[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 9]
[Senate]
[Pages 11871-11879]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. SMITH of Oregon (for himself and Mr. Bingaman):
  S. 1098. A bill to amend the Food Stamp Act of 1977 to improve food 
stamp informational activities in those States with the greatest rate 
of hunger; to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.
  Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the 
State Hunger Assistance in Response to Emergency or SHARE Act of 2001. 
I introduce this bill because it is a tragedy, that in this land of 
plenty, people across America go to bed hungry. It is high time that 
Congress do something to combat this tragedy.
  Over the past few years, my home State of Oregon has seen an 
unprecedented economic boom--as has much of the country. Our silicon 
forest has grown by leaps and bounds; unemployment has dropped, and our 
welfare rolls have been reduced by half. But this prosperity has not 
reached all Oregonians. Oregon has the appalling distinction of having 
the highest rate of hunger in the nation, according to the USDA. That 
means that per capita, more people in Oregon go without meals than in 
any other State. I think that it may surprise some of my colleagues to 
learn that many of their home States suffer from severe hunger problems 
as well.
  Perhaps the most tragic aspect of America's hunger problem is that it

[[Page 11872]]

can be prevented. Federal programs, like Food Stamps and WIC, can help 
families fill the gap between the size of their food bill and the size 
of their paycheck, but too many people don't know that they qualify for 
the help available to them through these programs. This is especially 
true in the rural areas of Oregon, which is also home to most of my 
State's hungry citizens. Help exists for hungry people, and I want to 
make sure every American knows about the resources the Federal 
Government has already made available to them.
  The Food Stamp Act of 1977 authorized the Secretary of Agriculture to 
provide states with up to 50 percent of the costs of informational 
activities related to program outreach; however, because the remaining 
50 percent of the funds for these limited outreach activities must be 
supplied by the State, most States do not participate.
  To ensure that more Oregonians and hungry people across the country 
take advantage of the resources available to them, the SHARE Act will 
provide additional funds to the 10 hungriest states, as named by the 
USDA, to help those in need learn about and sign up for federal food 
assistance programs. The SHARE bill authorizes the Secretary of 
Agriculture to make grants of up to $1 million to these states for 3 
years. States can use these flexible funds for outreach--anything from 
distributing informational flyers at community health clinics to 
funding staff to help people fill out application forms. In addition, 
the bill will allow the Secretary of Agriculture to make grants 
available to States with particularly innovative outreach demonstration 
projects, so that we can find the best ways to combat hunger.
  In a country as blessed with abundance as ours, no family should go 
hungry simply because they lack the information they need to get help. 
When passed, the SHARE Act will give Oregon and other states an 
opportunity to devise new and innovative programs that will allow the 
needy in our states to get the help they so desperately need. The idea 
behind this legislation is not very complicated--I simply want to make 
people aware of the food assistance already available to them--but I 
believe that this bill is as important as any we will consider in the 
Senate this year. With the help of my colleagues, we can stem the tide 
of this very preventable tragedy.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, extreme forms of hunger in American 
households have virtually been eliminated, in part due to the Nation's 
nutrition-assistance safety net. Less severe forms of food insecurity 
and hunger, however, are still found within the United States and 
remain a cause for concern. The Food Stamp Program provides benefits to 
low-income people to assist with their purchase of foods that will 
enhance their nutritional status. Food stamp recipients spend their 
benefits, in the form of paper coupons or electronic benefits on debit 
cards, to buy eligible food in authorized retail food stores. Food 
stamp recipients, or those eligible for food stamps, cross the life 
cycle. They include individuals of all ages, races and ethnicity in 
both urban and rural settings.
  As a result of the National Nutrition Monitoring and Related Research 
Act of 1990, the nutritional state of the American people has been 
closely monitored at State and local levels. We know that food 
insecurity is a complex, multidimensional phenomenon which varies 
through a continuum of successive stages as the condition becomes more 
severe. As the stage of food insecurity and hunger progresses, the 
number of affected individuals decreases. It is important for us to 
identify the stages of food insecurity and hunger as early as possible 
and, thus, continue to avoid the more severe stages of hunger. This 
means that we will need to focus on a much larger population base with 
a less dramatic stage of the condition which may be more difficult to 
identify. Fortunately, current tools to document the extent of food 
insecurity and hunger caused by income limitations are sensitive and 
reliable.
  We must continue developing tools to document the extent of poor 
nutrition attributable to factors other than income limitations, like 
inadequate consumption of fruits and vegetables and overconsumption of 
sugar, fat, and empty calories. In the meantime, The State Hunger 
Assistance in Response to Emergency Act of 2001 (SHARE) would take 
information which is already being collected by the Department of 
Agriculture and allow the 10 States with the greatest rate of hunger to 
access funds to perform enhanced outreach activities for the food stamp 
program.
  The goal of the food stamp nutrition education program is to provide 
educational programs that increase the likelihood of all food stamp 
recipients making healthy food choices consistent with the most recent 
dietary advice. States are encouraged to provide nutrition education 
messages that focus on strengthening and reinforcing the link between 
food security and a healthy diet. Currently USDA matches the dollars a 
State is able to spend on its Food Stamp nutrition education program. 
This nutrition education plan is optional but participation has 
increased from five State plans in 1992 to 48 State plans in FY 2000.
  This bill expands the allowable outreach activities for the States 
with the worst statistics and would allow up to $1 million per State 
with 0 percent match requirement. In exchange for this unmatched money, 
the State must submit a report that measures the outcomes of food stamp 
informational activities carried out by the State over the 3 years of 
the grant. In addition, up to five States with innovative proposals for 
food stamp outreach could be selected by the Secretary of Agriculture 
for a demonstration project to receive the same amount of money over 3 
years.
  I have always been proud to represent my home State of New Mexico in 
the United States Senate. Unfortunately New Mexico has one of the worst 
hunger statistics in the nation. I think it is my duty to advocate for 
the New Mexicans that I represent as well as all Americans who are at 
risk for experiencing hunger, including those from Oregon, Texas, 
Arkansas and Washington who share similar statistics.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. SMITH of Oregon (for himself and Mr. Leahy):
  S. 1099. A bill to increase the criminal penalties for assaulting or 
threatening Federal judges, their family members, and other public 
servants, and for other purposes; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, one of the important tasks we 
have in Congress is to ensure that our laws effectively deter violence 
and provide protection to those whose careers are dedicated to 
protecting our families and also our communities.
  With this in mind, today I rise to reintroduce the Federal Judiciary 
Protection Act with my esteemed colleague, Senator Leahy. This bill 
will provide greater protection to Federal law enforcement officials 
and their families. Under current law, a person who assaults, attempts 
to assault, or who threatens to kidnap or murder a member of the 
immediate family of a U.S. official, a U.S. judge, or a Federal law 
enforcement official, is subject to a punishment of a fine or 
imprisonment of up to 5 years, or both. This legislation seeks to 
expand these penalties in instances of assault with a weapon and a 
prior criminal history. In such cases, an individual could face up to 
20 years in prison.
  This legislation would also strengthen the penalties for individuals 
who communicate threats through the mail. Currently, individuals who 
knowingly use the U.S. Postal Service to deliver any communication 
containing any threat are subject to a fine of up to $1,000 or 
imprisonment of up to 5 years. Under this legislation, anyone who 
communicates a threat could face imprisonment of up to 10 years.
  Briefly, I would like to share several examples illustrating the need 
for this legislation. In my State of Oregon, Chief Judge Michael Hogan 
and his family were subjected to frightening, threatening phone calls, 
letters, and messages from an individual who had been convicted of 
previous crimes in Judge Hogan's courtroom. For months, he and his 
family lived with the fear

