[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 148 (2002), Part 11]
[Senate]
[Pages 14466-14472]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Ms. CANTWELL (for herself, Mr. Warner, Mr. Chafee, Mr. 
        Cleland, Mr. Rockefeller, and Mr. Bingaman):
  S. 2790. A bill to provide lasting protection for inventoried 
roadless areas within the National Forest System; to the Committee on 
Energy and Natural Resources.
  Mr. WARNER. Madam President, I rise today to join with my colleague 
from Washington, Senator Cantwell, to ensure that the remaining, 
undisturbed areas within our National Forest system are permanently 
preserved.
  Like many of my colleagues, I have worked with the Forest Service and 
participated in the public comment process on the development of the 
current Roadless Area Conservation Rule. This administrative procedure 
was several years in the making with extensive public outreach of 
public hearings across the country. Thousands of Americans voiced 
support for protecting these areas from road building and other 
development.
  For my part, this legislation today continues efforts I have 
undertaken with my colleagues from the Southeast to protect the 
existing roadless areas in the Southern Appalachia forests. In 1997 I 
urged the Secretary of Agriculture to impose a moratorium on new road 
construction in these inventoried roadless areas. Last year, I urged 
President Bush to embrace and implement this important resource 
conservation policy. I was very encouraged that the President announced 
his administration's support for this rule on May 4, 2001.
  Today, with this rule under legal challenge, I believe that it is 
important to take another step forward with ensuring that this rule is 
codified so that it has the full force of law. While some may advocate 
changes to the current rule to gain advantages for greater use or 
greater restrictions on these inventoried roadless areas, I want to 
assure my colleagues that our legislation today mirrors the current 
rule. With the extensive efforts of the Forest Service to analyze the 
impact of the rule and the large number of public comments in support, 
we must stay true to this effort.
  The devastating fires on Forest Service lands in the West this summer 
have renewed our commitment to programs to reduce the fuel load on 
forest lands. I support Sen. Domenici's initiatives to redirect Forest 
Service funding of fuel reduction projects in areas adjoining 
residential areas, and remain committed to giving the Forest Service 
all of the tools it needs to reduce the loss of life and property from 
fires.
  An important reason for my support today is because I am convinced 
that the Roadless Rule does not prevent the Forest Service from 
undertaking any fire prevention activities in roadless areas. Nor, when 
a fire exists, does the rule prevent the Forest Service from taking any 
appropriate action, including building roads in roadless areas, to 
create fire breaks or other means to control a wildfire.
  But, Mr. President, there must be no doubt on this important issue. 
For that reason, we have provided further clarification that the Forest 
Service has every authority to prevent fires or to respond to fires, 
and to use appropriated funds to undertake fire suppression activities 
in roadless areas.
  This rule is a balanced approach to forest service management because 
it provides for reasonable exceptions for activities in roadless areas. 
I remain committed to the multiple-use management of our national 
forests. Timber and mineral resources on these public lands are assets 
that should be appropriately utilized and available for all Americans. 
My view of multiple-use management also recognizes and advances the 
recreational and environmental assets of these roadless areas.
  The remaining roadless areas in our national forests are important 
for providing outstanding recreational opportunities for the public. 
These lands also provide wildlife habitat and protect the water quality 
of many watersheds that serve as downstream drinking water sources for 
our communities.
  The Roadless Area Conservation rule is also sound fiscal policy for 
our national forests. The Forest Service has documented an $8.4 billion 
backlog in maintaining existing roads within our national forests. 
Continuing to build new roads in these fragile areas will only further 
strain the scarce dollars within the Forest Service.
  As I have indicated, the legislation we are introducing today does 
not change the substance or spirit of the Roadless rule in any way. To 
be clear, this legislation preserves the exemptions in the rule to 
allow for road construction where needed to protect these lands from 
floods, fires, and pest infestation. It ensures public access to 
private lands, and recognizes the existing rights to ongoing oil and 
gas leases.
  For Virginia, this legislation ensures that 394,000 acres of 
inventoried roadless areas in the George Washington and Jefferson 
National Forests are permanently protected. During the public comment 
period on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement, the Forest Service 
received 68,586 comments from residents of Virginia. The Forest Service 
advises me that of this amount more than 98 percent of the comments 
supported full protection of these roadless areas.
  I am pleased to support this legislation that is important to all 
regions of the country. The public has voiced its overwhelming support 
for this important conservation initiative, and I trust that my 
colleagues will respond by passing this bill this year.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. LEVIN:
  S. 2792. A bill to amend the Solid Waste Disposal Act to authorize 
the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency to carry out 
certain authorities relating to the importation of municipal solid 
waste under the

[[Page 14467]]

