entitled ``Kenai Peninsula/
     Turnagain Arm National Heritage Corridor'', numbered ``Map 
     #KMTA--1, and dated ``August 1999''. The map shall be on file 
     and available for public inspection in the offices of the 
     Alaska Regional Office of the National Park Service and in 
     the offices of the Alaska State Heritage Preservation 
     Officer.

     SEC. 5. MANAGEMENT ENTITY.

       (a) The Secretary shall enter into a cooperative agreement 
     with the management entity, to carry out the purposes of this 
     Act. The cooperative agreement shall include information 
     relating to the objectives and management of the Heritage 
     Area, including the following:
       (1) A discussion of the goals and objectives of the 
     Heritage Area;
       (2) An explanation of the proposed approach to conservation 
     and interpretation of the Heritage Area;
       (3) A general outline of the protection measures, to which 
     the management entity commits.
       (b) Nothing in this Act authorizes the management entity to 
     assume any management authorities or responsibilities on 
     Federal lands.
       (c) Representatives of other organizations shall be invited 
     and encouraged to participate with the management entity and 
     in the development and implementation of the management plan, 
     including but not limited to: The State Division of Parks and 
     Outdoor Recreation; the State Division of Mining, Land and 
     Water; the Forest Service; the State Historic Preservation 
     Office; the Kenai Peninsula Borough; the Municipality of 
     Anchorage; the Alaska Railroad; the Alaska Department of 
     Transportation; and the National Park Service.
       (d) Representation of ex-officio members in the non-profit 
     corporation shall be established under the bylaws of the 
     management entity.

     SEC. 6. AUTHORITIES AND DUTIES OF MANAGEMENT ENTITY.

       (a) Management Plan.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than 3 years after the Secretary 
     enters into a cooperative agreement with the management 
     entity, the management entity shall develop a management plan 
     for the Heritage Area, taking into consideration existing 
     Federal, State, borough, and local plans.
       (2) Contents.--The management plan shall include, but not 
     be limited to--
       (A) comprehensive recommendations for conservation, 
     funding, management, and development of the Heritage Area;
       (B) a description of agreements on actions to be carried 
     out by Government and private organizations to protect the 
     resources of the Heritage Area;
       (C) a list of specific and potential sources of funding to 
     protect, manage, and develop the Heritage Area;
       (D) an inventory of the resources contained in the Heritage 
     Area; and
       (E) a description of the role and participation of other 
     Federal, State, and local agencies that have jurisdiction on 
     lands within the Heritage Area.
       (b) Priorities.--The management entity shall give priority 
     to the implementation of actions, goals, and policies set 
     forth in the cooperative agreement with the Secretary and the 
     heritage plan, including assisting communities within the 
     region in--
       (1) carrying out programs which recognize important 
     resource values in the Heritage Area;
       (2) encouraging economic viability in the affected 
     communities;
       (3) establishing and maintaining interpretive exhibits in 
     the Heritage Area;
       (4) improving and interpreting heritage trails;
       (5) increasing public awareness and appreciation for the 
     natural, historical, and cultural resources and modern 
     resource development of the Heritage Area;
       (6) restoring historic buildings and structures that are 
     located within the boundaries of the Heritage Area; and
       (7) ensuring that clear, consistent, and appropriate signs 
     identifying public access points and sites of interest are 
     placed throughout the Heritage Area.
       (c) Public Meetings.--The management entity shall conduct 2 
     or more public meetings each year regarding the initiation 
     and implementation of the management plan for the Heritage 
     Area. The management entity shall place a notice of each such 
     meeting in

[[Page 3360]]

     a newspaper of general circulation in the Heritage Area and 
     shall make the minutes of the meeting available to the 
     public.

     SEC. 7. DUTIES OF THE SECRETARY.

       (a) The Secretary, in consultation with the Governor of 
     Alaska, or his designee, is authorized to enter into a 
     cooperative agreement with the management entity. The 
     cooperative agreement shall be prepared with public 
     participation.
       (b) In accordance with the terms and conditions of the 
     cooperative agreement and upon the request of the management 
     entity, and subject to the availability of funds, the 
     Secretary may provide administrative, technical, financial, 
     design, development, and operations assistance to carry out 
     the purposes of this Act.

     SEC. 8. SAVINGS PROVISIONS.

       (a) Regulatory Authority.--Nothing in this Act shall be 
     construed to grant powers of zoning or management of land use 
     to the management entity of the Heritage Area.
       (b) Effect on Authority of Governments.--Nothing in this 
     Act shall be construed to modify, enlarge, or diminish any 
     authority of the Federal, State, or local governments to 
     manage or regulate any use of land as provided for by law or 
     regulation.
       (c) Effect on Business.--Nothing in this Act shall be 
     construed to obstruct or limit business activity on private 
     development or resource development activities.

     SEC. 9. PROHIBITION ON THE ACQUISITION OR REAL PROPERTY.