[[Page 11873]]

that these threats to the lives of his wife and children could become 
reality, and, equally disturbing, that the individual could be back out 
on the street again in a matter of a few months, or a few years.
  Judge Hogan and his family are not alone. In 1995, Mr. Melvin Lee 
Davis threatened two judges in Oregon, one judge in Nevada, and the 
Clerk of the Court in Oregon. The threat was carried out to the point 
that the front door of the residence of a Mr. John Cooney was shot up 
in a drive-by shooting. Unfortunately for Mr. Cooney, he had the same 
name as one of the Oregon judges who was threatened.
  In September 1996, Lawrence County Judge Dominick Motto was stalked, 
harassed, and subjected to terrorist threats by Milton C. Reiguert, who 
was upset by a verdict in a case that Judge Motto had heard in his 
courtroom. After hearing the verdict, Reiguert stated his intention to 
``point a rifle at his head and get what he wanted.''
  These are just several examples of vicious acts focused at our 
Federal law enforcement officials. As a member of the legislative 
branch, I believe it is our responsibility to provide adequate 
protection to all Americans who serve to protect the life and liberty 
of every citizen in this Nation. I encourage my colleagues to join us 
in sponsoring this important legislation.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my friend from Oregon 
to introduce the Federal Judiciary Protection Act. In the last two 
Congresses, I was pleased to cosponsor nearly identical legislation 
introduced by Senator Gordon Smith, which unanimously passed the Senate 
Judiciary Committee and the Senate, but was not acted upon by the House 
of Representatives. I commend the Senator from Oregon for his continued 
leadership in protecting public servants in our Federal Government.
  Our bipartisan legislation would provide greater protection to 
Federal judges, law enforcement officers, and United States officials 
and their families. United States officials, under our bill, include 
the President, Vice President, Cabinet Secretaries, and Members of 
Congress.
  Specifically, our legislation would: increase the maximum prison term 
for forcible assaults, resistance, opposition, intimidation or 
interference with a Federal judge, law enforcement officer or United 
States official from 3 years imprisonment to 8 years; increase the 
maximum prison term for use of a deadly weapon or infliction of bodily 
injury against a Federal judge, law enforcement officer or United 
States official from 10 years imprisonment to 20 years; and increase 
the maximum prison term for threatening murder or kidnaping of a member 
of the immediate family of a Federal judge or law enforcement officer 
from 5 years imprisonment to 10 years. It has the support of the 
Department of Justice, the United States Judicial Conference, the 
United States Sentencing Commission and the United States Marshal 
Service.



  It is most troubling that the greatest democracy in the world needs 
this legislation to protect the hard working men and women who serve in 
our Federal Government. Just last week, I was saddened to read about 
death threats against my colleague from Vermont after his act of 
conscience in declaring himself an Independent. Senator Jeffords 
received multiple threats against his life, which forced around-the-
clock police protection. These unfortunate threats made a difficult 
time even more difficult for Senator Jeffords and his family.
  We are seeing more violence and threats of violence against officials 
of our Federal Government. For example, a courtroom in Urbana, Illinois 
was firebombed recently, apparently by a disgruntled litigant. This 
follows the horrible tragedy of the bombing of the federal office 
building in Oklahoma City in 1995. In my home state during the summer 
of 1997, a Vermont border patrol officer, John Pfeiffer, was seriously 
wounded by Carl Drega, during a shootout with Vermont and New Hampshire 
law enforcement officers in which Drega lost his life. Earlier that 
day, Drega shot and killed two state troopers and a local judge in New 
Hampshire. Apparently, Drega was bent on settling a grudge against the 
judge who had ruled against him in a land dispute.
  I had a chance to visit John Pfeiffer in the hospital and met his 
wife and young daughter. Thankfully, Agent Pfeiffer has returned to 
work along the Vermont border. As a Federal law enforcement officer, 
Agent Pfeiffer and his family will receive greater protection under our 
bill.
  There is, of course, no excuse or justification for someone taking 
the law into their own hands and attacking or threatening a judge, law 
enforcement officer or U.S. official. Still, the U.S. Marshal Service 
is concerned with more and more threats of harm to our judges, law 
enforcement officers and Federal officials.
  The extreme rhetoric that some have used in the past to attack the 
judiciary only feeds into this hysteria. For example, one of the 
Republican leaders in the House of Representatives was quoted as 
saying: ``The judges need to be intimidated,'' and if they do not 
behave, ``we're going to go after them in a big way.'' I know that this 
official did not intend to encourage violence against any Federal 
official, but this extreme rhetoric only serves to degrade Federal 
judges in the eyes of the public.
  Let none of us in the Congress contribute to the atmosphere of hate 
and violence. Let us treat the judicial branch and those who serve 
within it with the respect that is essential to preserving its public 
standing.
  We have the greatest judicial system in the world, the envy of people 
around the globe who are struggling for freedom. It is the independence 
of our third, co-equal branch of government that gives it the ability 
to act fairly and impartially. It is our judiciary that has for so long 
protected our fundamental rights and freedoms and served as a necessary 
check on overreaching by the other two branches, those more susceptible 
to the gusts of the political winds of the moment.
  We are fortunate to have dedicated women and men throughout the 
Federal Judiciary and Federal Government in this country who do a 
tremendous job under difficult circumstances. They are examples of the 
hard-working public servants that make up the Federal Government, who 
are too often maligned and unfairly disparaged. It is unfortunate that 
it takes acts or threats of violence to put a human face on the Federal 
Judiciary, law enforcement officers or U.S. officials, to remind 
everyone that these are people with children and parents and cousins 
and friends. They deserve our respect and our protection.
  I thank Senator Smith for his leadership on protecting our Federal 
judiciary and other public servants in our Federal Government. I urge 
my colleagues to support the Federal Judiciary Protection Act.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. WARNER (for himself and Mr. Allen):
  S. 1101. A bill to name the engineering and management building at 
Norfolk Naval Shipyard, Portsmouth, Virginia, after Norman Sisisky; to 
the Committee on Armed Services.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill that will 
redesignate Building 1500 at the Norfolk Naval Shipyard, Portsmouth, 
Virginia, as the Norman Sisisky Engineering and Management Building. I 
am joined by my Virginia Senate colleague, George Allen.
  As a Navy veteran of World War II, Congressman Sisisky was proud to 
be a part of one of the most extraordinary chapters in American 
history, when America was totally united at home in support of our 16 
million men and women in uniform on battlefields in Europe and on the 
high seas in the Pacific, all, at home and abroad, fighting to preserve 
freedom.
  During our 18 years serving together, Congressman Sisisky's goal, our 
goal, was to provide for the men and women in uniform and their 
families.
  The last 50 years have proven time and again that one of America's 
greatest investments was the G.I. Bill of Rights, originated during 
World War II, which enabled service men and women