Agreement Concerning the Transboundary Movement of Hazardous Waste 
between the United States and Canada; to the Committee on Environment 
and Public Works.
  Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, I am introducing legislation today with 
Congressman Dingell that will give a voice to the people of Michigan 
with regard to the importation of Canadian municipal waste.
  Over the past two years, imports from Canada have risen 152 percent 
and now constitute about half of the imported waste received at 
Michigan landfills. Currently, approximately 110-130 truckloads of 
waste come in to Michigan each day from Canada. And this problem isn't 
going to get any better. These shipments of waste are expected to 
continue as Toronto and other Ontario sources phase out local disposal 
sites. On December 4, 2001, the Toronto City Council voted 38-2 to 
approve a new solid waste disposal contract that would ship an 
additional 700,000 tons of waste per year to the Carleton Farms 
landfill in Wayne County, MI, in the near future. In addition, two 
other Ontario communities that generate hundreds of thousands of tons 
of waste annually have signed contracts to ship their waste to Carleton 
Farms.
  Based on current usage statistics, the Michigan Department of 
Environmental Quality estimates that Michigan has capacity for 15-17 
years of disposal in landfills. However, with the proposed dramatic 
increase in the importation of waste, this capacity is less than 10 
years. The Michigan Department of Environmental Quality estimates that, 
for every five years of disposal of Canadian waste at the current usage 
volume, Michigan is losing a full year of landfill capacity.
  We have protections contained in an international agreement with 
Canada. In 1986, the U.S. and Canada entered into an agreement allowing 
the shipment of hazardous waste across the U.S./Canadian border for 
treatment, storage or disposal. In 1992, the two countries decided to 
add municipal solid waste to the agreement. However, although the 
Agreement requires notification to the importing country and also 
allows the importing country to reject shipments, its provisions have 
not been enforced.
  Further, the EPA has said that it would not object to municipal waste 
shipments. We believe that in order to protect the health and welfare 
of the citizens of Michigan and their environment, the impact of the 
importation on State and local recycling efforts, landfill capacity, 
air emissions and road deterioration resulting from increased vehicular 
traffic and public health and the environment should all be considered. 
The shipments should be rejected by the EPA.
  Canada could not export waste to Michigan without the Agreement, but 
the U.S. refuses to implement the provisions that would protect the 
people of Michigan. We believe that the EPA has the authority to 
enforce this Agreement, but this legislation would put additional 
pressure on the EPA to enforce it.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. KERRY:
  S. 2795. A bill to amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to 
provide for payment under the prospective payment system for hospital 
outpatient department services under the medicare program for new drugs 
administered in such departments as soon as the drugs administered in 
such departments as soon as the drug is approved for marketing by the 
Commissioner of Food and Drugs; to the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. KERRY. Madam President, I am pleased to introduce legislation 
today that will fix a flaw in Medicare's claims processing system that 
currently denies thousands of cancer patients timely access to 
lifesaving treatments. This legislation will ensure that administrative 
delays do not force Americans with cancer to wait to be treated with 
existing innovative drug therapies that stand to improve and prolong 
their lives.
  The Food and Drug Administration, FDA, recently granted fast track 
authority to a new class of cancer therapies. These therapies, which 
combine immunotherapy and radiological treatments, offer promise and 
hope for many cancer patients. Under current Medicare policy, however, 
reimbursement for FDA-approved drugs in an outpatient setting does not 
begin until Medicare issues a billing code for the drug. Consequently, 
there is often a delay of several months between FDA approval of and 
patient access to a drug.
  Prior to the designation of a Medicare billing code, doctors will not 
prescribe innovative treatments for patients in an outpatient setting 
for fear of their being denied reimbursement by Medicare. However, 
within the inpatient setting, Medicare will reimburse hospitals 
immediately after FDA approval. Given this discrepancy in current 
policy, I am introducing legislation that will allow doctors to submit 
claims retroactively and require Medicare to pay for innovative drugs 
administered in hospital outpatient settings immediately after FDA 
approval.
  Cancer patients cannot afford to wait for drugs that have the 
potential to improve their health and even save their lives. For 
Americans battling cancer, time is of the essence. This legislation 
will provide cancer patients with both the hope and the opportunity to 
live longer and healthier lives. I urge my colleagues to join me in 
support of this legislation.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. LUGAR (for himself, Mr. Breaux, Mr. Chafee, Mr. Grassley, 
        Mr. Nickles, Mr. Graham, Mr. Hagel, Mr. Specter, Mr. Hatch, and 
        Mr. Cochran):
  S. 2796. A bill to authorize the negotiation of a free trade 
agreement with Uruguay; to the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. LUGAR. Madam President, I rise today to introduce legislation 
authorizing President Bush and his Administration to negotiate a free 
trade agreement with Uruguay. I am pleased to be joined by the 
following co-sponsors: Senators Breaux, Chafee, Grassley, Nickles, 
Graham, Hagel, Specter, Hatch, and Cochran.
  President Bush has instructed U.S. Trade Representative, Robert 
Zoellick, to pursue a Free Trade Area of the Americas. I support this 
effort and this bill is not intended to compete with or replace that 
important undertaking. Instead, this legislation seeks to highlight the 
important relationship the U.S. enjoys with Uruguay and promote the 
need for extending free-trade to South America.
  Uruguayan economic reforms focused on the attraction of foreign trade 
and capital have proven successful. The economy of Uruguay grew 
steadily until low commodity prices and economic difficulties in export 
markets caused a recession in 1999. President Jorge Batlle has stated 
his intention to continue the promotion of economic growth, 
international trade, lower tariffs, and attracting foreign investment. 
More than one hundred U.S.-owned companies operate in Uruguay, and many 
more market U.S. goods and services.
  Uruguay is a member of the World Trade Organization and a dynamic 
member of the Southern Cone Common Market, MERCOSUR, with Argentina, 
Brazil, and Paraguay. Furthermore, it is an active participant and 
proponent of the Free Trade Area of the Americas process and is 
coordinator of the e-commerce group and sub-coordinator of the 
agricultural subsidies group.
  If the United States hopes to sustain its economic strength in the 
21st Century, we must participate in an expanding global economy. We 
must aggressively pursue opportunities in new and emerging markets. We 
must maintain our technological and competitive advantage and sell our 
products, services and agricultural commodities in these areas. 
American agriculture, telecommunications, computer services, and other 
sectors will benefit from the opportunity to compete in Uruguay under a 
free trade agreement.
  As South America continues to recover from the Argentinian economic 
crisis we must look for opportunities to engage the region in free 
trade. A free trade agreement with Uruguay would provide American 
business with unfettered access to another lucrative market and 
Uruguayan business will

