[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 148 (2002), Part 9]
[Senate]
[Pages 11702-11712]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. FEINGOLD:
  S. 2691. A bill to amend the Communications Act of 1934 to facilitate 
an increase in programming and content on radio that is locally and 
independently produced, to facilitate competition in radio programming, 
radio advertising, and concerts, and for other purposes; to the 
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation 
that will promote competition in the radio and concert industries.
  This legislation will begin to address many of the concerns that I 
have heard from my constituents regarding the concentration of 
ownership in the radio and concert industry and its effect on 
consumers, artists, local businesses, and ticket prices.
  A few weeks ago, I began discussing with my colleagues a number of 
concerns that I have been hearing from Wisconsinites. Anti-competitive 
practices are hurting local radio station owners, local businesses, 
consumers, and artists.
  During the debate of the 1996 Telecommunications Act, I joined a 
number of my colleagues in opposing the deregulation of radio ownership 
rules because of concerns about its effect on consumers, artists, and 
local radio stations.
  Passage of this act was an unfortunate example of the influence of 
soft money in the political process. As my colleagues will recall, I 
have consistently said that this act was bought and paid for by soft 
money. Everyone was at the table, except for the consumers.
  We have enacted legislation to rid the system of this loophole in 
campaign finance law, but we must also repair the damage that it 
allowed.
  In just five years since its passage, the effects of the 
Telecommunications Act have been far worse than we imagined. While I 
opposed this act because of its anti-consumer bias, I did not predict 
that the elimination of the national radio ownership caps and 
relaxation of local ownership caps would have triggered such a 
tremendous wave of consolidation and harmed such as diverse range of 
interests.
  This legislation did not simply raise the national ownership limits 
on radio stations, it eliminated them all together. It also 
dramatically altered the local radio station ownership limits through 
the implementation of a tiered ownership system that allowed a company 
to own more radio stations in the larger markets.
  When the 1996 Telecommunications Act became law there were 
approximately 5,100 owners of radio stations. Today, there are only 
about 3,800 owners, a decrease of about 25 percent.
  Concentration at the local levels are unprecedented.
  At the same time that ownership of radio stations has become 
increasingly concentrated, some large radio station ownership groups 
have also bought promotion services and advertising.
  I have been hearing from people at home in Wisconsin, from Radio 
station owners, artists, broadcasters, and concert promoters who are 
being pushed out by anti-competitive practices, practices that result 
from an increasingly concentrated market.
  I am very concerned that these levels of concentration are pushing 
independent radio station owners and concert promoters out of business. 
And I am concerned that a few companies are leveraging their cross-
ownership of radio, concert promotion, and venues in an anti-
competitive manner.
  My legislation addresses these concerns by prohibiting any entity 
that owns radio stations, concert promotion

[[Page 11703]]

services, or venues from leveraging their cross-ownership in anti-
competitive manner. Under this proposal, the FCC would revoke the 
license of any radio station that uses its cross owner ship of 
promotion services or venues to prevent access to the airwaves, venues, 
or in other anti-competitive ways.
  For example, if an owner of a radio station and promotion service 
hindered access to the airwaves of a rival promoter, then the owner 
would be subject to penalties.
  My legislation will also ensure that any future consolidation does 
not result in these anti-competitive practices. It will strengthen the 
FCC merger review process by requiring the FCC to scrutinize the 
mergers of large radio station ownership groups to consider the effect 
of national and local concentration on independent radio stations, 
concert promoters and consumers.
  At the same time, it will also curb future local consolidation by 
preventing any upward revision of the limitation of multiple ownership 
of radio stations in local markets.
  It will also close a loophole that currently allows large radio 
ownership companies to exceed the cap by ``warehousing stations'' 
through a third party. In these arrangements, large radio owners 
control a station through a third party, but the stations are not 
accounted for in their local ownership cap.
  Finally, my legislation will also address many of the problems 
created by the consolidation in the radio industry, such as the new 
forms of payola. This legislation will require the FCC to modernize the 
Federal payola prohibition to prevent these large radio station 
ownership groups from leveraging their power to extract money or other 
consideration from artists, such as forcing them to play concerts for 
free.
  Radio is a public medium and we must ensure that it serves the public 
good. The concentration of ownership, in the radio and concert 
industry, has caused great harm to people and businesses that have been 
involved in and concerned about the industry for generations.
  It also harms the flow of creativity and ideas that artists seek to 
contribute to our society. This concentration does a disservice to our 
society at every level of the industry, and it must be addressed.
  I urge my colleagues to join me to cosponsor this legislation to help 
to restore competition to the radio and concert industry by putting 
independent radio stations and concert promoters on a level playing 
field in the marketplace. This will help promote competition, local 
input, and diversity, and promote consumer choices.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. CORZINE (for himself, Mr Torricelli, Mr. Durbin, and Mr. 
        Nelson of Florida):
  S. 2692. A bill to provide additional funding for the second round of 
empowerment zones and enterprise communities; to the Committee on 
Finance.
  Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation, ``The 
Round II Empowerment Zone/Enterprise Community, EZ/EC, Flexibility Act 
of 2002,'' to provide funding for the Round II Enterprise Zone/
Enterprise Community program. I want to thank and acknowledge Senators 
Torricelli, Durbin and Nelson of Florida for their cosponsorship of 
this bill.
  This legislation would encourage economic development throughout the 
EZ/EC program, particularly to the 15 Round II urban and 5 rural 
empowerment zones that were designated in 1999. Each of those 
communities has put together strong strategic initiatives to promote 
economic growth.
  The legislation would help ensure that these Round II communities 
will be provided with the funding they have been promised. The bill 
also would authorize the use of EZ/EC grants as a match for other 
relevant Federal programs. This would provide the EZ/EC program with 
maximum flexibility to implement initiatives at the local level.
  The Enterprise Zone/Enterprise Community program was created to 
provide Federal assistance over ten years in designated urban and rural 
communities that would fuel economic revitalization and job growth. The 
program does so primarily by providing federal grants to communities 
and tax and regulatory relief to help communities attract and retain 
businesses.
  Unfortunately, an inequity now exists between the way Round I and 
Round II EZs and ECs have been funded. Those communities that won EZ 
designations in the initial round, in 1994, received full funding from 
the Congress, which made all grant awards available for use within the 
first two years of designation. However, EZs and ECs designated in 
Round II did not receive this same funding authority.
  Federal benefits promised to the Round IIs included funding grants of 
$100 million for each urban zone, $40 million for each rural zone and 
about $3 million for each Enterprise Community over a ten-year period 
beginning in 1999. In reliance on those ``promised'' funds, Round II 
zones prepared strategic plans for economic revitalization based on the 
availability of that funding. However, unlike Round I designees, who 
received a full funding up front, Round II zones have received a mere 
fraction of the funding promise.
  The lack of a certain, predictable funding stream will ultimately 
undermine the ability of Round II EZs/ECs to effectively implement 
their economic growth strategies in their designated communities. And 
that's a shame, because the EZ/EC initiative has produced real results.
  In fact, I'm proud to say that one of the best Round II EZs is 
located in Cumberland County, NJ. The Cumberland County Empowerment 
Zone, a collaborative effort of the communities of Bridgeton, 
Millville, Vineland and Port Norris, has been a model EZ, and committed 
all the funds made available to it by HUD.
  Since the creation of the EZ, Cumberland County has witnessed more 
than 100 housing units rehabbed, renovated or newly built. A $4 million 
loan pool has been created to fund community and small business 
reinvestment. The EZ also has led to the funding for over 60 economic 
development initiatives, utilizing more than $11 million in funding to 
leverage $120 million in private, public and tax exempt bond financing.
  These, are real results. And if the Federal commitment to the EZ 
continues, over 1,100 new jobs will be created in the County over the 
next year and a half alone.
  Cumberland County is just one example of how the EZ/EC initiative has 
brought hope and promise to communities throughout America. We need to 
do more to support and build on these initiatives. Now is the time for 
Congress to fulfill the promise made to Round II EZs and ECs.
  I urge my colleagues to cosponsor this legislation, and hope the 
Senate will expedite its consideration.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. DORGAN (for himself and Mr. Corzine):
  S. 2693: A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to 
encourage retirement savings for individuals by providing a refundable 
credit for individuals to deposit in a Social Security Plus account, 
and for other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, the Board of Trustees for the Social 
Security Trust Fund issued its annual report in March describing the 
financial health of the Trust Fund and its outlook for the future. The 
report shows that the financial condition of the Trust Fund over the 
next few decades has improved somewhat since last year, that is, the 
Social Security program is now expected to remain solvent for three 
additional years through 2041. This is welcome news for the tens of 
millions of baby boomers who will depend on this program in the coming 
decades.
  However, this latest Trustees' report also makes clear that the 
Social Security program still faces significant long-term financial 
challenges. This finding was not unexpected. In fact, there is already 
bipartisan agreement in Congress that we will need to make some careful 
changes to the Social Security system in order to guarantee the 
solvency of the Social Security Trust Fund beyond 2041. Today, Senator 
Corzine of New Jersey and I are