[[Page 11874]]

to gain an education such that they could rebuild America's economy. 
The G.I. Bill was but one of the many benefits that Congressman Sisisky 
fought for and made a reality for today's soldiers, sailors, airmen, 
and Marines.
  His strength in public life was supported by his wonderful family; 
his lovely wife Rhoda and four accomplished children. They were always 
by his side offering their love, support, and counsel.
  He worked tirelessly throughout Virginia's 4th District, however, 
there was always a special bond to the military installations under his 
charge. As a former sailor, the Norfolk Naval Shipyard was high among 
his priorities. He knew the workers by name and the monthly workload in 
the yard. In consultation with his family and delegation members, we 
chose this building at the shipyard as a most appropriate memorial to 
our friend and colleague.
  I waited until the special election was concluded so the entire 
Virginia delegation could join together on this legislation.
  Norman Sisisky was always a leader for the delegation on matters of 
national security. We are honored to join in this bi-partisan effort to 
remember Congressman Norman Sisisky and his life's work; ensuring the 
nation's security and the welfare of the men and women in uniform and 
their families.
  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. 1101

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

     SECTION. 1. DESIGNATION OF ENGINEERING AND MANAGEMENT 
                   BUILDING AT NORFOLK NAVAL SHIPYARD, VIRGINIA, 
                   AFTER NORMAN SISISKY.

       The engineering and management building (also known as 
     Building 1500) at Norfolk Naval Shipyard, Portsmouth, 
     Virginia, shall be known as the Norman Sisisky Engineering 
     and Management Building. Any reference to that building in 
     any law, regulation, map, document, record, or other paper of 
     the United States shall be considered to be a reference to 
     the Norman Sisisky Engineering and Management Building.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. CONRAD (for himself, Mr. Grassley, Mr. Baucus, Mr. 
        Daschle, Mr. Murkowski, Mrs. Lincoln, and Mr. Kerry):
  S. 1100. A bill to amend the Trade Act of 1974 to provide trade 
adjustment assistance to farmers; to the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to 
bring fairness to farmers in an important element of our trade policy. 
I am very pleased to be joined in this effort by the ranking member of 
the Finance Committee, Senator Grassley, who has been a true champion 
of this effort over the past several years.
  The legislation we are introducing today would amend the Trade Act of 
1974 to make farmers eligible for Trade Adjustment Assistance, TAA, so 
that they can get assistance similar to that provided to workers in 
other industries who suffer economic injury as a result of increased 
imports.
  When imports cause layoffs in manufacturing industries, workers 
become eligible for TAA. Under TAA, a portion of the income these 
workers lose is restored to them in the form of extended unemployment 
insurance benefits while they adjust to import competition and seek 
other employment. When imports of agricultural commodities increase, 
though, farmers do not lose their jobs. Instead, the increased imports 
drive down the prices farmers receive for the crops they have grown. 
This drop in prices can have an impact that is every bit as devastating 
to the income of a family farmer as a layoff is to a manufacturing 
worker. In fact, it can be even more devastating. In many cases, the 
check that farmers get for all the hard work of growing crops or 
livestock for the year may not only leave the farmer with no net 
income, it may not even cover all the input costs associated with 
producing the commodity, leaving the farmer with thousands of dollars 
in losses. But, because job loss is a requirement for getting cash 
assistance under TAA, farmers generally don't get benefits from TAA 
when imports cause their income to plummet.
  Trade is very important to our overall economy, and trade is 
especially important to our agricultural economy. For example, we 
export over half the wheat grown in the United States. That is why, 
historically, agriculture has been among the leading supporters of 
trade liberalization. However, today many farmers believe their incomes 
are hurt by free trade, and they have nowhere to turn for assistance 
when this happens.
  Trade Adjustment Assistance for Farmers can not only provide badly 
needed cash assistance to the devastated agricultural economy, it can 
re-ignite support for trade among many family farmers. By giving 
farmers some protection against precipitous income losses from imports, 
this legislation will strengthen support for trade agreements.
  The Conrad-Grassley TAA for Farmers Act would assist farmers who lose 
income because of imports. Farmers would get a payment to compensate 
them for some, but not all, of the income they lose if increased 
imports affect commodity prices.
  The eligibility criteria are designed to be analogous to those that 
apply currently to manufacturing workers. First, just as the Secretary 
of Labor now decides whether there has been economic injury to workers 
in a given manufacturing firm by determining whether production has 
declined and significant layoffs have occurred, the Secretary of 
Agriculture would decide whether there has been economic injury to 
producers of a commodity by determining if the price of the commodity 
had dropped more than 20 percent compared to the average price in the 
previous five years. Second, just as the Secretary of Labor determines 
whether imports ``contributed importantly'' to the layoffs, the 
Secretary of Agriculture would determine whether imports ``contributed 
importantly'' to the commodity price drop.
  In order to be eligible for benefits under this program, individual 
farmers would have to demonstrate that their net farm income had 
declined from the previous year, and farmers would need to meet with 
the USDA's extension service to plan how to adjust to the import 
competition. This adjustment could take the form of improving the 
efficiency of the operation or switching to different crops.
  Farmers who are eligible for benefits under the program would receive 
a cash assistance payment equal to half the difference between the 
national average price for the year (as determined by USDA) and 80 
percent of the average price in the previous 5 years (the price trigger 
level), multiplied by the number of units the farmer had produced, up 
to a maximum of $10,000 per year.
  In most years, the program would have a modest cost, as few 
commodities, if any, would be eligible. But in a year when surging 
imports cause prices to drop precipitously, this program would offer a 
cash lifeline to give farmers the opportunity to adjust to this import 
competition. This legislation sends a strong signal to farmers that 
they will not be left behind in our trade policy, that agriculture must 
be a priority.
  We need to be sure that we don't leave American farmers behind. I 
hope my colleagues will join me in supporting American family farmers 
as they compete in the global market place.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. WELLSTONE:
  S. 1102. A bill to strengthen the rights of workers to associate, 
organize and strike, and for other purposes; to the Committee on 
Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation 
to strengthen the basic rights of workers to organize and to join a 
union. This legislation, the ``Right-to-Organize Act of 2001,'' 
addresses shortcomings in the National Labor Relations Act, NLRA, that, 
over the years, have eroded the framework of worker empowerment the 
NLRA was designed to ensure.
  The NLRA, also known as the Wagner Act, was enacted to ``protect the 
exercise by workers of full freedom of association, self-organization 
and designation of representatives of their