[[Page 14468]]

have better access to American markets to successfully weather the 
region's economic fallout. A U.S.-Uruguayan free trade agreement is a 
win-win for the United States and Uruguay.
  I am hopeful the Senate will approve this important legislation in 
the near future.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. McCAIN:
  S. 2799. A bill to provide for the use of and distribution of certain 
funds awarded to the Gila River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community, and for 
other purposes; to the Committee on Indian Affairs.
  Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I rise to introduce legislation to 
authorize the distribution of judgement funds to eligible tribal 
members of the Gila River Indian Community in Arizona. Representative 
Hayworth recently introduced companion legislation in the House of 
Representatives.
  The Gila River Indian Community Judgement Fund Distribution Act 
resolves two half-century old claims by the Gila River tribe against 
the United States for failure to meet Federal obligations to protect 
the Community's use of water from the Gila River and Salt River in 
Arizona. The original complaint was filed before the Indian Claims 
Commission on August 8, 1951. In 1982, the United States Court of 
Claims confirmed liability of the United States to the Community, and 
recently the settlement of these two claims was determined to be seven 
million dollars.
  So much time has passed that the Indian Claims Commission formerly in 
charge of fund distributions no longer exists. However, a debt does not 
disappear. The judgement award has since been transferred from the 
Indian Claims Commission to a trust account on behalf of the Community, 
managed by the Office of Trust Management at the Department of 
Interior.
  This judgement award was certified by the Treasury Department on 
October 6, 1999 for the final portion of the litigation to the two 
remaining dockets of the Gila River Indian Community. Since that time, 
the Community has been working with the BIA in an attempt to finalize a 
use and distribution plan to submit to Congress for approval. As 
outlined in its plan, the Community has decided to distribute the 
judgement award equally to eligible tribal members.
  I ask unanimous consent to print the tribal resolution approved by 
the Gila River Indian Community in support of this payment plan in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the resolution was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                Gila River Indian Community, Sacaton, AZ

  Resolution GR-30-01--a resolution to approve a payment plan for the 
      distribution of funds awarded under dockets 236-C and 236-D

       Whereas, the Gila River Indian Community (the 
     ``Community'') and the United States have been involved in 
     litigation regarding Docket 236 since August 8, 1951 and two 
     of the original fourteen dockets, Docket 236-C and Docket 
     236-D, remain to be resolved as to distribution;
       Whereas, Docket 236-C sought monetary compensation from the 
     United States for its failure to engage in fair and honorable 
     dealings through failure to carry out its obligation to 
     protect the Community's use of water from the Gila River;
       Whereas, Docket 236-D sought monetary compensation from the 
     United States for its failure to engage in fair and honorable 
     dealings through failure to carry out its obligations to 
     protect the Community's use of water from the Salt River;
       Whereas, in Gila River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community v. 
     U.S. 29 Ind. C1.Comm. 144. (1972), the Indian Claims 
     Commission held that the United States, as trustee, was 
     liable towards its beneficiary, the Community, as to the 
     Docket 236-C claims:
       Whereas, in Gila River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community v. 
     U.S., 684 F.2d 852 (1982), the United States Court of Claims 
     held that the United States, as trustee, was liable toward 
     its beneficiary, the Community, as to the Docket 236-D 
     claims;
       Whereas, with approval by the Community under Resolution 
     GR-98-98, the Community entered into a settlement of Docket 
     236-C and Docket 236-D with the United States on April 27, 
     1999 regarding the amount of liability for the sum of Seven 
     Million Dollars ($7,000,000.00);
       Whereas, on May 5, 1999, the United States certified the 
     judgment for the Community, which allowed payment to be made 
     into the trust account on behalf of the Gila River Indian 
     Community and which such payment was made into the trust 
     account managed by the Office of Trust Funds Management in 
     Albuquerque, New Mexico and is accruing interest;
       Whereas, the Indian Judgment Funds Act of October 19, 1973, 
     87 Stat. 466, as amended and implemented by 25 CFR Part 87, 
     requires the Secretary of the Interior to submit a plan of 
     distribution for docket funds to the United States Congress; 
     and
       Whereas, the Community had developed the attached plan of 
     distribution, entitled ``Plan for the Use of the Gila River 
     Indian Community Indian Judgment Funds in Docket 236-C and 
     Docket 236-D before the United States Court of Federal 
     Claims'' (the ``Plan of Distribution''), to be submitted to 
     the Secretary of the Interior for consideration and approval. 
     Now, therefore be it
       Resolved, That the Gila River Indian Community Council 
     adopts and approves the attached Plan of Distribution, be it 
     further
       Resolved, That the Governor, or in the Governor's absence 
     the Lieutenant Governor, is authorized and directed to submit 
     the attached Plan of Distribution to the Secretary of the 
     Interior for approval, be it finally
       Resolved, That the Governor, or in the Governor's absence 
     the Lieutenant Governor, is authorized and directed to 
     execute and sign necessary documents to fulfill the intent of 
     this Resolution.

  The purpose of this legislation is to comply with Federal regulations 
which requires congressional approval for distribution of judgment 
funds to tribal members. The terms of the legislation reflect an 
agreement by all parties for a distribution plan for final approval by 
the Congress. As part of this legislation, the BIA is also seeking to 
resolve remaining expert assistance loans by the Gila River Indian 
Community, the Oglala Sioux Tribe, and the Seminole Tribe of Florida, 
as originally authorized by the Indian Claims Commission.
  Members of the Gila River Indian Community have waited half a century 
for final resolution of all their legal claims regarding this matter. 
After considerable delay, it is only fair to resolve this matter and 
provide compensation as soon as possible. With the short time remaining 
in this session, I hope that the Senate will act quickly to move this 
legislation through the process.
  I ask unanimous consent to print the text of the bill and a section-
by-section summary in the Record.
  There being no objection, the additional material was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:
       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

       (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Gila River 
     Indian Community Judgment Fund Distribution Act of 2002''.
       (b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents of this Act 
     is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
Sec. 2. Findings.
Sec. 3. Definitions.

             TITLE I--GILA RIVER JUDGMENT FUND DISTRIBUTION

Sec. 101. Distribution of judgment funds.
Sec. 102. Responsibility of Secretary; applicable law.

     TITLE II--CONDITIONS RELATING TO COMMUNITY JUDGMENT FUND PLANS

Sec. 201. Plan for use and distribution of judgment funds awarded in 
              Docket No. 228.
Sec. 202. Plan for use and distribution of judgment funds awarded in 
              Docket No. 236-N.