       The management entity may not use funds appropriated to 
     carry out the purposes of this Act to acquire real property 
     or interest in real property.

     SEC. 10. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       (a) First Year.--For the first year $350,000 is authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out the purposes of this Act, and 
     is made available upon the Secretary and the management 
     entity completing a cooperative agreement.
       (b) In General.--There is authorized to be appropriated not 
     more than $1,000,000 to carry out the purposes of this Act 
     for any fiscal year after the first year. Not more than 
     $10,000,000 in the aggregate, may be appropriated for the 
     Heritage Area.
       (c) Matching Funds.--Federal funding provided under this 
     Act shall be matched at least 25 percent by other funds or 
     in-kind services.
       (d) Sunset Provision.--The Secretary may not make any grant 
     or provide any assistance under this Act beyond 15 years from 
     the date that the Secretary and management entity complete a 
     cooperative agreement.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. LUGAR:
  S. 508. A bill to authorize the President to promote posthumously the 
late Raymond Ames Spruance to the grade of Fleet Admiral of the United 
States Navy, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Armed 
Services.
  Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, at 10:25 a.m. on June 4, 1942, a Japanese 
armada including four carriers was steaming east towards Midway Island, 
1150 miles west of Pearl Harbor in the Central Pacific. Its objectives: 
Invade the strategically situated atoll, seize the U.S. base and 
airstrip, and, if possible, destroy what remained of our Pacific fleet 
after the surprise attack on Pearl Harbor the preceding December.
  At 10:30 a.m. three of the four Japanese carriers and their aircraft 
were a flaming shambles. Moments before, Japanese fighter cover had 
swatted down torpedo bomber squadrons from the U.S. carriers 
Enterprise, Hornet, and Yorktown--the final, fatal mission for 35 of 41 
American planes and 68 of 82 pilots and gunners. But their courageous 
attack had drawn the fighters down to deck level, leaving the skies 
nearly empty for the 37 U.S. dive bombers who then appeared and, in 
five fateful minutes, changed the course of history. By nightfall, the 
fourth Japanese carrier, too, was a blazing wreck, a fitting coda to a 
day that reversed forever the military fortunes of Imperial Japan.
  ``So ended,'' wrote Churchill, ``the battle of June 4, rightly 
regarded as the turning point of the war in the Pacific.'' With Sir 
Winston, of course, the question at times was whether the event could 
rise to the level of his prose. Midway measured up. ``The annals of war 
at sea,'' he intoned, ``present no more intense, heart-shaking shock'' 
than Midway and its precursor in the Coral Sea--battles where ``the 
bravery and self-devotion of the American airmen and sailors and the 
nerve and skill of their leaders was the foundation of all.''
  Few today pause to remember Midway, now six decades past. Fewer still 
recall the American leader whose nerve and skill were paramount in what 
historians consider one of the two or three most significant naval 
battles in recorded history. He was an unlikely figure, a little-known, 
soft-spoken, publicity-averse 56-year-old Rear Admiral from Indiana 
named Raymond Ames Spruance. Yet it is doubtful that any other American 
in uniform contributed more than this quiet Hoosier to our World War II 
triumph--a foundation for every blessing of peace and prosperity we now 
enjoy.
  I heard Admiral Spruance speak in February 1946, when I was 13 years 
old and he visited Shortridge High School in Indianapolis, his alma 
mater and soon to be mine. Our teachers were excited as they shepherded 
my junior high classmates and me into the auditorium for a joint 
assembly with the high schoolers. But nothing about the speech was 
particularly vivid or exciting to this member of the youthful audience. 
I recall little more than the talk about our recent victory in the 
Pacific--with little hint from the modest man on stage about his 
personal involvement, at one crucial juncture after another, in making 
that victory possible.
  Only years later did I really understand how large a role Raymond 
Spruance had played on the stage of actual events, starting at Midway. 
His very presence at the battle--replacing the flamboyant William 
``Bull'' Halsey, temporarily shore-bound with a skin ailment--had been 
happenstance. Yet it was Spruance, with no prior carrier combat 
experience, who at the key moment made the crucial command decision to 
launch all available aircraft, which led to the devastation of the 
enemy carriers. It was Spruance who then preserved that turning-point 
victory, instinctively resisting Japanese attempts over the next two 
days to lure the American fleet into a trap--a trap subsequent U.S. 
intelligence would confirm was indeed waiting. It was Spruance, as 
famed Navy historian Samuel Eliot Morison would write, who ``emerged 
from the battle one of the greatest admirals in American naval 
history.''
  It was also Spruance who, when complimented on Midway years after the 
War, would say, ``There were a hundred Spruances in the Navy. They just 
happened to pick me for the job.'' Herman Wouk's masterful ``War And 
Remembrance'' has the best rejoinder, which the author puts in the 
mouth of a fictional wartime adversary: ``In fact, there was only one 
Spruance and luck gave him, at a fateful hour, to America.'' Speaking 
in their own voices, Wouk and other Americans of faith would quarrel 
only with the word ``luck.''
  Midway would prove but the first of many Spruance-led successes. As 
Commander of the newly formed Fifth Fleet, he would lead American 
operations in the Gilberts, then in the Marshalls, and then in the 
Marianas, including the invasion of Saipan. (Among the fighting men 
under Spruance's overall command during this 1943-44 period was a young 
aviator--the war's youngest commissioned Naval pilot--named George 
Bush). Spruance would then command 1945's crucial, hard-fought 
invasions of Iwo Jima and Okinawa, the latter involving some 1,200 
vessels and 548,000 men, an amphibious operation on a scale surpassed 
only by Normandy.
  Throughout, he maintained the unassuming attitude that downplayed his 
own role at Midway. Unlike some of his contemporaries (and in marked 
contrast to the spirit of our own age), Spruance avoided publicity and 
abjured self-promotion, which he saw as a threat to effective command. 
``A man's judgment is best,'' said Spruance, ``when he can forget 
himself and any reputation he may have acquired, and can concentrate 
wholly on making the right decision.'' These are words to live by for 
any leader. Spruance, both during the war and in his later service as 
President of the Naval War College and Ambassador to the Philippines, 
lived them as few other leaders in any age and any field of endeavor 
have managed.
  One consequence was that he forwent levels of recognition and reward 
accorded others who, though fully worthy, were certainly no more worthy 
than he. Serious historians and scholars, however, never doubted the 
merits of the man whose biography is aptly titled ``The Quiet 
Warrior.'' Among all