[[Page 11875]]

own choosing for purpose of negotiating the terms and conditions of 
their employment or other mutual aid or protection.'' Its proponents 
envisioned that the commerce of the Nation would be aided by workplaces 
that respected and empowered workers' voices about the terms and 
conditions of their own employment. Its proponents envisioned that 
supporting workers' right to organize would help lay the basic platform 
for healthy economies, healthy communities, and healthy families.
  Grounded in lofty notions of ``full freedom of association'' and 
``actual liberty of contract,'' the promise of the NLRA was a 
fundamentally democratic one: participatory processes as a way to 
guarantee basic protections and to give those affected a role in 
decision-making about issues of paramount concern to them.
  That was the promise of the NLRA. Unfortunately, today that promise 
is far from being realized. Indeed, today the democratic foundation we 
have attempted to erect for our workplaces is crumbling beyond 
recognition.
  Today, instead of celebrating the participatory voice of workers, we 
are faced with the stark reality that in all too many cases, workers 
who do participate, workers who choose to organize, workers who choose 
to voice their concerns about the terms and conditions of their 
workplace live in fear. They live in fear of being harassed, of losing 
wages and benefits, of being put on leave without pay, and ultimately 
fear of losing their jobs. In a country that celebrates democracy and 
freedom, the land of the free, it is unconscionable that hard working 
men and women can be placed in fear of losing their livelihood because 
they choose to exercise their legal rights to associate for the 
purposes of bargaining collectively and participating in decision-
making about their own workplaces.
  Today, as one organizer told me, all too many times you have to be a 
hero when you try to organize your own workplace. That's true. The men 
and women who do this--who step up to take some ownership for what's 
going on in their own workplaces--are doing heroic work. But that 
shouldn't have to be the case. That wasn't the promise of democracy and 
participation--of the associational and liberty of contract values this 
Nation endorsed in the National Labor Relations Act.
  It's urgent that we take action here. Estimates are that 10,000 
working Americans lose their jobs illegally every year just for 
supporting union organizing campaigns. The 1994 Dunlop Commission found 
that one in four employers illegally fired union activists during 
organizing campaigns. Estimates are that one out of 10 activists is 
fired.
  This is unacceptable. This is truly one of the most urgent civil 
rights and human rights issues of the new millennium. Working Americans 
are harassed, threatened and fired simply for seeking to have a voice 
and be represented in their workplace. According to the Dunlop 
Commission, the United States is the only major democratic country in 
which the choice of whether workers are to be represented by a union is 
subject to such confrontational processes.
  As Chair of the Employment, Safety, and Training Subcommittee with 
jurisdiction over the National Labor Relations Act, NLRA, I am 
introducing the ``Right-to-Organize Act of 2001'' to shore up the 
crumbling foundation of democracy in the workplace that the NLRA was 
intended to promote. The Act will target some of the most serious 
abuses of labor law that unfortunately have become all too common in 
recent years.
  First, employers routinely monopolize the debates leading up to 
certification elections. They distribute written materials in 
opposition to collective bargaining. They require workers to attend 
meetings where they present their anti-union views. They talk to 
employees one-on-one about the dire consequences of unionization, such 
as the possibility that the individual employee or all employees could 
lose their jobs. All too often, at the same time that this flagrant 
coercion, intimidation, and interference is taking place often on a 
daily basis--union organizers are barred from work sites and even 
public areas.
  Second, as noted above, employers too frequently are firing employees 
and engaging in other unfair labor practices to discourage union 
organizing and union representation. They are doing this sometimes with 
near impunity because today's laws simply are not strong enough to 
discourage them from doing so. As the report, Unfair Advantage noted 
just last year, employers intent on frustrating workers' efforts to 
organize can, and do, drag out legal proceedings for years, at the end 
of which they receive a slap on the wrist in the form of back pay to 
the worker illegally fired and a requirement that they post a written 
notice promising not to repeat their illegal behavior. ``Many 
employers,'' according to this report `` have come to view remedies, 
like back pay for workers fired because of union activity as a routine 
cost of doing business, well worth it to get rid of organizing leaders 
and derail workers' organizing efforts.'' We need to put teeth into our 
ability to enforce the legal rights that are already on the books.
  Third, as part of efforts to discourage organizing, employers are 
able today to drag out election campaigns, giving themselves more time 
in some cases to harass workers through methods such as those I have 
described. Their hope may be that the climate of fear and intimidation 
will encourage workers to vote against the union seeking certification. 
While just across our border in Canada, elections take place on average 
within a week of the filing of a petition, here in the United States, 
it takes on average 80 days between petition and certification. That is 
an enormous amount of time for workers to live in fear of casting a 
vote to help empower their voice in the workplace.
  Finally, there is a growing problem of employers refusing to bargain 
with their employees even after a union has been duly certified. 
Achieving so-called ``first contracts'' can often be as harrowing as 
the organizing effort itself.
  I want to be clear. Most employers do not take advantage of their 
workers in this way. Indeed, in tens of thousands of workplaces across 
the country, employers are working together with employees and their 
unions, to create safe, healthy, productive, and rewarding work 
environments. I applaud the efforts these employers and workers are 
making.
  Unfortunately, however, this is not universally the case. All too 
frequently employers are disempowering workers and undermining their 
rights to organize, join, and belong to a union. That is why, that I 
say this is one of the most urgent civil and human rights issues of the 
new millennium. Civil rights and human rights is fundamentally about 
protecting the dignity and well-being of the less empowered against 
excesses of the more powerful. Nothing could be more important to 
protecting workers' rights to advocate for themselves and their 
families than securing a meaningful right to organize.
  The Right-to-Organize Act of 2001 is a first step in tackling some of 
the most serious barriers to workers' ability to unionize. In 
particular, the Act would do the following:
  First, it would amend the National Labor Relations Act to provide 
equal time to labor organizations to provide information about union 
representation. Under this proposal the employer would trigger the 
equal time provision by expressing opinions on union representation 
during work hours or at the work site. Once the triggering actions 
occur, then the union would be entitled to equal time to use the same 
media used by the employer to distribute information and be allowed 
access to the work site to communicate with employees.
  Second, it would toughen penalties for wrongful discharge violations. 
In particular, it would require the National Labor Relations Board to 
award back pay equal to 3 times the employee's wages when the Board 
finds that an employee is discharged as a result of an unfair labor 
practice. It also would allow employees to file civil actions to 
recover punitive damages when they have been discharged as a result of 
an unfair labor practice.

