[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 161 (2015), Part 6]
[Senate]
[Pages 7602-7605]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Ms. MURKOWSKI:
  S. 1395. A bill to reinstate certain mining claims in the State of 
Alaska; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise today to reintroduce legislation 
in a dramatically different form to reinstate two small miner's claims, 
which have been taken from them because of an inequitable federal 
administrative process.
  Under revisions to the Federal Mining Law of 1872, 30 U.S.C. 28(f) 
holders of unpatented mineral claims must pay a claim maintenance fee 
originally set at $100 per claim by a deadline, set by regulation, of 
September l each year. Since 2004 that fee has risen to $140 per claim. 
But Congress also provided a claim maintenance fee waiver for ``small'' 
miners, those who hold 10 or fewer claims, so that they do not have to 
submit the fee, but that they must file to renew their claims and 
submit an affidavit of annual labor, work conducted on the claim, each 
year, certifying that they had performed more than $100 of work on the 
claim in the preceding year, 30 U.S.C. 28f(d)(1). The waiver provision 
further states: ``If a small miner waiver application is determined to 
be defective for any reason, the claimant shall have a period of 60 
days after receipt of written notification of the defect or defects by 
the Bureau of Land Management to: (A) cure such defect or defects or 
(B) pay the . . . claim maintenance fee(s) due for such a period.''
  Since past revisions of the law, there have been a series of 
incidents where miners have argued that they submitted their 
applications and affidavits of annual labor in a timely manner, but due 
to clerical error by U.S. Bureau of Land Management staff, mailing 
delays or for unexplained reasons, the applications or documents were 
not recorded as having been received in a timely fashion. In that case 
BLM has terminated the claims, deeming them null and void. While mining 
claim holders have argued that the law provides them time to cure claim 
defects, BLM has argued that the cure only applies when applications or 
fees have been received in a timely manner. Thus, there is no 
administrative remedy for miners who believe that clerical errors by 
BLM or mail issues resulted in loss or the late recording of claim 
extension applications and paperwork.
  There have been a number of cases where Congress has been asked to 
override BLM determinations and reinstate mining claims simply because 
of the disputes over whether the claims had been filed in a timely 
manner. Congress in 2003 reinstated such claims in a previous Alaska 
case. Claims in two other incidents were reinstated following a U.S. 
District Court case in the 10th Circuit first in 2009 in the case of 
Miller v. United States and in a second Alaska case in 2013. 
Legislation to correct the provision to prevent this problem actually 
was approved by the Senate in 2007, but did not ultimately become law.
  In the past three Congresses I have introduced legislation intended 
to short circuit continued litigation and pleas for claim reinstatement 
by clarifying the intent of Congress that miners do have to be informed 
that their claims are in jeopardy of being voided and given 60 days of 
notice to cure defects, including giving them time to submit their 
applications and to submit affidavits of annual labor, should their 
submittals not be received and processed by BLM officials on time. If 
all defects are not cured within 60 days--the obvious intent of 
Congress in passing the original act--then claims should be subject to 
voidance. But this administration has opposed the legislation arguing 
that it would be too expensive to notify all small miners who fail to 
file their small miner waiver documents on time and giving them time to 
solve the defect prior to the loss of their claims. It has even been 
suggested that giving small miners

[[Page 7603]]