[[Page 3361]]

the war's combat admirals ``there was no one to equal Spruance,'' wrote 
Morison. ``He envied no man, regarded no one as rival, won the respect 
of all with whom he came in contact, and went ahead in his quiet way 
winning victories for his country.''
  That was surely enough for Spruance, who passed away in December 
1969. But I do not think it should be enough for us, his countrymen, 
who are the beneficiaries of the victories he won. That is why I have 
introduced legislation authorizing and requesting President Bush to 
promote Raymond Spruance--the ``quiet warrior'' under whom the 
President's father once served--to the five-star rank of Fleet Admiral 
of the United States Navy. I believe this posthumous honor should be 
the fitting, and final, promotion among America's World War II Armed 
Forces, even as we anticipate dedication of a national memorial 
honoring all who served in that conflict.
  It is fitting, first of all, because it corrects an oversight. Near 
the end of the war, Congress authorized four five-star positions each 
in the Army and in the Navy. The new generals of the Army were George 
Marshall, Douglas MacArthur, Dwight Eisenhower and Henry ``Hap'' 
Arnold--later redesignated general of the Air Force. The first three 
five-star admirals were Pacific commander-in-chief Chester Nimitz, 
wartime CNO Ernest King, and William Daniel Leahy, President 
Roosevelt's chief of staff and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs. But an 
internal battle raged for months over whether the fourth fleet admiral 
would be the colorful Halsey--who was ultimately selected--or his more 
reticent colleague, the victor at Midway. Later, when Congress 
authorized another five-star post for the ``GI General,'' Omar Bradley, 
it overlooked creating a fifth Navy five-star opening, which 
unquestionably would have gone to Bradley's ocean-going counterpart, 
Raymond Spruance.
  Typically, Spruance stayed away from these controversies. His one 
comment came in 1965, when he wrote a friend:

       So far as my getting five-star rank is concerned, if I 
     could have had it along with Bill Halsey, that would have 
     been fine; but, if I had received it instead of Bill Halsey, 
     I would have been very unhappy over it.

  Well, Raymond Spruance can now have five-star rank ``along with Bill 
Halsey.'' He deserves it, the more so because he did not seek it. It is 
an oversight that he was not given it earlier. But these are reasons 
enough to correct that oversight now.



  And there are other reasons we should pay Raymond Spruance this 
posthumous honor, reasons that have as much to do with us as with him. 
What we choose to honor says a great deal about who we are. Much of 
what our political and popular culture ``honors'' today--with celebrity 
and fortune and swarms of media attention is the foolish and flighty, 
the sensational and self-indulgent. Too often, the pursuits made 
possible by freedom are unworthy of the sacrifices that preserved 
freedom itself.
  Those sacrifices were made by earlier generations inspired by a 
simpler, sturdier set of values, values that included duty to country 
and, when necessary, self-sacrifice on her behalf. If we cherish and 
would preserve the blessings of freedom, we must hold up before our 
children--who daily see too many less worthy models--those who 
willingly made the sacrifices that kept freedom alive.
  No one served the values of freedom more fully or nobly, and with 
less thought of personal praise or fame, than Raymond Spruance. On any 
list of the great Allied military leaders of World War II, his 
character and his contributions to victory stand in the very first 
rank. It is simple justice to him, and fitting and proper for us, now 
to award him actual rank commensurate with such character and 
contributions. My hope is that my colleagues and the President will 
agree--so that history henceforth will honor Fleet Admiral Raymond Ames 
Spruance, the quiet Hoosier warrior whose triumph at Midway opened the 
door to America's triumph in the Pacific.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. SANTORUM:
  S. 510. A bill to amend the Caribbean Basin Economic Recovery Act to 
provide trade benefits for certain textile covers; to the Committee on 
Finance.
  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. 510

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

     SECTION 1. CERTAIN TEXTILE COVERS.