[[Page 11876]]

  Third, it would require expedited elections in cases where a super 
majority of workers have signed union recognition cards designating a 
union as the employee's labor organizations. In particular, it would 
require elections within 14 days after receipt of signed union 
recognition cards from 60 percent of the employees.
  Fourth, the bill would put in place mediation and arbitration 
procedures to help employers and employees reach mutually agreeable 
first-contract collective bargaining agreements. It would require 
mediation if the parties cannot reach agreement on their own after 60 
days. Should the parties not reach agreement 30 days after a mediator 
is selected, then either party could call in the Federal Mediation and 
Conciliation Service for binding arbitration. In this way both parties 
would have incentives to reach genuine agreement without allowing 
either side to hold the other hostage indefinitely to unrealistic 
proposals.
  The need for these reforms is urgent, not only for workers who seek 
to join together and bargain collectively, but for all Americans. 
Indeed, one of the most important things we can do to raise the 
standard of living and quality of life for working Americans, raise 
wages and benefits, improve health and safety in the workplace, and 
give average Americans more control over their lives is to enforce 
their right to organize, join, and belong to a union.
  When workers join together to fight for job security, for dignity, 
for economic justice and for a fair share of America's prosperity, it 
is not a struggle merely for their own benefit. The gains of unionized 
workers on basic bread-and-butter issues are key to the economic 
security of all working families. Upholding the right to organize is a 
way to advance important social objectives, higher wages, better 
benefits, more pension coverage, more worker training, more health 
insurance coverage, and safer work places, for all Americans without 
drawing on any additional government resources.
  The right to organize is one of the most important civil and human 
rights causes of the new millennium. I urge my colleagues to join me in 
helping to restore that right to its proper place.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. ROCKEFELLER (for himself, Mr. Dorgan, and Mr. Burns):
  S. 1103. A bill to amend title 49, United States Code, to enhance 
competition among and between rail carriers in order to ensure 
efficient rail service and reasonable rail rates in any case in which 
there is an absence of effective competition, and for other purposes; 
to the Committee on Commerce Science, and Transportation.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I am happy today to join with my 
colleagues Senator Dorgan and Senator Burns, in introducing the Rail 
Competition Act of 2001. Very simply, the purpose of this legislation 
is to encourage a bare minimum of competitive practices among 
participants in the freight rail industry, which has undergone 
unprecedented concentration in recent years, to the detriment of 
virtually all rail customers.
  This legislation is a renewed effort on the part of my colleagues and 
me to address an issue that has amazed and shocked us for years. The 
monopoly power of the railroads places pervasive burdens on so many 
industries important to our states and to the national economy. No 
other industry in this country wields as much power over its customers 
as the railroad industry, and no other industry has as close an ally in 
the agency charged with its oversight as the railroad industry has with 
the Surface Transportation Board, known by the abbreviation STB. In 
fact, no other formerly regulated industry in this country continues to 
maintain this level of market dominance over its customers and 
essential infrastructure.
  Shippers of bulk commodities, like coal from mines in West Virginia 
and grain from the Plains states, must routinely deal with shipments 
that move more slowly, and at rates much higher than would normally be 
charged in a truly competitive market. Every company that ships its 
product by rail has a trove of horror stories regarding how high prices 
and poor service attributable to the lack of meaningful competition in 
the freight rail industry has affected their ability to compete in 
their own industries. I know this because these companies have been 
telling me the same types of stories since I came to Congress.
  I know that other members of Congress have heard the stories, too. As 
many of my colleagues will remember, the point was driven home last 
year when more than 280 CEOs from companies covering the broadest 
possible spectrum of the American economy wrote to Senators McCain and 
Hollings asking them to do something to insert real competition in the 
freight rail industry. For the record, the STB has also heard the 
complaints. However, the Board's focus has been the railroads' still-
weak financial health, rather than the continued service problems that 
are its root cause.
  I want to give my colleagues an example from an industry that is very 
important to my State and the rest of the Nation, the chemical 
industry. Throughout the country, approximately 80 percent of 
individual chemical operations are ``captive'' to one railroad, meaning 
they are served by only one railroad, and are subject to whatever 
pricing scheme the railroad chooses to use. In my home State of West 
Virginia, where the chemical industry is one of the pillars of the 
State's economy, 100 percent of chemical plants are captive. Some might 
be tempted to just write this off as the cost of doing business, but 
let me impart another view: These plants produce bulk chemicals that 
other companies buy and turn into countless products in use in every 
home and business in America.
  Make no mistake, while the immediate beneficiary of this legislation 
will be the Rail Shipper who will have the opportunity to operate with 
the confidence that they are getting a fair deal the true beneficiary 
of this legislation is the retail shopper. Every purchase of every 
product that began its life in a chemical plant will be cheaper when 
that chemical plant receives competitive rail service because of this 
bill. Every ingredient in your families' dinners will go down in price 
when the shippers of agricultural commodities see their costs go down 
because this bill has produced efficiencies that benefit both shipper 
and railroad. Every time you flip the switch, and the lights turn on at 
a lower kilowatt-per-hour rate, it will happen because utilities 
throughout the nation have a more reliable and inexpensive supply of 
coal because of the Railroad Competition Act of 2001.
  Congress deregulated the railroad industry with the passage of the 
Staggers Rail Act in 1980. Many of the predicted results of 
deregulation came to pass in relatively short order. The major freight 
railroads, which were in pretty bad financial shape at the end of the 
1970's, put their fiscal houses in order. In the course of these 
improvements, some weaker railroads were swallowed up by stronger 
corporations. Our Nation's rail network, which was extensive but 
inefficient in some respects, became more streamlined. Unfortunately, 
some of the benefits of competition that Congress was led to expect 
most notably improved service at lower cost have simply not 
materialized for many shippers in several parts of the country.
  Indeed, rather than improving over time, the situation has grown 
steadily worse. The second half of the 1990's saw an unprecedented 
spate of railroad mergers, to the point now that the more than 50 Class 
I railroads in existence when I entered the United States Senate has 
dwindled to only six with four railroads carrying a staggeringly high 
percentage of the freight.
  STB has considered these mergers to be ``in the public interest,'' 
and I will not dispute the possibility that some of them may have been. 
I tend to believe that the notion that fueled many of the mergers was 
that somehow financially weak corporations with poor track records of 
service could be transformed overnight into efficient, businesslike 
railroads providing good service at lower costs. Meanwhile, rail 
shippers had to contend with newly merged railroads with monopoly power 
that did