[[Page 11704]]

introducing legislation that we think should be part of those reform 
discussions.
  Our legislation, called the Social Security Plus Account Act, builds 
upon two fundamental principles: One, the underlying guaranteed defined 
benefit approach of the current Social Security program should not be 
scrapped or weakened. Social Security has become the foundation of the 
Nation's retirement system, something that people can always count on. 
At a time when private employers are shifting more retirement saving 
risks onto the shoulders of their employees through the use of defined 
contribution plans like 401(k) plans rather than traditional defined 
benefit pension plans, the need to retain Social Security's basic 
guaranteed payment is paramount.
  Second, this legislation recognizes that Congress must do more to 
encourage families and individuals, especially those of modest means, 
to increase their savings and to build a retirement nest egg. 
Specifically, our legislation provides for the creation of new tax-
favored retirement savings accounts that individuals and families could 
access to supplement, but not replace, their expected future Social 
Security benefits.
  Unlike many reform proposals, this legislation leaves the Social 
Security program intact. Many privatization plans force you to choose 
between individual accounts and the loss of Social Security's 
guaranteed benefit at current levels. Our proposal calls for personal 
accounts as an ``add-on'' to Social Security. This is an important 
distinction from the ``carve-out'' accounts featured in privatization 
plans. Privatization plans will inevitably reduce traditional 
guaranteed benefits. Our approach would not.
  Under this legislation, eligible individuals can set up and make tax-
favored contributions of up to $2,000 to a new Social Security Plus 
Account, SSPA. To provide an extra savings boost for low- and moderate-
income families, our legislation would require the Federal Government 
to provide matching contributions between 25 and 100 percent for 
married couples with adjusted gross income below $100,000, $50,000 for 
singles. The $2,000 limit applies to the total of the individual's own 
contribution and the Federal match. This will make it much more 
affordable for low and moderate earners to fully fund their accounts.
  Like traditional individual retirement accounts, SSPAs can grow tax-
free. For example, if an individual aged 30 who files a joint return 
and has annual earnings of about $25,000 contributes $500 to a SSPA, 
the Federal Government would match that contribution with a $500 
contribution to the account. If that individual contributes $500 in 
cash each year to the account for 32 years, earning 5-percent interest 
per year, until retirement at age 62, he or she would have some $80,000 
available for distribution from the account. This amount grows to 
$160,000 if the individual is able to contribute the maximum in each 
year.
  Let's take another example. Assume that an individual who is forty 
years old, files a joint return and has annual adjusted gross income of 
$80,000. If he or she could make the maximum permissible contribution 
each year until reaching age 62, along with an annual government match 
of $400, he or she might expect to have at least $160,128 available at 
retirement.
  Under our legislation, the accrued amounts that are paid out or 
distributed when the holder of a SSPA retires, dies or becomes disabled 
are treated like Social Security benefits and a portion of the 
distributions would be taxed only above certain threshold amounts.
  Now I fully understand that we may not be able to enact this 
legislation this year or next. Regrettably, last year's highly-touted 
projected budget surpluses have vanished for at least the next several 
years and resources are now scarce. The massive tax cuts put in place 
in the summer of 2001, and scheduled to take full effect over a period 
of years, will make finding adequate funds for many of the Nation's 
critical spending priorities even more difficult.
  However, many of the privatization proposals would require massive 
infusions from the Treasury general revenue fund to offset the 
transition and other costs for even partial privatization initiatives. 
If such resources are available, it seems to me that we would better 
serve our citizens by using these scarce resources to enact Social 
Security Plus Accounts that will help them save for retirement but not 
put the underlying Social Security program at risk.
  The current Social Security system has served us well for many years 
and will continue to do so if we make some adjustments. Still we all 
know that Social Security reform is needed. I remain committed to 
working on a bipartisan basis to address the long-term solvency issues 
facing Social Security and to improve retirement savings. And we do 
need to implement appropriate Social Security reforms as soon as our 
resources will allow us. Needlessly delaying efforts to shore up Social 
Security for the long term would likely require more severe action.
  We certainly can't afford to make matters worse in the interim. A 
number of us in the Senate are concerned by the proposals offered by 
President Bush and some in Congress to eliminate the guaranteed basis 
of Social Security and replace it, in part with private accounts. The 
suggestion to ``privatize'' Social Security, or to invest a portion or 
all of the trust funds in the stock market, has been supported by the 
large investment banking houses and many others who believe that doing 
so would produce higher returns and improve the solvency of the system.
  Several of the President's Commission on Social Security 
privatization plans would divert some of the payroll taxes that are 
currently being collected. Some of the proposals would use well over $1 
trillion from the Social Security Trust Fund. This would immediately 
and adversely impact the financial well-being of the Social Security 
Trust Fund, putting in jeopardy both current and future Social Security 
benefits
  I do not believe that investing the proceeds of the Social Security 
system in the stock market through individual accounts provides the 
kind of stability and certainty we need for the management of the 
Social Security program. Social Security is intended to provide what 
its name suggests, security. Stock market investments do not provide 
this secure foundation. They increase, on average, over certain time 
periods. But people don't retire at average times. They retire at 
particular times.
  This point is mostly glossed over by the President's Commission to 
Strengthen Social Security. The Commission issued its final report last 
December that included several reform options that would allow workers 
to invest in personal retirement accounts, but reduce their traditional 
guaranteed Social Security benefit. In my judgment, no one, including 
the President's Commission, has provided a satisfactory answer to the 
question of what happens to people who retire when the market is down 
if we change Social Security, even partly, from a social insurance 
program to a stock market investment program. This is not mere 
polemics. The Enron debacle, the boom and bust of the dot com companies 
of the late 1990s, and the declining stock prices of recent weeks all 
serve as stark reminders to all of us about the perils of investing in 
the stock market.
  Again, I will be working for appropriate reforms to extend the life 
of the Social Security Trust Fund so future generations can rely on 
Social Security. Social Security Plus Accounts can provide a much-
needed supplement to the basic program, but would do so without 
undermining it. They do not reform the program by themselves, but are 
designed to be part of a responsible reform package.
  For many of our nation's seniors, Social Security is the difference 
between poverty and a dignified retirement. When President Franklin D. 
Roosevelt signed the Social Security program into law in 1935 he said 
``We can never insure one-hundred percent of the population against 
one-hundred percent of the hazards and vicissitudes of life. But we 
have tried to frame a law which will

[[Page 11705]]

give some measure of protection to the average citizen and his family 
against poverty ridden old age.'' The importance of his words and his 
new social insurance plan are reflected in Social Security's 
overwhelming success today. Let's make sure that the promise and 
security of Social Security is kept for many generations to come.
  I urge my colleagues to consider supporting this proposal in the 
context of comprehensive Social Security reforms considered by the 
Senate. Below I've provided a detailed summary of the Social Security 
Plus Account Act to more fully explain how the new savings accounts 
would work.
  I ask unanimous consent that a summary of the bill be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the summary was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                Social Security Plus Account Act of 2002