       Section 213(b)(2)(A) of the Caribbean Basin Economic 
     Recovery Act (19 U.S.C. 2703(b)(2)(A)) is amended by adding 
     at the end the following:
       ``(ix) Certain textile covers.--Certain textile covers 
     classifiable under subheading 6302.31.90 or 6302.32.20 of the 
     HTS--

       ``(I) assembled in a CBTPA beneficiary country from fabric 
     wholly formed and cut in the United States, from yarns wholly 
     formed in the United States, that are entered under 
     subheading 9802.00.80 of the HTS; or
       ``(II) assembled from fabric cut in a CBTPA beneficiary 
     country from fabric wholly formed in the United States, from 
     yarns wholly formed in the United States, if the covers are 
     assembled in a CBTPA beneficiary country with thread formed 
     in the United States.''.

                                 ______
                                 
      By Ms. SNOWE:
  S. 511. A bill to authorize the Secretary of Transportation to issue 
a certificate of documentation with appropriate endorsement for 
employment in the coastwise trade for the vessel AJ; to the Committee 
on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 511

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

     SECTION 1. CERTIFICATE OF DOCUMENTATION.

       Notwithstanding section 27 of the Merchant Marine Act, 1920 
     (46 U.S.C. App. 883), section 8 of the Act of June 19, 1886 
     (24 Stat. 81, chapter 421; 46 U.S.C. App. 289), and sections 
     12106 and 12108 of title 46, United States Code, the 
     Secretary of Transportation may issue a certificate of 
     documentation with appropriate endorsement for employment in 
     the coastwise trade for the vessel AJ, United States official 
     number 599164.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. DORGAN (for himself, Mr. Enzi, Mr. Graham, Mr. Voinovich, 
        Mr. Breaux, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Durbin, Mr. Chafee, Mrs. Lincoln, 
        Mrs. Hutchison, and Mr. Rockefeller):
  S. 512. A bill to foster innovation and technological advancement in 
the development of the Internet and electronic commerce, and to assist 
the States in simplifying their sales and use taxes; to the Committee 
on Finance.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, today I'm joined by Senators Enzi, Graham, 
Voinovich, Breaux, and a number of our colleagues in re-introducing the 
Internet Tax Moratorium and Equity Act. This legislation is nearly 
identical to legislation we sponsored in the last Congress. We believe 
that it is absolutely imperative that Congress move quickly this year 
to consider this legislation and the difficult tax issues relating to 
Internet sales that it seeks to address.
  First, most everyone who is familiar with this issue knows that the 
current expiration date for the moratorium on Internet access and 
discriminatory taxes is fast approaching. We believe the moratorium 
should be extended. Also, this legislation moves toward a solution to 
the growing web of tax compliance problems that faces virtually 
everyone who would do business across State lines, sellers and 
customers alike.
  Despite some setbacks, Internet technology and commerce will continue 
to be a real growth engine for our economy. The past holiday season, 
retail sales over the Internet jumped 76 percent from the same period a 
year earlier. A recent University of Texas study estimated that $830 
billion in revenues were generated by the Internet economy in 2000, up 
58 percent from 1999 levels. Together, this information

[[Page 3362]]