[[Page 11877]]

not seem to care any more about customer service than the separate 
companies that preceded them.
  Before I complete my remarks, I want to address what I predict will 
be some of the rhetoric bandied about by the railroad industry. This 
bill is not an attempt to re-regulate the industry. When Congress 
passed the Staggers Rail Act in 1980, it did not do so with only the 
financial health of the railroads in mind. The Interstate Commerce 
Commission, and its successor agency, the STB, were supposed to 
maintain competition in the rail industry. Both agencies have failed 
miserably to contain the anti-competitive behavior of the railroads. My 
cosponsors and I only seek to require railroads to quote a price for a 
portion of a route on which they carry a company's products. This bill 
does not seek to give the STB more regulatory authority over the 
railroads, it only serves to remind the Board of the pro-competitive 
responsibilities authorized by Congress in the Staggers Act.
  Likewise, we do not offer this bill to hasten the demise of the 
industry. The companies that have come to us time and again for help in 
getting competitive rail service absolutely need a strong railroad 
industry. Their products, for the most part, cannot be moved 
efficiently via trucks or barges. The competition that will be fostered 
by this legislation is intended to help the railroads as much as it is 
intended to help shippers. Some may dispute the fundamental economic 
logic of this, to which I respond: Giving the railroads relatively 
unfettered regional monopolies with the right to engage in anti-
competitive behavior has not produced the strong railroad industry the 
Staggers Act sought to produce. At the very least, perhaps it is time 
to give competition a chance to succeed.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about a bill, the 
Railroad Competition Act of 2001, which, along with Senator Burns and 
Senator Rockefeller I hope will introduce a bit of competition and 
better service in our railroad industry. The truth is that our rail 
system is completely broken, deregulation has only led to a system 
dominated by regional monopolies and both shippers and consumers are 
paying the price.
  Since the supposed deregulation of the rail industry in 1980, the 
number of major Class I railroads has been allowed to decline from 
approximately 42 to only four major U.S. railroads today. Four mega-
railroads overwhelmingly dominate railroad traffic, generating 95 
percent of the gross ton-miles and 94 percent of the revenues, 
controlling 90 percent of all U.S. coal movement; 70 percent of all 
grain movement and 88 percent of all originated chemical movement. This 
drastic level of consolidation has left rail customers with only two 
major carriers operating in the East and two in the West, and has far 
exceeded the industry's need to minimize unit operating costs.
  But consolidation has not happened in a vacuum. Over the years, 
regulators have systematically adopted polices that so narrowly 
interpret the pro-competitive provisions of the 1980 statute that 
railroads are essentially protected from ever having to compete with 
each other. As a consequence rail users have no power to choose among 
carriers either in terminal areas where switching infrastructure makes 
such choices feasible, nor can rail users even get a rate quoted to 
them over a ``bottleneck'' segment of the monopoly system.
  The negative results of this approach have been astonishing. In North 
Dakota it costs $2,300 to move one rail car of wheat to Minneapolis 
(approx. 400 miles). Yet for a similar 400 mile move between 
Minneapolis and Chicago, it costs only $310 to deliver that car. And 
move that same car another 600 miles to St. Louis, Missouri and it 
costs only $610 per car. Looking at it another way--An elevator in 
Minot, North Dakota pays $2.99 to the farmer for a bushel of wheat. The 
cost to ship that wheat to the West coast on the BNSF is $1.30 per 
bushel. At that rate, rail transportation consumes 43 percent of the 
value of that wheat. Not only is that totally unfair to the captive 
farmer, but in the long run it is unsustainable.
  How has this happened? Since the deregulation of the railroad 
industry, it has been the responsibility of the Interstate Commerce 
Commission, later renamed, the Surface Transportation Board, to make 
sure that the pro-competitive intent of the law was being upheld. It is 
the STBs charge to protect captive shippers through ``regulated 
competition.''
  That clearly hasn't happened. In 1999 the GAO reported on how 
complicated it is for a shipper to get rate relief under the 
``regulated competition'' approach at the STB. The GAO found that this 
process takes up to 500 days to decide, and costs hundreds of thousands 
of dollars. Hundreds of thousands of dollars and about approximately 
two years--that's hardly a rate relief process. But it's about the only 
relief shippers have under the law.
  The Railroad Competition Act of 2001 will reaffirm the strong role 
the STB should play in protecting shippers by: jump-starting 
competition by requiring railroads to quote a rate on any given 
segment; facilitating terminal access and the ability to transfer goods 
among railroads in terminal areas; simplifying the market dominance 
test; eliminating the annual revenue adequacy test; bolstering rail 
access by making the rate relief process cheaper, faster and easier 
through a streamlined arbitration process, and requiring the railroads 
to file monthly service performance reports with the Department of 
Transportation, similar to what we require of the airline industry, so 
that rail customers have access to the information then need to make 
good railroad and transportation choices.
  All Americans, whether they are farmers who need to ship their crops 
to market, businesses shipping factory goods, or consumers that buy the 
finished product, deserve to have a rail transportation system with 
prices that are fair. It is time for Congress to stand up for farmers, 
businesses, and consumers by making it very clear that the STB has to 
be a more aggressive defender of competition and reasonable rates.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. GRAHAM (for himself, Mr. Murkowski, Mr. Gramm, Mr. 
        Nickles, Mr. Thompson, Mr. Kyl, Mr. Hagel, Mr. Roberts, and Mr. 
        Chafee):
  S. 1104. A bill to establish objectives for negotiating, and 
procedures for, implementing certain trade agreements; to the Committee 
on Finance.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today with Senator Murkowski and 
our cosponsors to introduce the Trade Promotion Authority Act of 2001. 
We have stepped forward because we believe that international trade is 
essential to increase opportunities for U.S. producers, to support U.S. 
jobs, and to provide economic opportunities for trading partners who 
need development.
  Last month the Administration released its 2001 International Trade 
Agenda, which outlined the President's principles for renewed trade 
promotion authority, TPA. At the same time, I was working with a group 
of pro-trade Democrats to identify our key priorities. What we 
discovered is that our two sets of principles had much in common.
  Over the last few weeks, Senator Murkowski and I have worked together 
to translate those two sets of principles into legislative language.
  The trade debate has been virtually deadlocked for years, with voices 
from the ``end zones'' taking center-stage. In our view, this bill 
represents the basic architecture of a bipartisan bill on what we 
believe is the ``50 yard line.'' We also look forward to the 
contribution that others will make before this bill is signed into law.
  The fact that we introduced this bill with bipartisan support is 
particularly significant because this is not just a set of ideas that 
happened to be popular with both Democrats and Republicans. This bill 
took real compromise on both sides.
  For my part, my contributions to this bill were based on the trade 
principles developed by New Democrats led by Cal Dooley in the House 
and several of my colleagues in the Senate. The New Democrat trade 
principles we