                   TITLE III--EXPERT ASSISTANCE LOANS

Sec. 301. Waiver of repayment of expert assistance loans to certain 
              Indian tribes.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       Congress finds that--
       (1) on August 8, 1951, the Gila River Indian Community 
     filed a complaint before the Indian Claims Commission in Gila 
     River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community v. United States, Docket 
     No. 236, for the failure of the United States to carry out 
     its obligation to protect the use by the Community of water 
     from the Gila River and the Salt River in the State of 
     Arizona;
       (2) except for Docket Nos. 236-C and 236-D, which remain 
     undistributed, all 14 original dockets under Docket No. 236 
     have been resolved and distributed;
       (3) in Gila River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community v. United 
     States, 29 Ind. Cl. Comm. 144 (1972), the Indian Claims 
     Commission held that the United States, as trustee, was 
     liable to the Community with respect to the claims made in 
     Docket No. 236-C;
       (4) in Gila River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community v. United 
     States, 684 F.2d 852 (1982), the United States Claims Court 
     held that the United States, as trustee, was liable to the 
     Community with respect to the claims made in Docket No. 236-
     D;
       (5) with the approval of the Community under Community 
     Resolution GR-98-98, the Community entered into a settlement 
     with

[[Page 14469]]

     the United States on April 27, 1999, for claims made under 
     Dockets Nos. 236-C and 236-D for an aggregate total of 
     $7,000,000;
       (6) on May 3, 1999, the United States Court of Federal 
     Claims ordered that a final judgment be entered in 
     consolidated Dockets Nos. 236-C and 236-D for $7,000,000 in 
     favor of the Community and against the United States;
       (7)(A) on October 6, 1999, the Department of the Treasury 
     certified the payment of $7,000,000, less attorney fees, to 
     be deposited in a trust account on behalf of the Community; 
     and
       (B) that payment was deposited in a trust account managed 
     by the Office of Trust Funds Management of the Department of 
     the Interior; and
       (8) in accordance with the Indian Tribal Judgment Funds Use 
     or Distribution Act (25 U.S.C. 1401 et seq.), the Secretary 
     is required to submit an Indian judgment fund use or 
     distribution plan to Congress for approval.

     SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act:
       (1) Adult.--The term ``adult'' means an individual who--
       (A) is 18 years of age or older as of the date on which the 
     payment roll is approved by the Community; or
       (B) will reach 18 years of age not later than 30 days after 
     the date on which the payment roll is approved by the 
     Community.
       (2) Community.--The term ``Community'' means the Gila River 
     Indian Community.
       (3) Community-owned funds.--The term ``Community-owned 
     funds'' means--
       (A) funds held in trust by the Secretary as of the date of 
     enactment of this Act that may be made available to make 
     payments under section 101; or
       (B) revenues held by the Community that are derived from 
     Community-owned enterprises.
       (4) IIM account.--The term ``IIM account'' means an 
     individual Indian money account.
       (5) Judgment funds.--The term ``judgment funds'' means the 
     aggregate amount awarded to the Community by the Court of 
     Federal Claims in Dockets Nos. 236-C and 236-D.
       (6) Legally incompetent individual.--The term ``legally 
     incompetent individual'' means an individual who has been 
     determined to be incapable of managing his or her own affairs 
     by a court of competent jurisdiction.
       (7) Minor.--The term ``minor'' means an individual who is 
     not an adult.
       (8) Payment roll.--The term ``payment roll'' means the list 
     of eligible, enrolled members of the Community who are 
     eligible to receive a payment under section 101(a), as 
     prepared by the Community under section 101(b).
       (9) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
     of the Interior.

             TITLE I--GILA RIVER JUDGMENT FUND DISTRIBUTION

     SEC. 101. DISTRIBUTION OF JUDGMENT FUNDS.

       (a) Per Capita Payments.--Notwithstanding the Indian Tribal 
     Judgment Funds Use or Distribution Act (25 U.S.C. 1401 et 
     seq.) or any other provision of law (including any regulation 
     promulgated or plan developed under such a law), the amounts 
     paid in satisfaction of an award granted to the Gila River 
     Indian Community in Dockets Nos. 236-C and 236-D before the 
     United States Court of Federal Claims, less attorney fees and 
     litigation expenses and including all accrued interest, shall 
     be distributed in the form of per capita payments (in amounts 
     as equal as practicable) to all eligible enrolled members of 
     the Community.
       (b) Preparation of Payment Roll.--
       (1) In general.--The Community shall prepare a payment roll 
     of eligible, enrolled members of the Community that are 
     eligible to receive payments under this section in accordance 
     with the criteria described in paragraph (2).
       (2) Criteria.--
       (A) Individuals eligible to receive payments.--Subject to 
     subparagraph (B), the following individuals shall be eligible 
     to be listed on the payment roll and eligible to receive a 
     per capita payment under subsection (a):
       (i) All enrolled Community members who are eligible to be 
     listed on the per capita payment roll that was approved by 
     the Secretary for the distribution of the funds awarded to 
     the Community in Docket No. 236-N (including any individual 
     who was inadvertently omitted from that roll).
       (ii) All enrolled Community members who are living on the 
     date of enactment of this Act.
       (iii) All enrolled Community members who died--

       (I) after the effective date of the payment plan for Docket 
     No. 236-N; but
       (II) on or before the date of enactment of this Act.

       (B) Individuals ineligible to receive payments.--The 
     following individuals shall be ineligible to be listed on the 
     payment roll and ineligible to receive a per capita payment 
     under subsection (a):
       (i) Any individual who, before the date on which the 
     Community approves the payment roll, relinquished membership 
     in the Community.
       (ii) Any minor who relinquishes membership in the 
     Community, or whose parent or legal guardian relinquishes 
     membership on behalf of the minor, before the date on which 
     the minor reaches 18 years of age.
       (iii) Any individual who is disenrolled by the Community 
     for just cause (such as dual enrollment or failure to meet 
     the eligibility requirements for enrollment).
       (iv) Any individual who is determined or certified by the 
     Secretary to be eligible to receive a per capita payment of 
     funds relating to a judgment--

       (I) awarded to another community, Indian tribe, or tribal 
     entity; and
       (II) appropriated on or before the date of enactment of 
     this Act.