suggests that Internet sales are not going to be either temporary or 
insignificant, and neither are the compliance problems.
  We believe that the approach embraced in our bill would help create a 
climate in which Web-based firms and Main Street businesses can co-
exist and compete on fair and even terms. Any new form of commerce 
presents a challenge to the rules and structures that have grown up 
around the old. The automobile required the reform of traffic-control 
rules designed for the horse-and-buggy era. And the Internet is no 
exception. The Internet has raised vexing questions about privacy and 
property rights. It has raised similarly vexing questions regarding the 
revenue systems of the States and localities of this nation. Clearly, 
the Internet does not fit neatly into these systems as they have 
evolved over the last two hundred years.
  This disconnect has created tensions on all sides. On one side are 
the vital new businesses, Internet service providers, Web-based 
businesses and the rest, worried that they will be singled out as cash 
cows and subjected to new and unfair taxes. On the other side are State 
and local governments worried about the erosion of their tax bases and 
their ability to pay for the schools, police, garbage collection and 
more that their taxpayers need and expect. In between are Main Street 
merchants who collect sales taxes from their customers and worry about 
unfair competition from Web-based business that do not have to collect 
these taxes. And we shouldn't overlook the citizens and taxpayers, who 
appreciate the convenience and opportunities of the Web but who also 
care about their Main Street merchants, and about their schools and 
other local services.
  All of these concerns are understandable and valid. Our job in 
Congress is to try to address the problem in a fair and constructive 
way.
  The solution begins with a recognition of the problem. Collecting a 
sales tax in a face-to-face transaction on Main Street or at the mall 
is a relatively simple process. The seller collects the tax and remits 
it to the State or local government. But with remote sales--such as 
catalog and Internet sales, it's more difficult. States cannot require 
a seller to collect a sales tax unless the business has an actual 
location or sales people in the State. So most States, and many 
localities, have laws that require the local buyer to send an 
equivalent ``use tax'' to the State or local government when he or she 
did not pay taxes at the time of purchase.
  The reality, of course, is that customers almost never do that. It 
would be a major inconvenience, and people are not accustomed to paying 
sales taxes in that way. So, despite the requirement in the law, most 
simply don't do it. This tax, which is already owed, is not paid. For 
years, State and local governments could accept this loss because 
catalog sales were a relatively minor portion of overall commerce. The 
rapid growth of Internet sales is changing all that.
  Internet and catalog sellers correctly argue that collecting sales 
taxes would be a significant burden for them. Understandably, they 
contend that it would be difficult for them to have to comply with tax 
laws from thousands of different jurisdictions, 46 States and thousands 
of local governments have sales taxes, with different tax rates and all 
of the idiosyncracies regarding what is taxable and what is non-
taxable. They have a point.
  However, there are some remote sellers who know they enjoy an 
advantage over Main Street businesses and simply do not want to lose 
it. They can sell a product without collecting the tax, whereas Main 
Street businesses must collect the local sales tax. Main Street 
businesses claim that is unfair, and they have a point, too.
  As I have said before, all sides in this debate have valid points, 
and that is the premise of the bill we introduce today. There are three 
basic principles underlying the Internet Tax Moratorium and Equity Act.
  First, we believe that this new Internet technology will remain a 
real growth engine for our economy, and the solution must begin by 
putting the worries of Web-based entrepreneurs to rest. They should not 
be concerned about new and discriminatory tax burdens, and they should 
not be singled out as cash cows. Congress should make this clear. 
That's why our bill would extend the existing moratorium, which is set 
to expire on October 21st, through December 31, 2005. That will help 
remove some of the anxiety about the approaching expiration date, while 
giving all stakeholders--State and local governments, Internet sellers, 
and the bricks and mortar retail community, time to work together to 
develop a real solution for the sales and use tax compliance problems 
now facing many businesses and their customers.
  Second, State and local governments should be encouraged to simplify 
their sales tax systems as they apply to remote sellers. And third, 
once States have reduced the burden on sellers by simplifying their 
sales and use tax systems, then it is only fair that remote sellers do 
their part and collect any use tax that is owed, just as local 
merchants collect sales taxes. This simple step would free the consumer 
from the burden of having to report such taxes individually. It would 
level the playing field for local retailers and others that already 
collect and remit such taxes, and it would protect the ability of State 
and local governments to provide necessary services for their residents 
in the future.
  Specifically, the Internet Tax Moratorium and Equity Act would do the 
following:
  Extend the existing moratorium on Internet access, multiple and 
discriminatory taxes through December 31, 2005.
  Put Congress on record as urging States and localities to streamline 
their sales and use tax systems. Among other things, a dramatically 
simplified sales and use tax system would allow remote sellers to use 
information provided by the States to easily identify the single 
applicable rate for each sale, as well as provide sellers relief from 
liability for relying on such information.
  Require such a simplified tax system to include: uniform definitions 
for goods and services, uniform procedures for the treatment of exempt 
purchasers, and uniform rules for attributing transactions to 
particular tax jurisdictions, as well as uniform audit procedures and a 
seller's option for a single audit.
  Authorize States to enter into an Interstate Sales and Use Tax 
Compact through which member States would adopt the streamlined sales 
and use tax system. Congressional authority and consent to enter into 
such a Compact would expire if it has not occurred by January 1, 2006.
  Authorize States that adopt the Compact to require remote sellers 
with more than $5 million in annual gross sales to collect and remit 
sales and use taxes on remote sales, once twenty States have adopted 
such a Compact, unless Congress has acted to disapprove the Compact by 
law within a period of 120 days after the Congress receives it.
  Prohibit States that have not adopted the simplified sales and use 
tax system from gaining benefit from the authority extended in the bill 
to require sellers to collect and remit sales and use taxes on remote 
sales.
  In my judgment, it would be a serious mistake for Congress to adopt a 
lengthy extension of the current Internet tax moratorium without 
addressing these underlying problems. If we don't address the problems, 
then the growth of the Internet, which should be a benefit to 
Americans, will instead mean a major erosion of funds available to 
build and maintain schools and roads, finance police departments and 
garbage collection, and all the other services that citizens in this 
country want and need.
  Moreover, the competitive crisis facing local retailers is also 
growing more urgent. In testimony before the Commerce Committee in the 
last Congress, a representative from a large retailer testified that 
his company is incorporating a separate business to put the business on 
the Internet. It will do so in a manner that will enable them to avoid 
sales and use taxes. Even though the retailer has locations in every