[[Page 11878]]

released in May are fully incorporated into this bill.
  What we introduce today is not a trade agreement. Trade promotion 
authority is an authorization to the President to begin negotiations. 
Details of a trade bill will be developed through the process 
established by the grant of TPA. At the end of that process, Congress 
will review the result of those negotiations and grant approval or 
disapproval to the result.
  Trade promotion authority puts the will of Congress behind our trade 
negotiator, but it cannot and should not mandate a specific result from 
negotiations. We must leave it to our negotiators to reach the most 
favorable agreement they can.
  A trade promotion authority bill is a way for Congress to communicate 
its negotiating priorities. Some of the priorities we put forward in 
this bill include: negotiating objectives on labor and environment that 
receive the same priority as commercial negotiating objectives; a new 
negotiating objective on information technologies to reduce trade 
barriers on high technology products, enhance and facilitate barriers-
free e-commerce, and provide the same rights and protections for the 
electronic delivery of products as are offered to products delivered 
physically; adoption of measures in trade agreements to ensure proper 
implementation, full compliance and appropriate enforcement mechanisms 
that are timely and transparent; and a stronger process for continuous 
Congressional involvement in the process before, during, and at the 
close of negotiations so that the will of Congress is fully expressed 
in the final agreement.
  I have been concerned by the views expressed by some Members that it 
may be better to delay consideration of TPA until next year. This would 
be a ``major league'' mistake. There is a real price to be paid for 
delay.
  One hundred years ago the U.S. took an isolationist position with 
respect to our economic relations with Latin America. The result of 
this was that the Nations of Latin America adopted European technical 
standards. This has been a handicap to the U.S. economic position in 
Latin America ever since.
  We now are in danger of repeating this mistake. The best way to avoid 
doing so is to negotiate and enter trade agreement with nations so that 
American standards become the norm and American businesses and workers 
can benefit.
  Nothing is likely to occur in the next 12 to 24 months that will make 
reaching a consensus on trade promotion authority more likely. In fact 
just the opposite is true.
  The best way to move forward is to put TPA in perspective. It seems 
the debate on this issue moves quickly to being a referendum on whether 
trade and globalization are good or bad. That, frankly, is not the 
question. We can't walk away from globalization and we can't shut the 
door to international commerce. We can't put the genie back in the 
bottle.
  What we can do is try to shape these economic forces and define a 
trade agenda that addresses our priorities. The real question is, ``can 
the United States have more influence in the trade arena with TPA or 
without it.''
  I am convinced that we will give the President a stronger negotiating 
position, and get the country a better result, if we pass a grant of 
trade promotion authority as soon as possible. That is not to say that 
I advocate giving the President a blank check to cash as he pleases. It 
also does not mean that I believe in a ``free trade utopia'' either.
  I recognize there will be issues with our trading partners and that 
everyone doesn't always play by the rules. The way to address concerns 
with our trading partners is at the negotiating table. That makes it 
all the more important for us to have a strong negotiating position, 
and TPA is central to that.
  We encourage others to contribute specific suggestions to enhance the 
bill's ability to contribute to its principle objective of opening 
markets to U.S. goods, creating new and better jobs for Americans, and 
allowing the world to benefit from U.S. goods and services.
  Only 4 percent of the world's consumers live in the United States. If 
we want to sell our agriculture products, manufactured goods, and 
world-class services to the rest of the 96 percent around the world, we 
have to do it through trade. Trade promotion authority is the best way 
for the President to negotiate trade agreements that will open markets 
and improve standards of living at home and abroad.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleague, 
Senator Graham, in introducing the Trade Promotion Act of 2001. In my 
six and a half years on the Finance Committee, on which Senator Graham 
and I both serve, there has always been a strong bi-partisan consensus 
in favor of open markets and free trade. In introducing the Trade 
Promotion Act of 2001 today, we continue that spirit.
  This is a bill to which many members have contributed. Together, we 
believe that trade is the single most important catalyst for expanding 
jobs and opportunities here at home and encouraging economic 
development abroad.
  The United States has always been a trading Nation. We learned the 
law of comparative advantage very early in our history, and became the 
wealthiest Nation in history as a direct result. Economic theory tells 
us that trade between markets expands the opportunities and benefits in 
both those markets. As far as trade is concerned, the whole is always 
greater than the sum of its parts. Our Nation's history has been the 
practical embodiment of this theory. Without trade, this Nation would 
simply not be the greatest on earth.
  Yet no matter how many times we have learned this lesson, we forget 
it just as many times. Here we are in 2001, facing the same challenges 
on trade we have faced on countless occasions in the past. The 
champions of protectionism have become more sophisticated over the 
years. Still: their arguments are the same old fear-mongering and 
disinformation they have been peddling for 200 years.
  Does trade lead to winners and losers? Yes, that's called 
competition, the bedrock of our society.
  Does economic growth put pressures on underdeveloped societies in 
labor and environmental areas? Yes, it can. It did in this country too.
  But do the short-term pains of competition and other pressures on 
society outweigh the benefits of trade? No, not now, not ever.
  The United States can be leaders on trade or we can be followers. We 
can either shape the global economy or be shaped by it.
  There are 134 free trade agreements in the world today. The United 
States is party to only 2 of those. To my mind, that is a shameful 
record. We have done a disservice to our farmers, fishermen, businesses 
and the working men and women of this country.
  I recognize there are those who are concerned about the broader 
impacts of globalization. To them I say: you can't influence the 
outcome unless you are in the game.
  Does government have a role in easing the plight of firms and 
individuals negatively affected by trade? Absolutely. Sound economic 
policy should ease the transition of individuals and their companies to 
more competitive areas.
  Can the United States help other countries overcome short-term labor 
and environmental problems resulting from rapid growth? No question at 
all. Through technology and other means we have many tools to help the 
developing world.
  But the only way to address these problems is for the United States 
to exercise leadership on trade. Without Trade Promotion Authority, 
such leadership will be impossible.
  Senator Graham and I and our colleagues believe the Graham-Murkowski 
Trade Promotion Act of 2001 is the right vehicle to provide those 
leadership tools.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. THOMAS (for himself and Mr. Enzi):
  S. 1105. A bill to provide for the expeditious completion of the 
acquisition of State of Wyoming lands within the boundaries of Grand 
Teton National