     In general
       This legislation creates new tax-favored Social Security 
     Plus Accounts (SSPA). Generally, an eligible individual with 
     at least $5,000 of annual earnings and who is not a dependent 
     of another taxpayer or a full-time college student may 
     contribute up to $2,000 to a SSPA for each year until he or 
     she reaches the age of 70\1/2\. An individual whose modified 
     adjusted gross income exceeds $150,000 ($300,000 for a 
     married individual) is ineligible to make a contribution to a 
     SSPA.
       A 20-percent refundable tax credit is allowed for eligible 
     contributions to a SSPA. In addition, the federal government 
     will match a percentage of a SSPA contribution for taxpayers 
     with modified adjusted gross income (AGI) below a certain 
     level (see below).
       Amounts in SSPAs that are distributed for permissible 
     purposes are subject to favorable income tax treatment and 
     are not subject to penalty.
       An eligible individual shall file a designation of the SSPA 
     to which the match is made, along with his or her tax return 
     for the year (or if no return is filed, on a form prescribed 
     by the Secretary of the Treasury) not later than the due date 
     for filing such return (including extensions) or the 15th day 
     of April, whichever is later.
     Matching contributions
       In the case of an eligible individual, the federal 
     government makes a matching contribution to the SSPA. This is 
     accomplished as refundable tax credit for the tax year in an 
     amount equal to the matching contribution. The allowable 
     credit is treated as an overpayment of tax which may only be 
     transferred to a SSPA.
       The Secretary of the Treasury will make matching 
     contributions to the SSPAs of taxpayers with modified AGI 
     below a certain level. The applicable percentage shall be 
     according to the following:
       In the case of an individual filing a joint return:
                                          The applicable percentage is:
If modified adjusted gross income is:
  $30,000 or less...................................................100
  Over $30,000 but not over $60,000..................................50
  Over $60,000 but not over $100,000.................................25
  Over $100,000....................................................zero
In the case of a head of household:
  $22,500 or less...................................................100
  Over $22,500 but not over $45,000..................................50
  Over $45,000 but not over $75,000..................................25
  Over $75,000.....................................................zero
In the case of any other individual:
  $15,000 or less...................................................100
  Over $15,000 but not over $30,000..................................50
  Over $30,000 but not over $50,000..................................25
  Over $50,000.....................................................zero
     Maximum contributions
       The maximum annual contribution to a SSPA each year is 
     $2,000--including both the individual and matching 
     contributions. As such, the maximum annual contribution would 
     be $1,000 for those in the lowest bracket (with a $1,000 
     maximum match), $1,333.33 for the middle bracket (with a $667 
     maximum match) and $1,600 for the next bracket (with a $400 
     maximum match). Those in the highest bracket with earnings 
     over $100,000 could contribute $2,000 (with no match).
     Minimum contributions
       The minimum annual contribution must be sufficient to 
     ensure that the total deposit is $200 (i.e. the lowest 
     bracket would have to contribute at least $100, the middle 
     bracket would have to contribute at least $133, the next 
     bracket at least $160, and the highest bracket at least 
     $200).
     Tax treatment of SSPAs
       Similar to traditional individual retirement accounts 
     (IRAs), amounts contributed to a SSPA would be tax-favored 
     and accounts would grow tax-free. However, amounts paid or 
     distributed out of a SSPA would be taxable like Social 
     Security benefits. That is, up to 50% of SSPA benefits are 
     taxable for taxpayers whose income plus 50% of their benefits 
     exceed $25,000 for individuals and $32,000 for couples. Up to 
     85% of SSPA benefits are taxable for taxpayers whose income 
     plus benefits exceeds $34,000 for individuals and $44,000 for 
     couples.
     10-percent penalty for disqualified distributions
       Distributions that are not made from a SSPA after 
     retirement, death, disability or not used for catastrophic 
     medical expenses exceeding 7.5% of AGI are includible in 
     gross income and are subject to regular tax rates and a 10-
     percent penalty. Matching contributions from the federal 
     government may be distributed from an SSPA only after 
     retirement, at death or in the event of disability.

  Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I am pleased to join today with Senator 
Dorgan in introducing legislation, the Social Security Plus Account Act 
of 2002, that would create new tax-favored Social Security Plus 
Accounts to supplement the existing Social Security program.
  Although the Social Security Trust Fund is now projected to remain 
solvent for almost 40 years, I share the interest of a broad range of 
leaders in exploring ways to extend solvency further into the future. 
At this point, it remains unclear when Social Security reform will be 
debated. However, Senator Dorgan and I are introducing this legislation 
in the hope that it will be considered when that debate moves forward.
  As most of my colleagues know, last year President Bush appointed a 
commission to recommend ways to move toward privatization of Social 
Security. Last December, that commission issued a report that included 
proposals to establish privatized accounts into which a portion of 
Social Security contributions would be diverted. The Bush Commission's 
proposals included deep cuts in guaranteed benefits, cuts that for some 
current workers would exceed 25 percent, and for future retirees would 
exceed 45 percent.
  I strongly oppose these cuts. In my view, they would take the 
security out of Social Security. That would undermine the central goal 
of the program.
  At the same time, I recognize that, by itself, Social Security will 
not provide sufficient funds for many retirees in the future. That is 
why it is important that Americans save on their own to prepare for 
retirement. I therefore support other government initiatives to promote 
private savings, such as individual retirement accounts and 401(k) 
plans.
  The proposal for Social Security Plus Accounts in this legislation 
takes the concept of an IRA or 401(k) account, and builds on it. These 
new accounts would provide an additional and more powerful savings 
incentive for many Americans, especially middle class workers and those 
with more modest incomes. Under our legislation, the government would 
match contributions by taxpayers with incomes below certain levels. In 
addition, all contributions would provide immediate tax relief: a tax 
cut equal to 20 percent of the contribution. Moreover, when a person 
takes money out of an account at retirement, the proceeds would be 
treated in the same manner as Social Security benefits, meaning that 
some or all proceeds could be withdrawn tax free.
  A Social Security Plus Account would provide a useful supplement to 
our Social Security system, without weakening that system in any way. 
Unlike the proposals of the Bush Social Security Commission, these new 
accounts would not force a reduction in traditional Social Security 
benefits. This difference is critical.
  Senator Dorgan and I recognize that the establishment of Social 
Security Plus Accounts would require resources that are not presently 
available. We therefore appreciate that action on our legislation will 
have to wait until later, when we have more financing. However, we 
believe it important to put our proposal on the table today, to help 
ensure that when the appropriate time comes, our colleagues understand 
that there is more than one way to establish personal accounts. The 
right way, as proposed in this legislation, is to establish accounts 
that supplement Social Security, without draining the Social Security 
Trust Fund, without cutting benefits, and without undermining Social 
Security's promise to Americans who have paid into the system in good 
faith.
  I want to thank Senator Dorgan for his leadership in this effort. I 
look forward to working with him to ensure

[[Page 11706]]