[[Page 3363]]

State and therefore would be required to collect such taxes on Internet 
sales, it believes that such avoidance is needed to compete with other 
large competitors that will be making those sales tax-free. This 
scenario could play out over and over again unless we act quickly and 
decisively. If we don't act, the large retailers will survive, the 
small Main Street businesses will continue to struggle, and there will 
be a massive loss of revenues to fund schools and other basic services.
  Let me conclude by reiterating that this is an issue that Congress 
must address now. It is important for Congress to begin the process of 
finding a long-term solution to the problem this year before the 
moratorium expires. We believe that our legislation strikes a proper 
balance between the interests of the Internet industry, State and local 
governments, local retailers and remote sellers. It is workable and 
fair, and I urge my colleagues to cosponsor this much-needed bipartisan 
legislation.
  I ask unanimous consent to have the following two statements put in 
the Record, one from a group of organizations representing States and 
localities, and the other from the E-Fairness Coalition.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

  [From National Governors' Association, National Conference of State 
  Legislatures, Council of State Governments, National Association of 
 Counties, United States Conference of Mayors, and International City/
             County Management Association, March 9, 2001]

  Statement on the Introduction of the ``Internet Tax Moratorium and 
  Equity Act'' Sponsored by Senators Dorgan, Enzi, Voinovich, Graham, 
   Breaux, Hutchison, Chafee, Thomas, Lincoln, Durbin and Rockefeller

       Our organizations representing the nation's state and local 
     governments support the goals of Senators Dorgan, Enzi, 
     Voinovich, Graham, Breaux, Hutchison, Thomas, Chafee, 
     Lincoln, Durbin and Rockefeller to provide for a level 
     playing field for all retail sales through state based 
     simplification of sales and use tax structures that allows 
     for the collection of the appropriate applicable state and 
     local sales and use tax.
       State and local governments recognize the need to simplify 
     the current sales and use tax collection systems to benefit 
     the national economy through the removal of unnecessary 
     complexity. The nation's state and local sales and use taxes 
     are the single most important source of support for public 
     education in America. We regard it as critical that the 
     Congress support efforts to prevent erosion of this revenue 
     source essential to funding our education systems.
       The efforts of the more than 30 states to simplify their 
     systems to dramatically reduce the complexity and cost of 
     collection for all sellers is evidence of our commitment to 
     adapt to the new economy. We would oppose any effort to 
     extend the moratorium, unless and until, Congress acts to 
     restore the authority of states and local governments to 
     ensure that all vendors are treated equally.
       We support federal legislation that ensures that any sales 
     and use tax simplification process would be developed and 
     implemented on the state and local level and grant to those 
     states the authority to require out of state sellers to 
     collect and remit sales and use taxes. Preservation of state 
     and local sovereignty is a cornerstone of our federal system; 
     this legislation promises an important opportunity to restore 
     this element.
       We look forward to working with Senators Dorgan, Enzi, 
     Voinovich, Breaux, Graham, Hutchison, Thomas, Chafee, 
     Lincoln, Durbin, Rockefeller and others to further refine 
     legislative language to achieve this end.
                                  ____