simple due process would just encourage miners to ignore the deadline 
for filing of their fee waivers.
  I clearly find the cost argument unpersuasive. Many Federal 
departments and agencies, the Federal Communication Commission, as one 
example, routinely sends out notices on permit and license 
applications. The FCC sends out hundreds of thousands of such notices 
to Americans who have small radio licenses expiring yearly, warning 
them that they need to file applications for license renewal. The 
Bureau of Land Management certainly should be able to afford a few 
hundred stamps to perform a similar service. Given the value of claims 
placed at risk and the bother, inconvenience and fear of loss of 
claims, it is highly unlikely that miners would avoid filing their 
waiver paperwork on time just because a notification process was 
clearly in place before claims could be terminated.
  But after facing the clear opposition of this administration over 6 
years to resolving this inequity, today I simply file legislation to 
remedy the injustices for two of my constituents who have lost their 
rights, in one case to nine mineral claims on the Kenai Peninsula, near 
Hope, Alaska, and in the second case to a single placer claim in the 
Fortymile District of northeast Alaska. The transition language 
proposed will reinstate claims for Mr. John Trautner, who has lost 
title to claims that he had held from 1982 to 2004. Mr. Trautner 
suffered this loss even though he had a consistent record of having 
paid the annual labor assessment fee for the previous 22 years. The 
local BLM office did have a time-date-stamped record that the 
maintenance fee waiver certification form had been filed weeks before 
the deadline, but just not a record that the affidavit of annual labor 
had arrived when he dropped it at the office in Anchorage at the same 
time.
  In the second case, it will reinstate a claim held by Mr. and Mrs. 
Vernon Thurneau, now of Wasilla, who lost their claim after mining it 
continuously for 38 years in 2009, simply because of a holiday season 
error. In this case the Thurneau's paid their fees on time, and turned 
in their proof of labor affidavit to the Fairbanks Recorders Office in 
December before the deadline. They received a time and date stamp that 
they produced the information in a timely manner. But because of the 
Christmas holidays they simply forgot to turn/mail in the form to the 
BLM Anchorage office until after Jan. 1, missing the BLM's required 
Dec. 31 deadline. Because of a holiday delay, they lost their claims 
and 38 years of work.
  This legislation, supported in the past by the Alaska Miners 
Association, will simply reinstate the two sets of claims, claims that 
have been held by the government over the past decade. In response to 
complaints by the Department of the Interior that past versions of my 
legislation improperly would have resulted in the patenting of the 
claims by the granting of a first half final certificate in the 
Trautner case, I have modified this bill simply to reinstate the 
claims, but not to take steps to confirm patents. By this bill Mr. 
Trautner will have to wait like many other miners for Congress to 
reconsider the merits of the moratorium on patent issuance first 
imposed on the Mining Law of 1872 by Congress in 1995.
  It is simple justice that Mr. Trautner and the Thurneau family 
receive their claims back, since Congress clearly thought it was giving 
miners a guaranteed opportunity to remedy claim defects when it created 
the small miner waiver provisions in 1993. Return of the claims will 
cost the government nothing and likely will result in added federal 
revenues, hopefully preventing this bill from facing any procedural 
issues. I hope that justice will finally prevail in these cases this 
Congress, even though I regret that I see no means to fix the larger 
inequity in the interpretation of the small miner waiver statute for 
the foreseeable future.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. CORNYN:
  S. 1397. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to require 
that ITIN applicants submit their application in person at taxpayer 
assistance centers, and for other purposes; to the Committee on 
Finance.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of 
the bill be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                S. 1397

       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 ``ITIN Reform Act of 2015''.

     SEC. 2. REQUIREMENTS FOR THE ISSUANCE OF ITINS.

       (a) In General.--Section 6109 of the Internal Revenue Code 
     of 1986 is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(i) Special Rules Relating to the Issuance of ITINs.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary may issue an individual 
     taxpayer identification number to an individual only if the 
     requirements of paragraphs (2) and (3) are met.
       ``(2) In-person application.--The requirements of this 
     paragraph are met if, with respect to an application for an 
     individual taxpayer identification number--
       ``(A) the applicant submits an application in person, using 
     Form W-7 (or any successor thereof) and including the 
     required documentation, at a taxpayer assistance center of 
     the Internal Revenue Service, or
       ``(B) in the case of an applicant who resides outside of 
     the United States, the applicant submits the application in 
     person to an employee of the Internal Revenue Service or a 
     designee of the Secretary at a United States diplomatic 
     mission or consular post, together with the required 
     documentation.
       ``(3) Initial on-site verification of documentation.--The 
     requirements of this paragraph are met if, with respect to 
     each application, an employee of the Internal Revenue Service 
     at the taxpayer assistance center, or the employee or 
     designee described in paragraph (2)(B), as the case may be, 
     conducts an initial verification of the documentation 
     supporting the application submitted under paragraph (2).
       ``(4) Required documentation.--For purposes of this 
     subsection--
       ``(A) required documentation includes such documentation as 
     the Secretary may require that proves the individual's 
     identity and foreign status, and
       ``(B) the Secretary may only accept original documents.
       ``(5) Exceptions.--
       ``(A) Military spouses.--Paragraph (1) shall not apply to 
     the spouse, or the dependents, without a social security 
     number of a taxpayer who is a member of the Armed Forces of 
     the United States.
       ``(B) Treaty benefits.--Paragraph (1) shall not apply to a 
     nonresident alien applying for an individual taxpayer 
     identification number for the purpose of claiming tax treaty 
     benefits.
       ``(6) Term.--
       ``(A) In general.--An individual taxpayer identification 
     number issued after the date of the enactment of this 
     subsection shall be valid only for the 5-year period which 
     includes the taxable year of the individual for which such 
     number is issued and the 4 succeeding taxable years.
       ``(B) Renewal of itin.--Such number shall be valid for an 
     additional 5-year period only if it is renewed through an 
     application which satisfies the requirements under paragraphs 
     (2) and (3).
       ``(C) Special rule for existing itins.--In the case of an 
     individual with an individual taxpayer identification number 
     issued on or before the date of the enactment of this 
     subsection, such number shall not be valid after the earlier 
     of--
       ``(i) the end of the 3-year period beginning on the date of 
     the enactment of this subsection, or
       ``(ii) the first taxable year beginning after--