that we find new and better ways to promote savings, without 
undermining the basic guarantees provided through Social Security.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. ALLEN (for himself and Mr. Warner):
  S. 2694. A bill to extend Federal recognition to the Chickahominy 
Tribe, the Chickahominy Indian Tribe--Eastern Division, the Upper 
Mattaponi Tribe, the Rappahannock Tribe, Inc., the Monacan Tribe, and 
the Nansemond Tribe; to the Committee on Indian Affairs.
  Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, I rise in support of Virginia's Indian 
Tribes and to introduce a bill to extend Federal recognition to six of 
Virginia's Indian Tribes.
  These Tribes have a rich tradition and history, not only for 
Virginia, but also for the Nation as a whole. My bill will recognize 
the Chickahominy Tribe; the Chickahominy Tribe Eastern Division; the 
Upper Mattaponi Tribe; the Rappahannock Tribe; the Monacan Tribe; and 
the Nansemond Tribe.
  The title of the bill is the ``Thomasina E. Jordan Indian Tribes of 
Virginia Federal Recognition Act''. For me, this legislation also has a 
very personal aspect to it. Thomasina Jordan was a dear friend of mine. 
As Governor of Virginia, I appointed Thomasina as Chair of the Virginia 
Council on Indians, and she served as an advisor to me in many ways 
over the years. Thomasina was a great leader and civil rights activist 
in Virginia, paving the way for this legislation. Regrettably, she 
passed away in 1999 after a long and courageous battle with cancer. I 
offer this legislation in her memory as her last battle on earth was 
for Federal recognition of Virginia's tribes. Thomasina's efforts to 
ensure equal rights and recognition to all American Indians continue 
today in spirit because she was able to have an effect on the lives of 
so many individuals and encourage many to join her quest for fairness, 
honor and justice.
  The American Indians in Virginia contribute to the diverse, exciting 
nature and heritage of the Commonwealth of Virginia. Virginians are 
united in their desire to honor these first residents and I am pleased 
that Senator Warner and I are able to join Virginia's House Delegation 
in offering this legislation.
  There are more than 550 federally recognized Tribes in the United 
States. While no Tribes have been federally recognized in Virginia, the 
Commonwealth of Virginia has recognized the eight main tribes. 
According to the U.S. Census Bureau, there are over 21,000 American 
Indians living in Virginia.
  ``Federally recognized'' means these tribes and groups can enjoy a 
special legal relationship with the U.S. government where no decisions 
about their lands and people are made without Indian consent. It is 
important that we give Federal recognition to these proud Virginia 
tribes so that they can not only be honored in the manner they deserve 
but also for the many benefits that federal recognition would provide.
  Members of federally recognized tribes, most importantly, can qualify 
for grants for higher education opportunities.
  There is absolutely no reason why American Indian Tribes in Virginia 
should not share in the same benefits that so many Indian tribes around 
the country enjoy.
  The Indian Tribes in Virginia have one of the longest histories of 
any Indian tribe in America, which is a remarkable point considering 
none of the tribes in Virginia are federally recognized. As Virginia 
approaches the 400th anniversary of the 1607 founding of Jamestown, the 
first permanent English settlement in North America, it is crucial that 
the role of Indian tribes in Virginia in the development of our 
Commonwealth and our country are properly recognized and appreciated.
  There are three routes that an Indian Tribe can pursue in order to 
receive Federal recognition. One, the tribe can apply for 
administrative recognition through the Bureau of Indian Affairs, which 
all these Virginia Tribes have done. Two, a tribe can gain Federal 
recognition through an act of Congress. And three, the tribe can obtain 
Federal recognition through legal proceedings in the court system.
  There has been a sharp increase in recent years of the number of 
tribes seeking Federal recognition via an application to the Bureau of 
Indian Affairs. However, the General Accounting Office recently 
reported that, while the workload at the Bureau of Indian Affairs has 
increased dramatically, the resources to handle the large volume of 
applications has actually decreased. Since 1978, the Bureau of Indian 
Affairs has processed only 32 of the 150 applications it received, 
deciding favorably on only 12 of them. In fact, BIA averages only 1.3 
completed applications a year. The route of Federal recognition through 
the Bureau of Indian Affairs and Bureau of Acknowledgment and 
Recognition is a cumbersome and lengthy process, which has taken 
sometimes over 20 years for an application to be decided upon.
  In 1999, the Virginia General Assembly passed a resolution calling on 
the U.S. Congress to grant Federal recognition to the tribes in 
Virginia. Identical legislation to what I introduce today has already 
been introduced in the House. I join my House colleagues, Mr. Moran of 
Virginia, Mrs. Jo Ann Davis of Virginia, Mr. Tom Davis of Virginia, Mr. 
Scott, Mr. Schrock, Mr. Boucher, and Mr. Forbes in this important 
endeavor.
  The precedent has already been set for the second route for 
attainment of Federal recognition, through an act of Congress. Since 
the 93rd Congress (1973-1974), Congress has restored Federal 
recognition to eighteen tribes and has granted seven new Federal 
recognitions to tribes. In 2000, Congress passed a law to grant new 
Federal recognition to the Shawnee Indians as a separate tribe from the 
Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma and another law to restore Federal 
recognition to the tribe of Graton Rancheria of California. It is time 
that Virginia's tribes receive the same recognition.
  The main goal of this legislation is to establish a more equitable 
relationship between the tribes and the State and Federal Government.
  While I understand that some may have a concern that Federal 
recognition of Indian tribes may lead to the establishment of gaming 
operations within a State, this is not the case. As a result of the 
1988 Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, federally recognized Indian Tribes 
can conduct only the gaming operations that are authorized by State 
law. Tribes are unable to operate casinos, slot machines or card games 
unless approved by a specific State/Tribe Compact. My bill includes 
language restating this point to make it clear that nothing in the Act 
provides an exception to the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act. Ultimately, 
it gives proper coverage under Virginia law so as not to provide 
special gaming privileges.
  This legislation not only lays out the path for granting Federal 
recognition to six American Indian Tribes in Virginia, but it also 
honors and details the proud history of each of the six Tribes.
  The Virginia tribes have fought hard to retain their heritage and 
cultural identity, and it is my hope that this legislation be seen as a 
way to recognize this identity.
  As Americans, we need to appreciate the many contributions American 
Indians have made to our Nation in order to make it the great country 
it is today. Thomasina Jordan once wrote: ``We belong to this land. For 
10,000 years we have been here. We were never a conquered people. The 
dominant society needed us to survive in 1607, and it needs American 
Indians and our spiritual values to survive in the next millennium.'' 
The Commonwealth of Virginia has realized that it needs its proud 
Indian tribes. This bill is another step toward recognizing and 
appreciating this special relationship.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. FRIST (for himself, Mr. Feingold, and Mr. Lugar):
  S. 2695. A bill to amend the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 to extend 
the authority for debt reduction, debt-for-nature swaps, and debt 
buybacks to nonconsessional loans and credits made to developing 
countries with tropical

[[Page 11707]]

forests; to the Committee on Foreign Relations.
  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce, with Senator 
Feingold and Senator Lugar, a bill that could have a far-reaching 
impact in preserving some of the most pristine tropical forest in the 
world.
  We seek to amend the Tropical Forest Conservation Act, TFCA, a law 
passed in 1998. The TFCA has led to the preservation of thousands of 
acres of tropical forest, particularly in the Americas, by allowing low 
and middle income countries to engage in debt-for-nature ``swaps.'' The 
TFCA allows eligible governments to divert resources currently needed 
for debt service toward the conservation and management of disappearing 
rain forests.
  Our amendment to TFCA would expand the use of this successful 
program. Our change would allow more tropical forests to be preserved. 
Under TFCA, countries are limited to using concessional debt for making 
swaps. Concessional debt is special low-interest loans reserved for the 
poorest countries to exchange non-concessional debt, e.g. Export-Import 
bank loans, etc. for preserved forest land. This change will not only 
increase the potential for swaps in countries with concessional debt, 
but also make some countries newly eligible for the program.
  One example of a country that is not currently eligible for TFCA, but 
that has great potential for using the expanded program, is the African 
nation of Gabon. Gabon has some extraordinary, pristine forest land 
that deserves to be preserved.
  In the fall of 2000, the National Geographic Society sponsored a 
2000-mile, 15-month expedition through Central Africa by Dr. Mike Fay, 
a well known conservationist. Dr. Fay traveled through some of the last 
unexplored regions on earth, including the Langoue forest in Gabon. His 
expedition encountered a remarkable variety of species and habitat that 
are in danger of disappearing unless we help Gabon's government 
preserve it. Dr. Fay's observations of the Langoue Forest are 
compelling. Here are some excerpts from his report:

       ``[T]here's a river in almost the dead center of Gabon 
     called the Ivindo which has an amazing set of waterfalls. 
     It's a big river, probably a hundred or so meters wide, of 
     slow, black water, and it drains almost all of northeastern 
     Gabon. These chutes, these waterfalls--two in particular 
     called Mingouli and Kongou--make this place an attraction.
       An Italian named Giuseppe Vassallo, who died about a year 
     and a half ago . . . promoted this place as a national park 
     because he said it was the best forest in Gabon. He talked 
     about it and lobbied for it and cajoled people, but it just 
     never quite happened. We walked across this block that he'd 
     always talked about, and I actually flew over it with him in 
     '98 . . .
       And we discovered the highest concentration of giant 
     elephants that we'd seen on the entire walk. It's probably 
     the only place left in the central African forest with 
     elephants that are abundant and with a large percentage of 
     very large males, tusks that no one has seen in a very long 
     time, one hundred pounds on a side. Giant elephants, it's 
     something you just don't see because they've been pouched out 
     of the population. [And] naive gorillas, something that we 
     hadn't seen on the entire trip. You can tell they're naive 
     because when they see you they don't run away, they don't 
     look alarmed, they don't act alarmed, they don't vocalize. 
     The males don't charge at all and they get very curious. They 
     come to see you and they approach well within the danger 
     zone. They sit there for hours and they just stare as if it's 
     something they've never seen before, and it's pretty obvious 
     that they haven't.
       You travel a little bit farther along and there's this 
     mountain that we'd been navigating toward for a few weeks, 
     and it's again full of elephants, and it's got all kinds of 
     beautiful topography and rocky cliffs. It's a real sort 
     hidden forest, and it really gives you a feeling of great 
     isolation being up on this mountain plateau. So we started 
     walking south of the mountain and pretty soon we came upon an 
     elephant trail that lead us a little bit astray. It lead us 
     to the east of where we wanted to go but we kept on following 
     it and it just got bigger and bigger and bigger. I looked a 
     the map and it was obvious that it was navigating us right 
     toward a clearing. Long before you get to an elephant 
     clearing you can tell where you're going, because the 
     elephant trail opens up to like two meters wide, it's covered 
     with dung, and there's a huge amount that are on these 
     ``highways.'' It's a lot like how major highway arteries in 
     the States get bigger as they go into the city, that's 
     basically what it is for elephants, it's an ``elephant 
     city.'' So, we get there, and there it is, this clearing that 
     no one has ever seen before, no conservationist even could 
     have imagined existed in Gabon. This place is just abounding 
     with wildlife and you think ``This place really is what old 
     Giuseppe said it was.'' Even though he had never walked in 
     it, it was as if he just knew this place was the best. The 
     place is called Langoue and it still exists.