       (v) Any individual who is not enrolled as a member of the 
     Community on or before the date that is 90 days after the 
     date of enactment of this Act.
       (c) Notice to Secretary.--On approval by the Community of 
     the payment roll, the Community shall submit to the Secretary 
     a notice that indicates the total number of individuals 
     eligible to share in the per capita distribution under 
     subsection (a), as expressed in subdivisions that reflect--
       (1) the number of shares that are attributable to eligible 
     living adult Community members; and
       (2) the number of shares that are attributable to deceased 
     individuals, legally incompetent individuals, and minors.
       (d) Information Provided to Secretary.--The Community shall 
     provide to the Secretary enrollment information necessary to 
     allow the Secretary to establish--
       (1) estate accounts for deceased individuals described in 
     subsection (c)(2); and
       (2) IIM accounts for legally incompetent individuals and 
     minors described in subsection (c)(2).
       (e) Disbursement of Funds.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than 30 days after the date on 
     which the payment roll is approved by the Community and the 
     Community has reconciled the number of shares that belong in 
     each payment subdivision described in subsection (c), the 
     Secretary shall disburse to the Community the funds necessary 
     to make the per capita distribution under subsection (a) to 
     eligible living adult members of the Community described in 
     subsection (c)(1).
       (2) Administration and distribution.--On disbursement of 
     the funds under paragraph (1), the Community shall bear sole 
     responsibility for administration and distribution of the 
     funds.
       (f) Shares of Deceased Individuals.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary, in accordance with 
     regulations promulgated by the Secretary and in effect as of 
     the date of enactment of this Act, shall distribute to the 
     appropriate heirs and legatees of deceased individuals 
     described in subsection (c)(2) the per capita shares of those 
     deceased individuals.
       (2) Absence of heirs and legatees.--If the Secretary and 
     the Community make a final determination that a deceased 
     individual described in subsection (c)(2) has no heirs or 
     legatees, the per capita share of the deceased individual and 
     the interest earned on that share shall--
       (A) revert to the Community; and
       (B) be deposited into the general fund of the Community.
       (g) Shares of Legally Incompetent Individuals.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary shall deposit the shares of 
     legally incompetent individuals described in subsection 
     (c)(2) in supervised IIM accounts.
       (2) Administration.--The IIM accounts described in 
     paragraph (1) shall be administered in accordance with 
     regulations and procedures established by the Secretary and 
     in effect as of the date of enactment of this Act.
       (h) Shares of Minors.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary shall deposit the shares of 
     minors described in subsection (c)(2) in supervised IIM 
     accounts.
       (2) Administration.--
       (A) In general.--The Secretary shall hold the per capita 
     share of a minor described in subsection (c)(2) in trust 
     until such date as the minor reaches 18 years of age.
       (B) Nonapplicable law.--Section 3(b)(3) of the Indian 
     Tribal Judgment Funds Use or Distribution Act (25 U.S.C. 
     1403(b)(3)) shall not apply to any per capita share of a 
     minor that is held by the Secretary under this Act.
       (C) Disbursement.--No judgment funds, nor any interest 
     earned on judgment funds, shall be disbursed from the account 
     of a minor described in subsection (c)(2) until such date as 
     the minor reaches 18 years of age.
       (i) Payment of Eligible Individuals Not Listed on Payment 
     Roll.--
       (1) In general.--An individual who is not listed on the 
     payment roll, but is eligible to receive a payment under this 
     Act, as determined by the Community, may be paid from any 
     remaining judgment funds after the date on which--
       (A) the Community makes the per capita distribution under 
     subsection (a); and
       (B) all appropriate IIM accounts are established under 
     subsections (g) and (h).
       (2) Insufficient funds.--If insufficient judgment funds 
     remain to cover the cost of a payment described in paragraph 
     (1), the Community may use Community-owned funds to make the 
     payment.
       (3) Minors, legally incompetent individuals, and deceased 
     individuals.--In a case

[[Page 14470]]

     in which a payment described in paragraph (2) is to be made 
     to a minor, a legally incompetent individual, or a deceased 
     individual, the Secretary--
       (A) is authorized to accept and deposit funds from the 
     payment in an IIM account or estate account established for 
     the minor, legally incompetent individual, or deceased 
     individual; and
       (B) shall invest those funds in accordance with applicable 
     law.
       (j) Use of Residual Funds.--On request by the Community, 
     any judgment funds remaining after the date on which the 
     Community completes the per capita distribution under 
     subsection (a) and makes any appropriate payments under 
     subsection (i) shall be disbursed to, and deposited in the 
     general fund of, the Community.
       (k) Nonapplicability of Certain Law.--Notwithstanding any 
     other provision of law, the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 
     U.S.C. 2701 et seq.) shall not apply to Community-owned funds 
     used by the Community to make payments under subsection (i).

     SEC. 102. RESPONSIBILITY OF SECRETARY; APPLICABLE LAW.

       (a) Responsibility for Funds--After the date on which funds 
     are disbursed to the Community under section 101(e)(1), the 
     United States and the Secretary shall have no trust 
     responsibility for the investment, supervision, 
     administration, or expenditure of the funds disbursed.
       (b) Deceased and Legally Incompetent Individuals.--Funds 
     subject to subsections (f) and (g) of section 101 shall 
     continue to be held in trust by the Secretary until the date 
     on which those funds are disbursed under this Act.
       (c) Applicability of Other Law.--Except as otherwise 
     provided in this Act, all funds distributed under this Act 
     shall be subject to sections 7 and 8 of the Indian Tribal 
     Judgment Funds Use or Distribution Act (25 U.S.C. 1407, 
     1408).