       ``(I) the date of the enactment of this subsection, and
       ``(II) any taxable year for which the individual (or, if a 
     dependent, on which the individual is included) did not make 
     a return.''.

       (b) Interest.--Section 6611 of the Internal Revenue Code of 
     1986 is amended by redesignating subsection (h) as subsection 
     (i) and by inserting after subsection (g) the following new 
     subsection:
       ``(h) Special Rule Relating to ITINs.--Notwithstanding any 
     other provision of this section, no interest shall be allowed 
     or paid to or on behalf of an individual with respect to any 
     overpayment until 45 days after an individual taxpayer 
     identification number is issued to the individual.''.
       (c) Audit by TIGTA.--Not later than two years after the 
     date of the enactment of this Act, and every 2 years 
     thereafter, the Treasury Inspector General for Tax 
     Administration shall conduct an audit of the program of the 
     Internal Revenue Service for the issuance of individual 
     taxpayer identification numbers pursuant to section 6109(i) 
     of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986. The report required by 
     this subsection shall be submitted to the Congress.
       (d) Effective Date.--

[[Page 7604]]

       (1) Subsection (a).--The amendment made by subsection (a) 
     shall apply to requests for individual taxpayer 
     identification numbers made after the date of the enactment 
     of this Act.
       (2) Subsection (b).--The amendment made by subsection (b) 
     shall apply to returns due, claims filed, and refunds paid 
     after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. DURBIN:
  S. 1400. A bill to amend the Small Business Act to direct the task 
force of the Office of Veterans Business Development to provide access 
to and manage the distribution of excess or surplus property to 
veteran-owned small businesses; to the Committee on Small Business and 
Entrepreneurship.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of 
the bill be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                S. 1400

       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 ``Veterans Small Business 
     Enhancement Act of 2015''.

     SEC. 2. ACCESS TO EXCESS OR SURPLUS PROPERTY FOR VETERAN-
                   OWNED SMALL BUSINESSES.