  There are about 1.2 million acres in the Langoue Forest that are 
completely untouched. Experts familiar with the region estimate that 
more than 700,000 acres at the heart of the forest could be preserved 
for about $3.5 million. This part of the forest includes the naive 
gorillas, the giant elephants, and the waterfalls.
  At the very modest cost, our amendment will give nations like Gabon a 
new tool for preserving their remaining tropical forest, for the 
benefit of the people of Gabon, and for the benefit of mankind.
  I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the interview with Dr. 
Fay and the text of a letter from Conservation International appear at 
this point in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

             [From National Geographic News, Aug. 9, 2001]

      Interview: Mike Fay Is on a Trek to Preserve Forest in Gabon

                           (By Andrew Jones)

       Last year, conservationist J. Michael Fay completed a 
     2,000-mile (3,218-kilometer), fifteen-month walk through 
     central Africa in some of the world's most pristine forests. 
     Now, the expedition leader for the National Geographic 
     Society and an ecologist for the Wildlife Conservation 
     Society has undertaken another challenge: a personal campaign 
     to preserve nearly 250,000 hectares (618,000 acres) of forest 
     in Gabon as a national park.
       National Geographic News: You were in the African bush for 
     fifteen months. How has that changed your perspective on 
     conservation?
       Dr. J. Michael Fay: As a conservationist, I would say it's 
     a double-edged sword. Because when you're out there, you 
     realize how much is left. There's such abundance--it's so 
     huge, it goes on forever. You can walk for fifteen months and 
     basically be in the woods the whole time and not have to 
     traverse areas that are inhabited by humans. And you think, 
     ``Wow, that's cool. This place is at the ends of the Earth; 
     it will never be touched.'' Then you look at the map and the 
     logging activity and you look at the human expansion and you 
     think, ``This place is all going to disappear in the next 
     seven to ten years.''
       It makes you wake up to the fact that human beings, even in 
     the 21st century, still don't regard natural resources as 
     something precious. Because if they did, there would be a 
     worldwide effort to preserve these places rather than extract 
     wood out of them as quickly as possible with zero regard for 
     ecosystems, while wasting most of that wood before you get it 
     to the market. So from my perspective, it was pretty 
     depressing.
       NG News: do you think there's anyone in particular to 
     blame? Or is there no one person or group we can point to as 
     the source of the problem?
       Fay: I think the human species is what it is. It evolved to 
     extract as many resources as it possibly could from the 
     environment to survive better and better. That's kind of what 
     humans are programmed to do. And to do the opposite of that, 
     to conserve, I think is a very difficult thing for people to 
     even comprehend, let alone enact. It's kind of counter-
     evolutionary, and I think it takes a lot of education and a 
     lot of foresight. If humans want to survive on this planet 
     without having some kind of catastrophic event take out large 
     percentages of the population someday in the future, then 
     they're going to have to make that shift. A lot of people 
     talk about it, a lot of people understand it, but it's really 
     hard to make that last jump and actually say, ``Okay, I'm 
     going to make a switch.''
       NG News: You're now trying to have nearly 250,000 hectares 
     of forest land in Gabon designated as a national park. Why 
     did you choose that particular area?
       Fay: Well, there's a river in almost the dead center of 
     Gabon called the Ivindo which has an amazing set of 
     waterfalls. It's a big river, probably a hundred or so meters 
     wide, of slow, black water, and it drains almost all of 
     northeastern Gabon. These chutes, these waterfalls--two in 
     particular called Mingouli and Kongou--make this place an 
     attraction.
       An Italian named Giuseppe Vassallo, who died about a year 
     and a half ago . . . promoted this place as a national park 
     because he said it was the best forest in Gabon. He talked 
     about it and lobbied for it and cajoled people, but it just 
     never quite happened. We walked across this block that he'd 
     always talked about, and I actually flew over it with him in 
     '98. We looked at the logging companies coming in from the 
     west at a very rapid rate, and so we tried to design a walk 
     in this place that didn't go through any logging.

[[Page 11708]]

     And we discovered the highest concentration of giant 
     elephants that we'd seen on the entire walk. It's probably 
     the only place left in the central African forest with 
     elephants that are abundant and with a large percentage of 
     every large males--tusks that no one has seen in a very long 
     time, one hundred pounds on a side. Giant elephants--it's 
     something you just don't see because they've been poached out 
     of the population. [And] naive gorillas--something that we 
     hadn't seen on the entire trip. You can tell they're naive 
     because when they see you they don't run away, they don't 
     look alarmed, they don't act alarmed, they don't vocalize. 
     The males don't charge at all and they get very curious. They 
     come to see you and they approach well within the danger 
     zone. They sit there for hours and they just stare as if it's 
     something they've never seen before, and it's pretty obvious 
     that they haven't.
       You travel a little bit farther along and there's this 
     mountain that we'd been navigating toward for a few weeks, 
     and it's again full of elephants, and it's got all kinds of 
     beautiful topography and rocky cliffs. It's a real sort of 
     hidden forest, and it really gives you a feeling of great 
     isolation being up on this mountain plateau.
       So we started walking south of the mountain and pretty soon 
     we came upon an elephant trail that lead us a little bit 
     astray. It lead us to the east of where we wanted to go but 
     we kept on following it and it just got bigger and bigger and 
     bigger. I looked at the map and it was obvious that it was 
     navigating us right toward a clearing. Long before you get to 
     an elephant clearing you can tell where you're going, because 
     the elephant trail opens up to like two meters wide, it's 
     covered with dung, and there's a huge amount of track that 
     are on these ``highways.'' It's a lot like how major highway 
     arteries in the States get bigger as they go into the city--
     that's basically what it is for elephants--it's an ``elephant 
     city.'' So, we get there, and there it is--this clearing that 
     no one has ever seen before, no conservationist even could 
     have imagined existed in Gabon. This place is just abounding 
     with wildlife and you think ``This place really is what old 
     Giuseppe said it was.'' Even though he had never walked in 
     it, it was as if he just knew this place was the best. The 
     place is called Langoue and it still exists.
       If you look at the map from a land-use perspective though, 
     you realize that the entire block has been given away to many 
     different logging companies, and they're working their way 
     into Langoue as fast as we can talk. They're going to log 
     that entire area, and there's still about 500,000 hectares 
     [1,235,500 acres] that are completely virgin, untouched 
     forest. But because of the sheer number of logging companies 
     in there, the potential to log that block completely very 
     quickly is very high. So we're launching a campaign with the 
     government and the logging companies and the conservation 
     community and with the general public to try and create a 
     national park in this place. That means pushing back time. 
     That means going back in time essentially four or five years 
     [ago], when there were no logging concessions in this place. 
     And that's difficult to do. And it's expensive.
       NG News: How much money are you looking to raise?
       Fay: Well, if we had three and a half million dollars 
     today, right now, we can go into Gabon tomorrow and negotiate 
     the logging rights for those concessions and maybe preserve 
     300,000 hectares [741,000 acres] of that forest, which 
     includes those native gorillas, the giant elephants, the 
     clearing on the mountain and the waterfalls. We could start 
     that process quite easily tomorrow. But surprisingly, finding 
     three and a half million dollars for conservation, in this 
     world that has too much money, is very difficult.
       NG News: Where have you been looking for funding?
       Fay: Everywhere. You know, we don't have a major 
     coordinated fund-raising effort that we're investing lots of 
     money into. We're trying to do it on the cheap, I guess you 
     could say. We're trying to use the media coverage that we've 
     received and use the connections that we have from a number 
     of sources. We have raised well over a million dollars 
     already, but we . . . need three and a half million dollars, 
     and without it we're not gonna get that national park. . . . 
     When you look at the exploitation of the resources in those 
     countries it's not done for the consumption of Gabonese or 
     Congolese, it's done primarily for the consumption of 
     Americans, Asians, and Europeans. And people need to be 
     responsible for that. They can't just blithely keep going 
     farther afield and exploiting the wilderness without having 
     to pay some attention to that fact, without having to pay up. 
     . . . We get all upset when the U.S. government wants to go 
     drilling in [the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge]. But when 
     an oil company wants to drill in the most pristine place in 
     Gabon, we don't say ``boo.'' And that has to change. People 
     need to be responsible globally if they're going to exploit 
     globally. It has to be a two-way street.
       NG News. How do you propose to monitor the park and protect 
     it from such threats as poaching, logging, and bushmeat 
     hunting?
       Fay: It's that double-edged sword again. The place is very 
     isolated right now. So we're looking at a four-pronged 
     approach. The first prong was to basically get a team on the 
     ground . . . to protect that clearing and get a presence in 
     there that says to people, ``There's somebody looking after 
     this place.'' People have taken an interest in it, people 
     have recognized that it's something that needs to be 
     protected.  . . . We have money from the U.S. Fish and 
     Wildlife Service to establish a camp and a team on the 
     ground. So that's prong number one.
       Prong number two is the buy-back. We need to negotiate with 
     logging companies and with the Gabonese government to find 
     out how much it is going to cost and which blocks we can get. 
     We're dealing with ten different blocks, each about 25,000 
     hectares (62,000 acres) . . . and each one takes a separate 
     negotiation essentially. We have the green light from the 
     Gabonese forestry minister to start this process.
       The third prong of the effort is to establish a trust fund 
     so that management will take place there in the long term. 
     Trust funds not only create a situation where you can get 
     funding for a place like that, but you also have a much 
     broader management base . . . because if there's an 
     international trust fund then there's an international board. 
     And if there's an international board, people are going to be 
     interested in keeping this place in a state that this fund 
     was set up to preserve. Over the years national governments 
     in Africa have shown great interest and have collaborated in 
     international conservation efforts in their countries. This 
     is seen as positive and we have had great success in the past 
     with these associations.
       And then the fourth thing is to actually establish a long-
     term presence on the ground, which again requires some sort 
     of international collaboration between the conservation 
     organization and the national government. It relies on 
     funding from the outside rather than inside the country. We 
     have a grant to pay for the ground action for the next three 
     years and the effort to negotiate the national park. So we're 
     making pretty good progress on our four prongs. But we've 
     only completed about 10 to 30 percent of the 100 percent that 
     we need to go on all four of those demands. So, there's still 
     a lot of work to be done.
       There are some positive elements to build on. Along the 
     megatransect route there are already some protected areas. 
     The idea is to preserve and fully protect about one tenth of 
     the entire forest. We need to be pragmatic by setting 
     reasonable targets that we can accomplish.
                                  ____