[[Page 11879]]

Park, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Energy and Natural 
Resources.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce a bill today to 
authorize the exchange of State lands inside Grand Teton National Park.
  Grand Teton National Park was established by Congress on February 29, 
1929, to protect the natural resources of the Teton range and recognize 
the Jackson area's unique beauty. On March 15, 1943, President Franklin 
Delano Roosevelt established the Jackson Hole National Monument 
adjacent to the park. Congress expanded the Park on September 14, 1950, 
by including a portion of the lands from the Jackson Hole National 
Monument. The park currently encompasses approximately 310,000 acres of 
wilderness and has some of the most amazing mountain scenery anywhere 
in our country. This park has become an extremely important element of 
the National Park system, drawing almost 2.7 million visitors in 1999.
  When Wyoming became a State in 1890, sections of land were set aside 
for school revenue purposes. All income from these lands--rents, 
grazing fees, sales or other sources--is placed in a special trust fund 
for the benefit of students in the State. The establishment of these 
sections predates the creation of most national parks or monuments 
within our State boundaries, creating several state inholdings on 
federal land. The legislation I am introducing today would allow the 
Federal Government to remove the state school trust lands from Grand 
Teton National Park and allow the State to capture fair value for this 
property to benefit Wyoming school children.
  This bill, entitled the ``Grand Teton National Park Land Exchange 
Act,'' identifies approximately 1406 acres of State lands and mineral 
interests within the boundaries of Grand Teton National Park for 
exchange for Federal assets. These Federal assets could include mineral 
royalties, appropriated dollars, federal lands or combination of any of 
these elements.
  The bill also identifies an appraisal process for the state and 
federal government to determine a fair value of the state property 
located within the park boundaries. Ninety days after the bill is 
signed into law, the land would be valued by one of the following 
methods: (1) the Interior Secretary and Governor would mutually agree 
on a qualified appraiser to conduct the appraisal of the State lands in 
the park; (2) if there is no agreement about the appraiser, the 
Interior Secretary and Governor would each designate a qualified 
appraiser. The two designated appraisers would select a third appraiser 
to perform the appraisal with the advice and assistance of the 
designated appraisers.
  If the Interior Secretary and Governor cannot agree on the 
evaluations of the State lands 180 days after the date of enactment, 
the Governor may petition the U.S. Court of Federal Claims to determine 
the final value. One-hundred-eighty days after the State land value is 
determined, the Interior Secretary, in consultation with the Governor, 
shall exchange Federal assets of equal value for the State lands.
  The management of our public lands and natural resources is often 
complicated and requires the coordination of many individuals to 
accomplish desired objectives. When western folks discuss Federal land 
issues, we do not often have an opportunity to identify proposals that 
capture this type of consensus and enjoy the support from a wide array 
of interests; however, this land exchange offers just such a unique 
prospect.
  This legislation is needed to improve the management of Grand Teton 
National Park, by protecting the future of these unique lands against 
development pressures and allow the State of Wyoming to access their 
assets to address public school funding needs.
  This bill enjoys the support of many different groups including the 
National Park Service, the Wyoming Governor, State officials, as well 
as folks from the local community. It is my hope that the Senate will 
seize this opportunity to improve upon efforts to provide services to 
the American public.
                                 ______
                                 

                            By Mr. DOMENICI:

  S. 1106. A bill to provide a tax credit for the production of oil or 
gas from deposits held in trust for, or held with restrictions against 
alienation by, Indian tribes and Indian individuals; to the Committee 
on Finance.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, today I am proud to introduce 
legislation that would provide a Federal tax credit for oil and natural 
gas produced from Indian lands. This legislation will serve two 
important purposes. It will provide an immediate boost to tribal 
economies, and it will provide additional domestic sources of energy to 
ease our growing energy crisis.
  Even though Indian lands offer a fertile source of oil and natural 
gas, many disincentives to exploration and production exist. For 
example, the Supreme Court permits the double taxation of oil and 
natural gas produced from tribal lands, which unfairly subjects 
producers to both State and tribal taxation. Furthermore, tribal 
economies are not sufficiently diversified to allow for tribal tax 
incentives for oil and natural gas development. Finally, Congress has 
enacted innumerable incentives for energy development on Federal lands, 
which has made production from this land far more profitable. As a 
result, Indian lands are too often overlooked as a source of domestic 
energy.
  This legislation would remedy these disadvantages by providing 
Federal tax credits for oil and natural gas production on tribal lands. 
These tax credits would be available to both the tribe as royalty owner 
and the producer. Tribes would benefit in two ways: they could broaden 
their tax base from substantially increased oil and gas production; and 
they could market their share of the tax credit to generate additional 
revenue. These additional revenues would allow tribes to strengthen 
their infrastructure and improve the vital services that they provide 
to their citizens.
  Unfortunately, the recent economic prosperity has not been extended 
to many Indian tribes. This is the reason why these tax incentives are 
so crucial. They will provide a much-needed shot in the arm to tribal 
economic development and will compensate for the discriminatory double 
taxation that hinders energy production. In recent years, many people 
have criticized the growth of the gaming industry on reservations. 
However, these critics have failed to suggest viable alternatives for 
tribal economic development. This legislation would supply strong 
opportunity for entrepreneurship in a vital national industry and would 
bring many more tribes into the economic mainstream.
  Finally, this legislation would have the added benefit of creating an 
additional source of domestic energy. In our efforts to craft a 
comprehensive energy policy for the United States, we have been 
searching for additional sources of domestic energy. In this search, we 
must not overlook tribal oil and gas production. America's energy 
supply is a patchwork of various domestic and international sources, 
and the addition of tribal lands will only strengthen the seams of this 
patchwork and decrease our risky reliance on foreign sources.
  Therefore, I am proud today to introduce this legislation to boost 
the production of oil and natural gas on Indian lands and to strengthen 
our domestic energy supply.

                          ____________________