     TITLE II--CONDITIONS RELATING TO COMMUNITY JUDGMENT FUND PLANS

     SEC. 201. PLAN FOR USE AND DISTRIBUTION OF JUDGMENT FUNDS 
                   AWARDED IN DOCKET NO. 228.

       (a) Definition of Plan.--In this section, the term ``plan'' 
     means the plan for the use and distribution of judgment funds 
     awarded to the Community in Docket No. 228 of the United 
     States Claims Court (52 Fed. Reg. 6887 (March 5, 1987)), as 
     modified in accordance with Public Law 99-493 (100 Stat. 
     1241).
       (b) Conditions.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law, the Community shall modify the plan to include the 
     following conditions with respect to funds distributed under 
     the plan:
       (1) Applicability of other law relating to minors.--Section 
     3(b)(3) of the Indian Tribal Judgment Funds Use or 
     Distribution Act (25 U.S.C. 1403(b)(3)) shall not apply to 
     any per capita share of a minor that is held, as of the date 
     of enactment of this Act, by the Secretary.
       (2) Share of minors in trust.--The Secretary shall hold a 
     per capita share of a minor described in paragraph (1) in 
     trust until such date as the minor reaches 18 years of age.
       (3) Disbursal of funds for minors.--No judgment funds, nor 
     any interest earned on judgment funds, shall be disbursed 
     from the account of a minor described in paragraph (1) until 
     such date as the minor reaches 18 years of age.
       (4) Use of remaining judgment funds.--On request by the 
     governing body of the Community, as manifested by the 
     appropriate tribal council resolution, any judgment funds 
     remaining after the date of completion of the per capita 
     distribution under section 101(a) shall be disbursed to, and 
     deposited in the general fund of, the Community.

     SEC. 202. PLAN FOR USE AND DISTRIBUTION OF JUDGMENT FUNDS 
                   AWARDED IN DOCKET NO. 236-N.

       (a) Definition of Plan.--In this section, the term ``plan'' 
     means the plan for the use and distribution of judgment funds 
     awarded to the Community in Docket No. 236-N of the United 
     States Court of Federal Claims (59 Fed. Reg. 31092 (June 16, 
     1994)).
       (b) Conditions.--
       (1) Per capita aspect.--Notwithstanding any other provision 
     of law, the Community shall modify the last sentence of the 
     paragraph under the heading ``Per Capita Aspect'' in the plan 
     to read as follows: ``Upon request from the Community, any 
     residual principal and interest funds remaining after the 
     Community has declared the per capita distribution complete 
     shall be disbursed to, and deposited in the general fund of, 
     the Community.''.
       (2) General provisions.--Notwithstanding any other 
     provision of law, the Community shall--
       (A) modify the third sentence of the first paragraph under 
     the heading ``General Provisions'' of the plan to strike the 
     word ``minors''; and
       (B) insert between the first and second paragraphs under 
     that heading the following:

     ``Section 3(b)(3) of the Indian Tribal Judgment Funds Use or 
     Distribution Act (25 U.S.C. 1403(b)(3)) shall not apply to 
     any per capita share of a minor that is held, as of the date 
     of enactment of the Gila River Indian Community Judgment Fund 
     Distribution Act of 2002, by the Secretary. The Secretary 
     shall hold a per capita share of a minor in trust until such 
     date as the minor reaches 18 years of age. No judgment funds, 
     or any interest earned on judgment funds, shall be disbursed 
     from the account of a minor until such date as the minor 
     reaches 18 years of age.''.

                   TITLE III--EXPERT ASSISTANCE LOANS

     SEC. 301. WAIVER OF REPAYMENT OF EXPERT ASSISTANCE LOANS TO 
                   CERTAIN INDIAN TRIBES.

       (a) Gila River Indian Community.--Notwithstanding any other 
     provision of law--
       (1) the balance of all outstanding expert assistance loans 
     made to the Community under Public Law 88-168 (77 Stat. 301) 
     and relating to Gila River Indian Community v. United States 
     (United States Court of Federal Claims Docket Nos. 228 and 
     236 and associated subdockets) are canceled; and
       (2) the Secretary shall take such action as is necessary--
       (A) to document the cancellation of loans under paragraph 
     (1); and
       (B) to release the Community from any liability associated 
     with those loans.
       (b) Oglala Sioux Tribe.--Notwithstanding any other 
     provision of law--
       (1) the balances of all outstanding expert assistance loans 
     made to the Oglala Sioux Tribe under Public Law 88-168 (77 
     Stat. 301) and relating to Oglala Sioux Tribe v. United 
     States (United States Court of Federal Claims Docket No. 117 
     and associated subdockets) are canceled; and
       (2) the Secretary shall take such action as is necessary--
       (A) to document the cancellation of loans under paragraph 
     (1); and
       (B) to release the Oglala Sioux Tribe from any liability 
     associated with those loans.
       (c) Seminole Nation of Oklahoma.--Notwithstanding any other 
     provision of law--
       (1) the balances of all outstanding expert assistance loans 
     made to the Seminole Nation of Oklahoma under Public Law 88-
     168 (77 Stat. 301) and relating to Seminole Nation v. United 
     States (United States Court of Federal Claims Docket No. 247) 
     are canceled; and
       (2) the Secretary shall take such action as is necessary--
       (A) to document the cancellation of loans under paragraph 
     (1); and
       (B) to release the Seminole Nation of Oklahoma from any 
     liability associated with those loans.
                                  ____


Section-By-Section Analysis--Gila River Indian Community-Judgement Fund 
                    Use and Distribution Legislation


              Section 1: Short Title and Table of Contents

       Short Title: Gila River Indian Community Judgement Fund 
     Distribution Act of 2002; and Table of Contents.


                          Section 2: Findings

       Provides factual background regarding the litigation that 
     led to the seven million settlement awarded to Gila River 
     Indian Community for the United States' failure to protect 
     the Community's use of water from the Gila River and Salt 
     River under Dockets 236-C and 236-D of Gila River Pima-
     Maricopa Indian Community v. United States, filed on August 
     8, 1951 before the Indian Claims Commission.