                                   Conservation International,

                                    Washington, DC, June 26, 2002.
     Hon. Bill Frist,
     U.S. Senate, 416 Russell Senate Office Building, Washington, 
         DC
       Dear Senator Frist: Conservation International applauds 
     your leadership in sponsoring legislation to strengthen the 
     Tropical Forest Conservation Act (TFCA). Through making 
     nonconcessional debt eligible for TFCA treatment, this 
     legislation paves the way for substantial conservation gains 
     by allowing additional countries to participate in debt-for-
     nature swaps.
       Gabon is a good example. The country contains some of the 
     world's most pristine and biologically important tropical 
     forests--forests that shelter an incredible diversity of 
     wildlife including populations of gorillas and chimpanzees so 
     wild as to never before have encountered human beings. 
     Protecting Gabon's forests is an urgent priority of the 
     conservation community. It is also important to Gabon's 
     future. These forests are essential to maintaining 
     hydrological patterns, protecting water quality and quantity, 
     and offering development opportunities in the form of a 
     potentially significant exotourism market. As you well know, 
     their exploitation poses an additional risk of exposing human 
     beings to deadly disease. In fact, the most recent Ebola 
     outbreak occurred in Gabon.
       Gabon should be a strong candidate for debt relief under 
     the Tropical Forest Conservation Act: it has abundant, 
     critical, and threatened tropical forests; it has a stable 
     political regime; it seeks resources for conservation; and it 
     owes debts to the United States. Unfortunately, the TFCA's 
     narrow construction prohibits Gabon from seeking debt 
     treatment under the Act. Your legislation would change this.
       Conservation International has a long history of 
     participating in debt-for-nature swaps and has significant 
     private resources to bring to the table in support of public/
     private partnerships under the TFCA. In fact, we recently 
     worked with The Nature Coservancy and World Wildlife Fund to 
     contribute a total of $1.1 million to a TFCA deal in Peru, 
     which leveraged $5.5 million in U.S. Government funds and 
     generated $10.6 million in local currency payments for 
     conservation of Peru's forests. With passage of your 
     legislation. CI anticipates additional opportunities to work 
     with the U.S. and key tropical forest countries to 
     simultaneously achieve conservation and debt relief.
       Thank you once again for your leadership.
           Sincerely,
                                                  Nicholas Lapham,
                                       Senior Director for Policy.

                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. BINGAMAN:
  S. 2696. A bill to clear title to certain real property in New Mexico 
associated

[[Page 11709]]

with the Middle Rio Grande Project, and for other purposes; to the 
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce the 
Albuquerque Biological Park Title Clarification Act. This bill would 
assist the City of Albuquerque, NM by clearing its title to two parcels 
of land located along the Rio Grande. More specifically, it would allow 
the city to move forward with its plans to improve the properties as 
part of a Biological Park Project, a city funded initiative to create a 
premier environmental educational center for its citizens and the 
entire State of New Mexico.
  The Biological Park Project has been in the works since 1987 when the 
city began to develop an aquarium and botanic garden along the banks of 
the Rio Grande. The facilities constitutes just a portion of the 
overall project. In pursuit of the balance of the project, the city, in 
1997, purchased two properties from the Middle Rio Grande Conservancy 
District, MRGCD, for $3,875,000. The first property, Tingley Beach, had 
been leased by the city from MRGCD since 1931 and used for public park 
purposes. The second property, San Gabriel Park, had been leased by the 
city sine 1963, and also used for public park purposes.
  In the year 2000, the city's plan were interrupted when the U.S. 
Bureau of Reclamation claimed that in 1953 it had acquired ownership of 
all of MRGCD's property that is associated with the Middle Rio Grande 
Project. The United States' assertion called into question the validity 
of the 1997 transaction between the city and MRGCD. Both MRGCD and the 
city dispute the United States' claim of ownership.
  This dispute is delaying the city's progress in developing the 
Biological Park Project. If the matter is simply left to litigation, 
the delay will be both indefinite and unnecessary. Reclamation has 
already determined that the two properties are surplus to the needs of 
the Middle Rio Grande Project. Moreover, this history of this issue 
indicates that Reclamation had once considered releasing its interest 
in the properties for $1.00 each. Obviously, the Federal interest in 
these properties is low while the local interest is very high. 
Moreover, this bill would address only the status of the two properties 
at issue. The general dispute concerning title to project works is left 
for the courts to decide.
  I hope my colleagues will work with me to help resolve this issue 
which is important to the citizens of my state. While much of what we 
do here in the Congress is complex and time-consuming work, we should 
also have the ability to move quickly when necessary and appropriate to 
solve local problems caused by federal actions. I therefore urge my 
colleagues to support this legislation.
  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. 2696

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Albuquerque Biological Park 
     Title Clarification Act''.

     SEC 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSE.

       (a) Findings.--The Congress finds that:
       (1) In 1997, the City of Albuquerque, New Mexico paid 
     $3,875,000 to the Middle Rio Grande Conservancy District to 
     acquire two parcels of land known as Tingley Beach and San 
     Gabriel Park.
       (2) The City intends to develop and improve Tingley Beach 
     and San Gabriel Park as part of its Albuquerque Biological 
     Park Project.
       (3) In 2000, the City's title to Tingley Beach and San 
     Gabriel Park was clouded by the Bureau of Reclamation's 
     assertion that MRGCD had earlier transferred its assets, 
     including Tingley Beach and San Gabriel Park, to the United 
     States as part of a 1953 grant of easement associated with 
     the Middle Rio Grande Project.
       (4) The City's ability to continue developing the 
     Albuquerque Biological Park Project has been hindered by the 
     cloud on its title.
       (5) The United States' claim of ownership is disputed by 
     the City and MRGCD in Rio Grande Silvery Minnow v. John W. 
     Keys, III, No. CV 99-1320 JP/RLP-ACE (D. N.M. filed Nov. 15 
     1999).
       (6) Tingley Beach and San Gabriel Park are surplus to the 
     needs of the Middle Rio Grande Project.
       (b) Purpose.--The purpose of this Act is to disclaim on 
     behalf of the United States, any right, title, and interest 
     it may have in and to Tingley Beach and San Gabriel Park, 
     thereby removing the cloud on the City's title to these 
     lands.

     SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act:
       (a) City.--The term ``City'' means the City of Albuquerque, 
     New Mexico.
       (b) Middle Rio Grande Conservancy District.--The terms 
     ``Middle Rio Grande Conservancy District'' and ``MRGCD'' mean 
     a political subdivision of the State of New Mexico, created 
     in 1925 to provide and maintain flood protection and 
     drainage, and maintenance of ditches, canals, and 
     distribution system for irrigation in the Middle Rio Grande 
     Valley.
       (c) Middle Rio Grande Project.--The term ``Middle Rio 
     Grande Project'' means the federal reclamation project on the 
     Middle Rio Grande authorized by the Flood Control Act of 1948 
     (Public Law 80-858; 62 Stat. 1179) and the Flood Control Act 
     of 1950 (Public Law 81-516).
       (d) San Gabriel Park.--The term ``San Gabriel Park'' means 
     the tract of land containing 40.2236 acres, more or less, 
     situated within Section 12, and Section 13, T10N, R2E, 
     N.M.P.M., City of Albuquerque, Bernalillo County, New Mexico, 
     and described by New Mexico State Plane Grid Bearings 
     (Central Zone) and ground distances in a Special Warranty 
     Deed conveying the property from MRGCD to the City, dated 
     November 25, 1997.
       (e) Tingley Beach.--The term ``Tingley Beach'' means the 
     tract of land containing 25.2005 acres, more or less, 
     situated within Section 13 and Section 24, T10N, R2E, 
     N.M.P.M., City of Albuquerque, Bernalillo County, New Mexico, 
     and described by New Mexico State Plane Grid Bearings 
     (Central Zone) and ground distances in a Special Warranty 
     Deed conveying the property from MRGCD to the City, dated 
     November 25, 1997.

     SEC. 4. DISCLAIMER OF PROPERTY INTEREST.

       (a) In General.--As of the date of enactment of this Act, 
     the United States--
       (1) disclaims any right, title, and interest it may have in 
     and to Tingley Beach and San Grabiel Park; and
       (2) recognizes as valid the special warranty deeds dated 
     November 25, 1997, conveying Tingley Beach and San Gabriel 
     Park from MRGDC to the City.
       (b) Other Federal Action.--The Secretary of the Interior 
     shall take any and all actions to ensure that future maps, 
     property descriptions, or other documents generated in 
     association with the Middle Rio Grande Project, are 
     consistent with this Act.

     SEC. 5. OTHER RIGHTS, TITLE, AND INTERESTS UNAFFECTED.

       (a) In General.--Except as expressly provided in section 4, 
     nothing in this Act shall be construed to affect any right, 
     or interest in and to any land associated with the Middle Rio 
     Grande Project.
       (b) Ongoing Litigation.--Nothing contained in this Act 
     shall be construed to affect or otherwise interfere with any 
     position set forth by any party in the lawsuit pending before 
     the United States District Court for the District of New 
     Mexico, No. CV 99-1320 JP/RLP-ACE, entitled Rio Grande 
     Silvery Minnow v. John W. Keys, III, concerning the right, 
     title, or interest in and to any property associated with the 
     Middle Rio Grande Project.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. REID (for himself, Mrs. Boxer, Mrs. Clinton, Mr. 
        Lieberman, and Mr. Sarbanes):
  S. 2697. A bill to require the Secretary of the Interior to implement 
the final rule to phase out snowmobile use in Yellowstone National 
Park, John D. Rockefeller, Jr. Memorial Parkway, and Grant Teton 
National Park, and snowplane use in Grand Teton National Park; to the 
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, in Yellowstone National Park last winter, 
park rangers wore respirators. This isn't some kind of a joke, this is 
the truth. In Yellowstone National Park, the park rangers wore 
respirators because the air was so clouded and fogged with the 
pollution from snowmobiles that they had to do that to preserve their 
health.
  Ealier this week, the Bush administration decided to open Yellowstone 
and Grand Teton National Parks to snowmobile traffic. In doing so, they 
chose to ignore an avalanche of public comments that strongly supported 
the banning of snowmobiles in these two magnificent national parks. 
They chose pollution over protection.
  Mr. President, this isn't the first failing grade of this 
administration's environmental report card. I am sorry to say it 
probably won't be the last. It is,

[[Page 11710]]

however, particularly disappointing in light of the Yellowstone 
National Park's importance to the American people.
  Today, I join with Senators Boxer, Clinton, and Lieberman to 
introduce the Yellowstone Protection Act to shield America's first 
national park from a relapse of damaging snowmobile traffic.
  Congressmen Rush Holt and Christopher Shays are introducing a similar 
bill in the House of Representatives today. I salute them for their 
bipartisan leadership on this most important issue.
  When Congress established the National Park Service, we directed it 
to ``conserve the scenery and the natural and historic objects and the 
wildlife'' of our parks ``unimpaired for the enjoyment of future 
generations.''
  Mr. President, I have given speeches talking about Government and the 
things we should be proud of. Near the top of the list every time is 
our national park system. We are the envy of the world with these 
magnificent parks, as well we should be. To think that people who work 
in the parks must wear respirators because of the smog caused by 
snowmobiles, that is hard to imagine.
  In January of 2001, the National Park Service did the right thing. 
Wisely, it adopted a rule to phase out snowmobile use in the park. 
After carefully studying the science, examining the law, and reviewing 
the comments of the American people, it determined--the Park Service 
did--that the use of snowmobiles was inconsistent with the mission of 
Yellowstone National Park.
  Yet despite that historic decision and the overwhelming evidence that 
led to it, despite the science the EPA said was among the best it had 
ever seen, despite the support of over 80 percent of the people 
commenting on this issue, the National Park Service, under pressure 
from the administration and special interests, decided on Tuesday to 
roll back this commonsense rule.
  The Bush administration chose to ignore science, environmental laws, 
and public opinion.
  The Yellowstone Protection Act simply codifies the original National 
Park Service rule that would have banned snowmobiles in the park.
  Yellowstone Park is the birthplace of our park system. Congress 
created the National Park Service to protect Yellowstone and other 
parks.
  Yellowstone Park should serve as a guiding light for our protection 
of natural resources, not as a canary in a coal mine.
  Today, we must act to protect Yellowstone just as our forefathers did 
in 1872, when they established this magnificent national park. They 
made a farsighted decision to guarantee that each new generation would 
inherit a healthy and vibrant Yellowstone.
  This Congress must step forward to uphold what Congress began 130 
years ago.
  This legislation requires the management of Yellowstone and Grand 
Teton National Parks to be guided by law and informed by science, not 
dictated and directed by special interests.
  We have suffered through the work that has been done by the Bush 
administration with the environment--whether it is arsenic in the 
water, whether it is stopping children from having their blood tested 
for lead, whether it is making it easier for power generators to dump 
millions of tons of pollutants in the air, whether it is easing up on 
Superfund legislation, refusing to fund Superfund legislation--all 
these things you would think would be enough. But, no, it is not 
enough. Now they have to say that Smokey the Bear must wear a 
respirator. I think that is too much.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 2697

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Yellowstone Protection 
     Act''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       Congress finds the following:
       (1) The January 22, 2001, rule phasing out snowmobile use 
     in Yellowstone National Park, Grand Teton National Park, and 
     the John D. Rockefeller, Jr. Memorial Parkway was made by 
     professionals in the National Park Service who based their 
     decision on law, 10 years of scientific study, and extensive 
     public process.
       (2) An environmental impact statement that formed the basis 
     for the rule concluded that snowmobile use is impairing or 
     adversely impacting air quality, natural soundscapes, 
     wildlife, public and employee health and safety, and visitor 
     enjoyment. According to the Environmental Protection Agency, 
     the environmental impact statement had ``among the most 
     thorough and substantial science base that we have seen 
     supporting a NEPA document''.
       (3) The National Park Service concluded that snowmobile use 
     is violating the mission given to the agency by Congress--to 
     manage the parks ``in such manner and by such means as will 
     leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future 
     generations''. The National Park Service also found that 
     snowmobile use is ``inconsistent with the requirements of the 
     Clean Air Act, Executive Orders 11644 and 11989 [by 
     Presidents Nixon and Carter, relating to off-road vehicle use 
     on public lands], the NPS's general snowmobile regulations 
     and NPS management objectives for the parks''.
       (4) In order to maintain winter visitor access, the Park 
     Service outlined a plan to use the already existing mode of 
     winter transportation know as snowcoaches, which are mass 
     transit, oversnow vehicles similar to vans. The final rule 
     states that a snowcoach transit system ``would reduce adverse 
     impacts on park resources and values, better provide for 
     public safety, and provide for public enjoyment of the park 
     in winter''.
       (5) The National Park Service Air Resources Division 
     determined that despite being outnumbered by automobiles 16 
     to 1 during the course of a year, snowmobiles produce up to 
     68 percent of Yellowstone's carbon monoxide pollution and up 
     to 90 percent of the park's annual hydrocarbon emissions.
       (6) Noise from snowmobiles routinely disrupts natural 
     sounds and natural quiet at popular Yellowstone attractions. 
     A February 2000 ``percent time audible'' study found 
     snowmobile noise present more than 90 percent of the time at 
     8 of 13 sites.
       (7) In Yellowstone's severe winter climate, snowmobile 
     traffic regularly disturbs and harasses wildlife. In October 
     2001, 18 eminent scientists warned the Secretary of the 
     Interior that ``ignoring this information would not be 
     consistent with the original vision intended to keep our 
     national parks unimpaired for future generations''. National 
     Park Service regulations allow snowmobile use only when that 
     use ``will not disturb wildlife...'' (36 CFR 2.18(c)).
       (8) At Yellowstone's west entrance, park rangers and fee 
     collectors suffer from symptoms of carbon monoxide poisoning 
     due to snowmobile exhaust. According to National Park Service 
     records, in December 2000, a dozen park employees filed 
     medical complaints citing sore throats, headaches, lethargy, 
     eye irritation, and tightness in the lungs. Their supervisor 
     requested more staff at the west entrance, not because of a 
     need for additional personnel to cover the work there, but so 
     the supervisor could begin rotating employees more frequently 
     out of the ``fume cloud'' for the sake of their health. In 
     2002, for the first time in National Park history, rangers 
     were issued respirators to wear while performing their 
     duties.
       (9) The public opportunity to engage in the environmental 
     impact study process was extensive and comprehensive. During 
     the 3-year environmental impact study process and rulemaking, 
     there were 4 opportunities for public consideration and 
     comment. The Park Service held 22 public hearings in regional 
     communities such as West Yellowstone, Cody, Jackson, and 
     Idaho Falls, and across the Nation. The agency received over 
     70,000 individual comments. At each stage of the input 
     process, support for phasing out snowmobiles grew, 
     culminating in a 4-to-1 majority in favor of the rule in 
     early 2001. More recently, 82 percent of those commenting 
     wrote in favor of the National Park Service decision to phase 
     out snowmobile use in the parks.