                                                   e-Fairness,

                                    Washington, DC, March 7, 2001.
     Hon. Byron Dorgan,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Dorgan: I am writing to congratulate you on 
     the introduction of the ``Internet Tax and Moratorium Equity 
     Act.''
       The e-Fairness Coalition includes brick-and-mortar and 
     online retailers, realtors, retail and real estate 
     associations, as well as publicly and privately owned 
     shopping centers, the Newspaper Association of America, and 
     members of the high-tech community such as Gateway and 
     Vertical Net. The Coalition advocates a level playing field 
     with respect to sales and use tax collection for all 
     retailers, including bricks-and-mortar as well as Internet-
     based.
       We have been working for over 18 months to help provide a 
     comprehensive solution to the questions surrounding Internet 
     taxation. We continue to believe that federal legislation is 
     necessary in order to provide for tax equity amongst all 
     retailers. Your bill is important because it promotes the 
     continued growth of the Internet by extending the current 
     moratorium on Internet access fees and multiple and 
     discriminatory taxes. However, it also provides clear and 
     reasonable simplification guidelines that once adopted would 
     allow the states to require that remote sellers collect use 
     taxes just as Main Street retailers collect sales taxes.
       On behalf of the nation's retailers and real estate 
     interests--and the 1 in 5 American workers our members 
     represent--I applaud you for your leadership on this 
     important issue. Our Coalition looks forward to continuing to 
     work with you to provide a level playing field for all 
     retailers and all consumers.
           Sincerely,
                                                      Lisa Cowell,
                                               Executive Director.
       On behalf of:
       Alabama Retail Association.
       American Booksellers Association.
       American Jewelers Association.
       Ames Department Stores.
       Atlantic Independent Booksellers Association.
       CBL & Associates Properties, Inc.
       Circuit City Stores, Inc.
       Electronic Commerce Association.
       First Washington Realty Trust, Inc.
       Florida Retail Federation.
       Gateway Companies, Inc.
       General Growth Properties, Inc.
       Georgia Retail Association.
       Great Lakes Booksellers Association.
       Home Depot.
       Illinois Retail Merchants Association.
       International Council of Shopping Centers (ICSC).
       International Mass Retail Association (IMRA).
       Kentucky Retail Association.
       Kimco Realty Corporation.
       K-Mart Corporation.
       Lowe's Corporation, Inc.
       The Macerich Company.
       Michigan Retailers Association.
       Mid-South Booksellers Association.
       Missouri Retailers Association.
       Mountains & Plains Booksellers Association.
       National Association of College Stores.
       National Association of Convenience Stores.
       National Association of Industrial and Office Properties 
     (NAIOP).
       National Association of Real Estate Investment Trusts 
     (NAREIT).
       National Association of Realtors (NAR).
       National Community Pharmacists Association.
       National Retail Federation.
       New England Booksellers Association.
       Newspaper Association of America.
       North American Retail Dealers Association.
       Northern California Independent Booksellers.
       Pacific Northwest Booksellers Association.
       Performance Warehouse Association.
       RadioShack Corporation.
       Regency Realty Corporation.
       Retailers Association of Massachusetts (RAM).
       ShopKo.
       Simon Property Group.
       Southeast Booksellers Association.
       Southern California Booksellers Association.
       South Carolina Merchants Association (SCMA).
       Target, Inc.
       Taubman Centers, Inc.
       The Gap, Inc.
       The Macerich Company.
       The Musicland Group, Inc.
       The Real Estate Roundtable.
       The Rouse Company.
       Variety Wholesalers.
       VerticalNet, Inc.
       Virginia Retail Merchants Association.
       Wal-Mart.
       Weingarten Realty Investors.
       Westfield America, Inc.

  Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the Internet Tax 
Moratorium and Equity Act introduced today by Senator Dorgan. I am an 
original cosponsor and I encourage each of my colleagues to join me as 
a cosponsor of this bill. We had to take a look at the Internet sales 
tax issue for people who might be using legislative vehicles to develop 
huge loopholes in our current system. We are federally mandating states 
into a sales tax exemption. We need to preserve the system for those 
cities, towns, counties, and states that rely on the ability to collect 
the sales tax they are currently getting.
  There are some critical issues here that have to be solved to keep 
the stability of state and local government--just the stability of it--
not to increase sales tax, just protect what is there right now. I 
believe the Internet Tax Moratorium and Equity Act is a monumental step 
forward in protecting, yet enhancing, the current system.
  Certainly, no Senator wants to take steps that will unreasonably 
burden the development and growth of the

[[Page 3364]]