                         Section 3: Definitions

       Provides definitions as utilized in the legislation.


            Title I: Gila River Judgement Fund Distribution

             Section 101: Distribution of Judgement Funds.

       (a) Per Capita Payments. Authorizes distribution of 
     judgement fund amount, less attorneys fees and litigation 
     expenses, including all accrued interest, to all eligible 
     enrolled members of the Community on a per capita basis.
       (b) Preparation of Payment Roll. Requires the Community to 
     prepare the payment roll of eligible enrolled members 
     according to specific criteria, and includes description of 
     individuals who shall be deemed ineligible to receive per 
     capita payment.
       (c) Notice to Secretary. Requires the Community to notify 
     the Secretary of Interior of the total number of individuals 
     eligible to share in the per capita distribution after the 
     Community's preparation of the payment roll.
       (d) Information Provided to Secretary. Requires the 
     Community to provide the Secretary of Interior with 
     information necessary to allow the Secretary to establish 
     estate accounts for deceased individuals and Individual 
     Indian Money accounts for legally incompetent individuals and 
     minors.
       (e) Disbursement of Funds. Requires the Secretary to 
     disburse to the Community the funds necessary to make the per 
     capita payment, not later than 30 days after the payment roll 
     has been approved by the Community and the Community has 
     reconciled the number of shares that belong in each payment 
     category. Provides that once the funds are disbursed to the 
     Community, the Community shall be responsible for 
     administering and distributing the funds.
       (f) Shares of Deceased Individuals. Requires the Secretary 
     of Interior to distribute per capita shares of deceased 
     individuals to their heirs and legatees in accordance with 
     existing regulations. Where there are no heirs, provides that 
     funds revert to the Community and shall be deposited in the 
     Community's general fund.

[[Page 14471]]

       (g) Shares of Legally Incompetent Individuals. Requires the 
     Secretary of Interior to deposit shares of legally 
     incompetent individuals into supervised Individual Indian 
     Money accounts to be administered pursuant to existing 
     regulations.
       (h) Shares of Minors. Requires the Secretary of Interior to 
     deposit shares of minors into supervised Individual Indian 
     Management accounts and requires the Secretary to hold the 
     funds in trust until the minor is 18 years of age. Provides 
     that section 3(b)(3) of the Indian Tribal Judgement Funds Act 
     does not apply, the effect of which is to prevent parents and 
     guardians of minors from being able to receive shares on 
     behalf of minors before they turn 18.
       (i) Payment of Eligible Individuals Not Listed on Payment 
     Roll. Provides that individuals not listed on payment roll, 
     but eligible for payment, can be paid from any residual 
     principal or interest fund remaining after the Community has 
     made its per capita distribution and the Individual Indian 
     Money accounts have been established. Authorizes the 
     Community to pay these individuals from Community-owned funds 
     if the residual funds are insufficient. Authorizes the 
     Secretary to accept and deposit Community-owned funds into an 
     Individual Indian Money or estate account established for a 
     minor, legal incompetent or deceased beneficiary who is 
     eligible to receive payment, but who was not paid from the 
     judgment fund. Provides that the Secretary shall invest such 
     funds pursuant to existing regulation.
       (j) Use of Residual Funds. Provides that if the Community 
     requests it, residual principal and interest funds remaining 
     after the Community's per capita distribution is complete 
     shall be disbursed to the Community and deposited into the 
     Community's general fund.
       (k) Non-applicability of Certain Law. Provides that the 
     Indian Gaming Regulatory Act shall not apply to Community-
     owned funds used by the Community to cover shortfalls in 
     funding necessary to make payments to individuals not listed 
     on the payment roll, but determined to be eligible. Added to 
     ensure that the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act's prohibition on 
     distribution of gaming funds as per capita payments would not 
     prevent Community-owned funds, including revenues from 
     gaming, from being used to cover shortfalls.


        Section 102: Responsibility of Secretary; Applicable Law

       (a) Responsibility for Funds. Provides that after 
     disbursement of funds to Community, the Secretary of Interior 
     shall no longer have trust responsibility for the judgment 
     funds.
       (b) Deceased and Legally Incompetent Individuals. Provides 
     that Secretary shall continue to have trust responsibility 
     over funds retained in accounts for deceased beneficiaries 
     and legally incompetent individuals.
       (c) Applicability of Other Law. Provides that pursuant to 
     sections 7 and 8 of the Indian Tribal Judgment Funds Use or 
     Distribution Act, per capita payments are not taxable to 
     individuals under state or federal law as income.


    Title II--Conditions Relating to Community Judgement Fund Plans

                              Section 201

       Provides definition and conditions of the plan for use and 
     distribution of judgement funds awarded in Docket No. 228. 
     Adds paragraph providing that Indian Tribal Judgement Funds 
     Use and Distribution shall not apply to minors' per capita 
     shares held by the Secretary under the plan (effect is to 
     prevent shares from being distributed to parents and 
     guardians of minors prior to age 18) and that Secretary shall 
     hold the minors' per capita shares in trust until they reach 
     age 18. Also adds paragraph stating that upon Community's 
     request, any residual principal and interest funds remaining 
     after the Community has declared the per capita payment 
     complete shall be distributed to the Community and deposited 
     into the Community's general fund.


                              Section 202

       Provides definition and conditions of the plan for use and 
     distribution of judgement funds awarded in Docket No. 236-N. 
     Amends the plan to authorize disbursement of residual 
     principal and interest funds to the Community. Provides that 
     provision of Indian Tribal Judgment Funds Act permitting 
     payment to parents and legal guardians of minors is not 
     applicable, and requires Secretary to hold minors' shares in 
     trust until they turn 18.