       Section 32(c)(3)(B) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 
     657b(c)(3)(B)) is amended--
       (1) in clause (v), by striking ``; and'' and inserting a 
     semicolon;
       (2) in clause (vi), by striking the period at the end and 
     inserting ``; and''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following new clause:
       ``(vii) providing access to and managing the distribution 
     of excess or surplus property owned by the United States to 
     small business concerns owned and controlled by veterans, 
     pursuant to a memorandum of understanding between the task 
     force and the head of the applicable state agency (as defined 
     in section 549 of title 40, United States Code).''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. TILLIS (for himself and Mr. Burr):
  S. 1401. A bill to provide for the annual designation of cities in 
the United States as an ``American World War II City''; to the 
Committee on Armed Services.
  Mr. TILLIS. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce legislation to 
direct the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to designate one city each 
year as a World War II city, beginning with Wilmington, NC, as 
America's first World War II City.
  The names of the 10,000 Tarheels, who paid the ultimate price in 
World War II are memorialized on the bulkhead of the battleship USS 
North Carolina in downtown Wilmington.
  During World War II, the USS North Carolina, known affectionately 
throughout the Navy as the ``Showboat'', ``participated in every major 
naval offensive in the Pacific area of operations and earned 15 battle 
stars. She steamed over 300,000 miles. Although Japanese radio claimed 
six times that North Carolina had been sunk, she survived.
  After serving as a training vessel for midshipmen, North Carolina was 
decommissioned June 27, 1947 and placed in the Inactive Reserve Fleet 
in Bayonne, New Jersey, for the next 14 years. In 1958 the announcement 
of her impending scrapping led to a statewide campaign by citizens of 
North Carolina to save the ship and bring her back to her home state. 
The Save Our Ship, SOS, campaign was successful and the battleship 
arrived in her current berth on October 2, 1961. She was dedicated on 
April 29, 1962, as the State's memorial to its World War II veterans
  At home, North Carolina's coast was a war zone. On April 13-14, 1942, 
the first U-boat, German U-85, was sunk off the North Carolina Coast. 
Mr. President, 397 ships were sunk or damaged and nearly 5,000 people 
were killed within sight of our shores. For 6 months at the beginning 
of America's war, 65 German U-boats hunted Allied merchant vessels 
practically unopposed. The greatest concentration of these attacks came 
off North Carolina.
  During World War II, Wilmington was the home of the North Carolina 
Shipbuilding Company. The shipyard was created as part of the U.S. 
Government's Emergency Shipbuilding Program. Workers built 243 ships in 
Wilmington during the five years the company operated.
  The city was the site of three prisoner-of-war, POW, camps from 
February 1944 through April 1946. At their peak, the camps held 550 
German prisoners. The first camp was located on the corner of Shipyard 
Boulevard and Carolina Beach Road; the old Confederate post Fort Fisher 
housed German prisoners and also served as a training site for the 
Coastal Artillery and anti-aircraft units. A smaller contingent of 
prisoners was assigned to a smaller site, working in the officers' mess 
and doing grounds keeping at Bluethenthal Army Air Field, which is now
Wilmington International Airport. Bluethenthal Army Air Field was used 
by the United States Army Air Forces' Third Air Force for antisubmarine 
patrols and training.
  I want to thank my colleague Senator Burr for bringing this idea to 
establish a process to recognize Wilmington and other American cities 
for their efforts during the war years, to the Senate. But I also wish 
to single out Wilbur Jones, a Wilmington native and military historian 
who has poured so much of his time and soul into ensuring that the 
people of southeastern North Carolina never forget the contributions of 
our state to victory in the Atlantic and the Pacific.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. LEAHY (for himself and Mr. Grassley):
  S. 1402. A bill to allow acceleration certificates awarded under the 
Patents for Humanity Program to be transferable; to the Committee on 
the Judiciary.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, the American intellectual property system 
is rightly held as the global standard for promoting innovation and 
driving economic growth. This is particularly true of our patent 
system. The fundamental truth that our Founders recognized more than 
200 years ago, that limited exclusive rights for inventors incentivize 
research and development, continues to benefit consumers and the 
American economy at large.
  A healthy patent system should do more than drive economic 
development; it should incentivize research and discoveries that 
advance humanitarian needs. I have worked to promote policies that 
encourage intellectual property holders to apply their work to address 
global humanitarian challenges. Today, I continue that effort by 
joining with Senator Grassley to introduce the bipartisan Patents for 
Humanity Program Improvement Act.
  This bipartisan legislation strengthens a program created by the 
United States Patent and Trademark Office, PTO, in 2012. The PTO's 
Patents for Humanity Program provides rewards to selected patent 
holders who use their invention to address a humanitarian issue that 
significantly affects the public health or quality of life of an 
impoverished population. Those who receive the award are given a 
certificate to accelerate certain PTO processes, as described in the 
program rules.
  The innovations that have been recognized by this program help 
underserved people throughout the world. Award winners have worked to 
improve the treatment and diagnosis of devastating diseases, improve 
nutrition and the environment, and combat the spread of dangerous 
counterfeit drugs. These are innovations that will make a real 
difference in the lives of people who are not always the beneficiaries 
of cutting-edge technology.
  Following a Judiciary Committee hearing in 2012, I asked then-PTO 
Director Kappos whether the Patents for Humanity program would be more 
effective, and more attractive to innovators, if the acceleration 
certificates awarded were transferable to a third party. He responded 
that it would, and that it would be particularly beneficial to small 
businesses that win the award. Since that time, other small start-ups 
and global health groups have emphasized that making the certificates 
transferable would improve their usability and increase the incentives 
of the Patents for Humanity Award. The Patents for Humanity Program 
Improvement Act makes this enhancement to the program. It is a 
straightforward, cost-neutral bill that will strengthen this award and 
encourage innovations to be used for humanitarian goods.

[[Page 7605]]

  When Congress can establish policies that provide business incentives 
for humanitarian endeavors, it should not hesitate to act. I urge the 
Senate to work swiftly to pass this legislation.

                          ____________________