     SEC. 3. FINAL RULE CODIFIED.

       Beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act, the 
     Secretary of the Interior shall implement the final rule to 
     phase out snowmobile use in Yellowstone National Park, the 
     John D. Rockefeller Jr. Memorial Parkway, and Grand Teton 
     National Park, and snowplane use in Grand Teton National 
     Park, as published in the Federal Register on January 22, 
     2001 (66 Fed. Reg. 7260-7268). The Secretary shall not have 
     the authority to modify or supersede any provision of that 
     final rule.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. ROCKEFELLER:
  S. 2698. A bill to establish a grant program for school renovation, 
and for other purposes; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, 
and Pensions.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. ROCKEFELLER:

[[Page 11711]]

  S. 2699. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to expand 
the incentives for the construction and renovation of public schools; 
to the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, today I am introducing two bills 
aimed at addressing our national school infrastructure crisis. Schools 
across America have been allowed to fall into ill repair, and in some 
school districts, there is a serious need for new school construction.
  The Department of Education has found that the average age of a 
public school building in this country is 42 years old, an age when 
buildings tend to deteriorate. In 1995, the GAO found that the unmet 
need for school construction and renovation in the United States was a 
staggering $112 billion.
  When our schools are in poor condition, our children suffer and our 
Nation suffers. Studies have shown that children in well-kept schools 
perform better than children in deteriorating buildings. Certainly our 
children deserve the advantages that come with studying in a safe, 
clean, modern environment. The state of our schools is unacceptable, 
and it is our responsibility to do all we can to remedy this situation.
  These bills are the first pieces of my education agenda for 2002. In 
addition to investing in school construction, we must also invest in 
school leadership. Within the next few weeks, I intend to promote 
initiatives for school principals and incentives to recruit and retain 
teachers. School leadership will be essential in meeting the higher 
standards set by our new Leave No Child Behind Act, and principals play 
a pivotal role. I will be pushing legislation to ensure that we invest 
in leadership programs to help principals be bold leaders of reform. 
Also, I intend to introduce tax incentives to reward highly qualified 
teachers as a way to recruit and retain the best and the brightest for 
our classrooms. Building leadership among principals and teachers is as 
essential to quality education as modern schools.
  These efforts build on my ongoing education efforts on math and 
science and technology. In 1996, I was proud to sponsor the E-Rate 
program with Senator Snowe to connect our classroom to the Internet 
because our students must be connected to modern technology to gain the 
skills needed for the 21st century. This year, I am working hard to 
enact the National Math and Science Partnership Act to authorize almost 
a $1 billion a year for five years for the National Science Foundation 
to invest in promoting quality math and science education. The 
combination of these legislative initiatives should help provide the 
essential resources and leadership necessary to achieve our education 
goals.
  I can see the effects of deteriorating school buildings in my State 
of West Virginia. There alone, the need for school construction, 
renovation, and repair is rapidly approaching a staggering $2 billion 
over the next 10 years, a sum West Virginia cannot meet without 
assistance.
  West Virginia has, in the past, benefitted greatly from Federal 
programs designed to improve the quality of school buildings, and the 
money we've received has been put to excellent use. Funding made 
available by the Qualified Zone Academy Bond program, a program in 
which the Federal Government authorizes the states to sell school 
construction bonds and then pays the interest to the bond holders, has 
provided my state with over $4 million in bond funding since 1998. This 
money has been used to renovate science labs, install wireless computer 
equipment, remove asbestos, and provide modular classrooms, among many 
other valuable projects. Another program, a direct funding initiative 
included in the FY 2001 final budget agreement, has also been a great 
success in West Virginia and across the nation.
  Many schools in my State are unable to take advantage of school 
bondings because some local communities are so needy that they cannot 
afford even the low- or no-interest loans that program makes available. 
And when areas which are already disadvantaged are hit with natural 
disasters, such as the heartbreaking catastrophic flooding West 
Virginia has now suffered two years in a row, school districts cannot 
be expected to keep up with their infrastructure needs.
  The direct funding initiative in the 2001 budget made $1.2 billion in 
grants available for emergency school renovation and repair and 
technology improvements across America. West Virginia was fortunate to 
receive nearly $8 million in funding from the program, enabling our 
schools to replace roofs, fix faulty wiring and sewage systems, remove 
asbestos, and make themselves better prepared for fire emergencies.
  The success stories from these programs prove that we can make a real 
impact in the quality of schools in our nation. I am proud to introduce 
two bills today designed to build upon these past successes: the 
America's Better Classroom Act and the Building Our Children's Future 
Act.
  The America's Better Classroom Act is designed to expand and build 
upon the success of the Qualified Zone Academy Bond, or the QZAB 
program. It expands this program by $2.8 billion so even more school 
districts will be able to take advantage of the low-or no-interest 
school construction loans that it provides. QZAB's are aimed at schools 
in disadvantaged areas. To qualify, a school must be located in an 
empowerment zone, enterprise community, or 35 per cent of its students 
must be eligible for free or reduced lunch.
  In addition to expanding the QZAB program, the America's Better 
Classroom Act creates a new $22 billion bonding program designed to 
help all school districts meet their renovation needs. Funding to 
states will be allocated based on the Title I funding formula. In this 
way, many more school districts will have the opportunity to reap the 
benefits of no- or low-interest loans for school renovation and repair. 
This legislation is similar to a House bill sponsored by Congresswoman 
Nancy Johnson and Congressman Charlie Rangel. I look forward to working 
with the House colleagues on this crucial program.
  The second bill I introduce today is the Building Our Children's 
Future Act, a $5 billion initiative designed to help schools that, due 
to poverty, high growth, or unforseen disaster, are unable to meet 
their repair and renovation needs. Many districts that are facing these 
difficult challenges find themselves so strapped that they cannot even 
afford to pay back the principle on an interest-free loan. These areas 
need direct help, and this grant program provides it.
  The Building Our Children's Future Act gives each State funding based 
on Title I, with a priority to target funding to schools that have been 
damaged or destroyed by a natural disaster or are located in a high 
poverty or high growth areas, defined by the state. This makes certain 
that states have the flexibility to put the money where it is needed 
the most.
  The bill also recognizes that not all renovation needs are the same. 
In the 21st century, providing students and teachers with access to 
technology will be a critical part of keeping schools up-to-date. 
Likewise, we have made a commitment to assist states in covering the 
costs of special education, a commitment that will undoubtedly require 
renovation and construction to accommodate special needs. For this 
reason, the Building Our Children's Future Act sets aside a portion of 
its funds for states to make technology improvements and carry out 
programs under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.
  Finally, the Building Our Children's Future Act also makes money 
available to schools with high Native American populations and schools 
located in outlying areas, so that no group will be left behind as we 
seek to remedy our school infrastructure crisis.
  I believe that America's Better Classroom Act and the Building Our 
Children's Future Act are important steps toward giving our children 
the learning environments they deserve. When our schools are in 
disrepair, we cannot expect our educational system to be any different. 
I hope you will join me in supporting these two bills and, in doing so, 
join me in supporting the futures of our children and our Nation.

[[Page 11712]]



                          ____________________