Internet. At the same time, we must also be sensitive to issues of 
basic competitive fairness and the negative affect our action or 
inaction can have on brick-and-mortar retailers, a critical economic 
sector and employment force in all American society, especially in 
rural states like Wyoming. In addition, we must consider the legitimate 
need of state and local governments to have the flexibility they need 
to generate resources to adequately fund their programs and operations.
  If the loophole exists, I can share a method for local retailers to 
avoid sales tax collection too--but creating this loophole will lead to 
others--pay attention here. Sales tax collection and federal and state 
income tax could be in the same boat, if sales tax collection is no 
longer necessary on Internet sales purely by virtue of the sale over 
the Internet. Why shouldn't an employee whose check is written on the 
Internet and transmitted directly to his bank account not owe any 
income tax? Both would be Internet tax loopholes--tax collection 
exemptions forced by an all-knowing federal government.
  As the only accountant in the Senate, I have a unique perspective on 
the dozens of tax proposals that are introduced in Congress each year. 
In addition, my service on the state and local level and my experiences 
as a small business owner enable me to consider these bills from more 
than one viewpoint.
  I understand the importance of protecting and promoting the growth of 
Internet commerce because of its potential economic benefits. It is a 
valuable resource because it provides access on demand. In addition, it 
is estimated that the growth of online businesses will create millions 
of new jobs nationwide in the coming years. Therefore, I do not support 
a tax on the use of Internet itself.
  I do, however, have concerns about using the Internet as a sales tax 
loophole. Sales taxes go directly to state and local governments and I 
am very leery of any federal legislation that bypasses their 
traditional ability to raise revenue to perform needed services such as 
school funding, road repair and law enforcement. I will not force 
states into a huge new exemption. While those who advocate a permanent 
loophole on the collection of a sales tax over the Internet claim to 
represent the principles of tax reduction, they are actually advocating 
a tax increase. Simply put, if Congress continues to allow sales over 
the Internet to go untaxed and electronic commerce continues to grow as 
predicted, revenues to state and local governments will fall and 
property taxes will have to be increased to offset lost revenue or 
states who do not have or believe in state income taxes will be forced 
to start one.
  After months of hard work, negotiations, and compromise, the Internet 
Tax Moratorium and Equity Act has been introduced. I would like to 
commend Senator Dorgan on his commitment to finding a solution and 
working with all parties to find that solution. The bill extends the 
existing moratorium on Internet access, multiple, and discriminatory 
taxes for an additional four years through December 31, 2005.
  Throughout the past several years, we have heard that catalog and 
Internet companies say they are willing to allow and collect sales tax 
on interstate sales (regardless of traditional or Internet sales) if 
states will simplify collections to one rate per state sent to one 
location in that state. I think that is a reasonable request. I have 
heard the argument that computers make it possible to handle several 
thousand tax entities, but from an auditing standpoint as well as 
simplicity for small business, I support one rate per state. I think 
the states should have some responsibility for redistribution not a 
business forced to do work for government. Therefore, the bill would 
put Congress on record as urging states and localities to develop a 
streamlined sales and use tax system, which would include a single, 
blended tax rate with which all remote sellers can comply. You need to 
be aware that states are prohibited from gaining benefit from the 
authority extended in the bill to require sellers to collect and remit 
sales and use taxes on remote sales if the states have not adopted the 
simplified sales and use tax system.
  Further, the bill would authorize states to enter into an Interstate 
Sales and Use Tax Compact through which members would adopt the 
streamlined sales and use tax system. Congressional authority and 
consent to enter into such a compact would expire if it has not 
occurred by January 1, 2006. The bill also authorizes states to require 
all other sellers to collect and remit sales and use taxes on remote 
sales unless Congress has acted to disapprove the compact by law within 
a period of 120 days after the Congress receives it.
  We introduce this bill because we do not think there is adequate 
protection now. It is very important we do not build electronic 
loopholes on the Internet, an ever-changing Internet, one that is 
growing by leaps and bounds, one that is finding new technology 
virtually every day. What we know as the Internet today is not what we 
will be using by the time the moratorium is finalized. More and more 
people are using the Internet everyday.
  Mr. President, I recognize this body has a constitutional 
responsibility to regulate interstate commerce. Furthermore, I 
understand the desire of several Senators to protect and promote the 
growth of Internet commerce. Internet commerce is an exciting field. It 
has a lot of growth potential. The new business will continue to create 
millions of new jobs in the coming years.
  The exciting thing about that for Wyomingites is that our merchants 
do not have to go where the people are. For people in my state, that 
means their products are no longer confined to a local market. They do 
not have to rely on expensive catalogs to sell merchandise to the big 
city folks. They do not have to travel all the way to Asia to display 
their goods. The customer can come to us on the Internet. It is a 
remarkable development, and it will push more growth for small 
manufacturers in rural America, especially in my state. We have seen 
some of the economic potential in the Internet and will continue this 
progress. It is a valuable resource because it provides access on 
demand. It brings information to your fingertips when you want it and 
how you want it.
  I was the mayor of a small town, Gillette, Wyoming, for 8 years. I 
later served in the State House for 5 years and the State Senate for 5 
years. Throughout my public life, I have always worked to reduce taxes, 
to return more of people's hard-earned wages to them.
  I am not here to argue in favor of taxes. There were times in 
Gillette when we had to make tough decisions. I was mayor during the 
boom time when the size of our town doubled in just a few years. We had 
to be very creative to be sure that our revenue sources would cover the 
necessary public services--important services like sewer, water, curb 
and gutter, filling in potholes, shoveling snow, collecting garbage, 
and mostly water. It is a tough job because the impact of your decision 
is felt by all of your neighbors. Hardly any of those problems is 
solved without money. When you are the mayor of a small town, you are 
on call 24 hours a day. You are in the phone book. People can call you 
at night and tell you that the city sewer is backing up into their 
house. I was fascinated how they were always sure that it was the 
city's sewer that was doing it. Therefore, it is important that we do 
not cut towns out of a historic source of revenue. They provide 
services you really depend on. Remember you cannot flush your toilet 
over the Internet.
  The point is that the government that is closest to the people is 
also on the shortest time line to get results. I think it is the 
hardest work. I am very concerned with any piece of legislation that 
mandates or restricts local government's ability to meet the needs of 
its citizens. This has the potential to provide electronic loopholes 
that will take away all of their revenue. The Internet Tax Moratorium 
and Equity Act would designate a level playing field for all involved--
business, government, and the consumer.
  I do strongly support this bill. The current system of collecting 
revenues

[[Page 3365]]

for those towns and states should be preserved--preserved on a level 
playing field for all involved. I do not think we have all the answers, 
or we would not be asking for this bill. So whatever we do, we have to 
have a bill that will preserve the way that small business and small 
towns function at the present time. Our bill is critical for towns, 
small businesses, and you and me. I urge my colleagues to support it. I 
yield the floor.

                          ____________________