                   Title III--Expert Assistance Loans

                              Section 301

       Waiver of repayment of expert assistance loans to certain 
     Indian tribes. Waives repayment of expert assistance loans 
     made by the Department of Interior to Gila River Indian 
     Community, Oglala Sioux Tribe, Pueblo of Santo Domingo, and 
     Seminole Nation of Oklahoma.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. BAUCUS (for himself, Mr. Burns, Mr. Daschle, and Mr. 
        Johnson):
  S. 2800. A bill to provide emergency disaster assistance to 
agricultural producers; to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and 
Forestry.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, on March 28, 2002, Secretary Veneman 
declared Montana a drought disaster. This drought designation came two 
months earlier than in 2001, and eight months earlier than in 2000.
  The unrelenting drought Montana is suffering has brought economic 
hardship to our agriculture producers and rural communities. In 1996, 
the year before the drought, Montana received $847 million in cash 
receipts from wheat sales. In 2001, four years into the drought, 
Montana received $317 million in cash receipts, a 62 percent decline.
  Agriculture is more than 50 percent of my State's economy, and is 
truly the backbone of my State. The drought not only affects our 
farmers and ranchers. It is felt throughout our rural communities. 
Small businesses are being forced to close their doors. Families are 
moving away to find work. It would be virtually impossible to find a 
single person who has not been either directly or indirectly affected 
by the dry conditions that we have.
  Without our help, without passing natural disaster assistance, it is 
estimated that 40 percent of Montana's farmers and ranchers will not 
qualify for operating loans for the 2002 crop year. A large percentage 
of these hardworking people will lose their land, their homes, their 
jobs, and their way of life. They will not be purchasing clothes, seed, 
feed, fertilizer, or equipment in their local stores. They will have to 
move, take their kids out of school. Small towns will die.
  It is unfortunate that farmers and ranchers from Montana have to 
suffer the effects of prolonged drought without Federal assistance 
because disaster was not as wide spread in 2001 as it has been in 2002. 
The farmers and ranchers who suffered from severe drought in 2001 
should not be penalized, rather rewarded for their persistence and 
dedication to Montana's vital industry. We desperately need cooperation 
and support from all sides to prove relief to our producers that have 
struggled through dry conditions for so long. We need disaster 
assistance immediately and we need to provide extra assistance for 
those who have endured drought in 2001 and 2002. It is time to take 
action and to provide for those who have produced so many vital 
resources for the people of the United States.
  I am disappointed that we have not been able to produce legislation 
that is much needed and long overdue to benefit the hard working 
farmers and ranchers of the state of Montana and across the country. 
Many of the agricultural producers in Montana who have worked the same 
land for generations will no longer be able to survive as farmers or 
ranchers without disaster relief. Consecutive years of drought have 
caused economic devastation that soon prevent these agricultural 
producers from doing their jobs. The effects of this cycle will be 
devastating to the economy and the people of my state.
  Unfortunately natural disaster is no longer an issue for just a few 
States. As of July 22, forty-nine of 50 States are impacted by drought 
and 36 percent of our country is currently classified as some level of 
drought. This is an issue that can no longer be ignored.
  I am pleased today to introduce with Senator Burns a natural disaster 
package that will provide assistance to producers who have had losses 
due to natural disasters in 2001 and 2002. It also includes funding for 
2001 and 2002 for the Livestock Assistance Program and the American 
Indian Livestock Feed Program. The package that we introduce today is 
the same policy that 69 of my Senate Colleagues supported when Senator 
Enzi and I offered the amendment to the Farm Bill but extended to cover 
the 2002 crop year as well.
  It is true that the U.S. Department of Agriculture has utilized the 
tools that they have available to them. Access to low interest loans, 
grazing and haying on CRP acreage are important pieces to ensuring that 
our producers stay in business. However, there is still one major piece 
of the puzzle missing and that is natural disaster assistance.
  It is also true that crop insurance is a very important risk 
management tool. I supported the crop insurance reform bill and I 
support and understand

[[Page 14472]]

the importance of crop insurance. More than 90 percent of insurable 
acres in Montana are insured. Unfortunately for the program to be run 
in an actuarially sound fashion, producers are helped the least when 
they hurt the most. When a producer is suffering from consecutive years 
of drought, their premium increases and their coverage decreases.
  We have the opportunity to stop that process. To keep our rural 
communities and economies alive. Rural America is resilient. And like 
them, I will not give up. Thousands of people are suffering from a 
relentless drought. They deserve natural disaster assistance and I will 
continue to fight to ensure they get it.
  I am pleased to be working with my fellow Senator from Montana, and I 
ask each of my Senate colleagues to join us in this effort.
  Mr. BURNS. Madam President, I rise today to express my support of the 
Emergency Disaster Assistance Act of 2002. I am proud to join my 
colleague from Montana, Senator Baucus, in introducing this 
legislation.
  However, more importantly I rise today in support of America's 
farmers and ranchers. In my home State of Montana, we are looking at 
our fifth summer of severe drought. Many places in my great State are 
drying up and blowing away. Dirt fills the ditches alongside the roads 
and so many tumbleweeds clog the fences. I fear this may be the case 
for much of the West and Midwest after this summer.
  This legislation would provide much needed relief to those farmers 
and ranchers hit the hardest by the drought. Many have argued the Farm 
Bill adequately met the needs of those earning their living in 
agriculture. I disagree. The Farm Bill provides economic assistance, 
but not weather related disaster assistance.
  In fact, it does not help farmers ``when times are tough,'' and the 
drought conditions of the past several years indicate that these are 
indeed very difficult times. The very reason I am requesting drought 
assistance is precisely because this farm bill does not sufficiently 
meet the needs of those farmers who have suffered loss due to natural 
conditions during the past 4 years. I believe the farmers in the most 
extreme situations are the very ones we should be helping.
  I am committed to working with my colleagues to get this much-needed 
assistance out to our rural areas, to the places that need it the most. 
I am also committed to doing this in the most responsible way possible. 
I believe we can reach an agreement and find a realistic amount that 
helps producers, yet is fiscally responsible.

                          ____________________