[Pages S11169-S11186]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

By Mr. THURMOND (for himself, Mr. Faircloth, Mr. Lott, Mr. Helms,
and Mrs. Kassebaum):
S. 2104. A bill to amend chapter 71 of title V, United States Code,
to prohibit the use of Federal funds for certain Federal employee labor
organization activities, and for other purposes; to the Committee on
Governmental Affairs.

UNION ACTIVITIES LEGISLATION

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a very
important piece of legislation that would affect every American
taxpayer. This measure would prohibit Federal funds

[[Page S11170]]

from being used to pay Federal employees while working on union
business.
Mr. President, I was shocked by a recent Government Accounting Office
[GAO] report to Congress concerning union activities at the Social
Security Administration [SSA]. I understand that Federal employees have
the right to be represented by a union. However, I completely disagree
that the American taxpayer should foot the bill for this
representation.
The results of the GAO report are astounding and very disturbing. The
GAO reported that over 413,000 hours were spent by Federal employees
last year on union activities at the SSA. This cost the American
taxpayers approximately $12.6 million in salaries and expenses. This
does not even count the amount of time management spent answering union
concerns. The cost involved for management to respond may be double the
nearly $13 million we spent on the union representatives. The GAO
identified 1,800 SSA employees who are authorized by the union to spend
time on SSA union activities; I repeat, Mr. President, 1,800 Federal
employees, paid by the U.S. Government to do union work. Currently, 146
of those representatives are considered to be full-time. In other
words, 146 Federal employees are spending 100 percent of their time at
the Social Security Administration working on union activities, not
serving Social Security beneficiaries and the taxpayer, but doing full-
time union work. These figures are for just one agency. In 1993,
President Clinton issued Executive Order 12871, which requires agencies
to involve labor organizations as full ``partners'' with management
in identifying problems and creating solutions. In the time that this
Executive order has been in effect, the cost to the American taxpayer
for union activity at SSA alone has more than doubled. Further, Federal
employees who are performing union work full-time has jumped from 80 to
146. There are still some 1,654 additional SSA employees working part-
time on union activities. Mr. President, this is outrageous.

As I stated, these figures are only for the SSA. I have, therefore,
requested that the GAO prepare a similar report to the one conducted at
SSA, which would address union activity within the entire Federal
Government. It is my feeling that the aggregate numbers will be equally
as staggering and shocking as those found at SSA.
I am pleased to be a cosponsor of legislation, authored by my good
friend, Senator Faircloth, which would prohibit using money from the
Social Security and Medicare trust funds for union activities at SSA
and the Department of Health and Human Services. However, I think we
should go even further. No Federal money should be used to subsidize
union work within any Government agency. Our Government workers should
be attending to the business for which they were hired while on the
American taxpayer's time. The union representatives at Federal agencies
were not hired to do the work of the unions. They were hired to perform
specific duties pertaining to the official business of the Federal
agency that employs them.
The legislation I am introducing would ensure that union activities
at the Federal level are not financed by the already heavily burdened
American taxpayer. Mr. President, let the unions pay the salaries and
expenses of those who perform union work; and let our tax money be used
to do the work of the American people.
The able Majority Leader, Senator Lott, Senators Faircloth, Helms,
and Kassebaum are original cosponsors. I invite my other colleagues to
join us in support of this important measure to correct an absolute
misuse of Federal funds.
I further ask unanimous consent that the GAO report regarding union
activities at the Social Security Administration be included in the
Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

Union Activity at the Social Security Administration

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: I am pleased
to be here today to discuss the time spent on union
activities at the Social Security Administration (SSA). Union
activities generally include representing employees in
complaints against management, bargaining over changes in
working conditions and the application of personnel policies,
and negotiating union contracts with management. The federal
government pays its employees' salaries and expenses for the
portion of time they are allowed to spend on union
activities; it also provides other support such as space,
supplies, equipment, and some travel expenses.\1\ Federal
union members generally cannot bargain over wages and cannot
strike, and federal employees are not required to join unions
and pay union dues in order to be represented by the union.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Footnotes at end of article.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Given the budget constraints facing federal agencies, the
Subcommittee expressed concern about the amount of time and
expenses devoted to union activities and paid for by the
federal government. The Subcommittee expressed particular
concern about SSA unions regarding the amount of money paid
for union activities out of the Social Security trust funds.
As requested, I will focus my remarks on the history of
union involvement in the federal government, the statutory
basis for the federal government to pay employee salaries and
expenses for union activities, and the amount of time spent
on and costs associated with union activities at SSA and how
the agency accounts for it. The Subcommittee also asked us to
comment on how the amount of time and money spent at SSA on
union activities compares with what is spent at other large
federal agencies, such as the Department of Veterans Affairs
(VA) and the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), and how it
compares with the amount spent by the U.S. Postal Service,
which operates more like a private-sector company. As
requested, we have also provided information on union
activities in the private sector.
In response to your request, we began our work at SSA in
August 1995. To develop this information, we interviewed
management and union officials in SSA headquarters and 4 of
SSA's 10 regional offices. We also reviewed union contracts,
payroll records, and time-reporting forms. To determine the
amount of time spent on union activities, we reviewed yearly
reports of time spent on union activities and verified the
time reported by reviewing source documents at one region and
selected headquarters components. We supplemented our field
work with telephone calls to three additional SSA regions to
verify that similar time reporting procedures were used.
We also met with union and management officials at VA, IRS,
and the Postal Service to compare their union time and costs
with SSA's. VA does not operate a national union time-
reporting system and therefore could not provide data on
union activities. Consequently, we are not providing any
information concerning VA. At IRS and the Postal Service, we
obtained available information on union activity from
headquarters and selected field facilities but did not verify
its accuracy. We also discussed the role and function of
unions in the federal government with the Office of Personnel
Management (OPM) and discussed the private-sector use of
official time for union activities with labor-relations
experts at various trade associations, colleges, and
universities. We also reviewed a 1992 Bureau of National
Affairs publication that summarized trends in labor/
management contracts for private industry. Finally, to
determine the types of contract provisions that exist in
private industry with regard to the use of official time, we
reviewed ten contracts on file at the Bureau of Labor
Statistics.
In summary, federal labor/management relations were
formalized by executive order in the early 1960s.\2\ In 1962,
an executive order permitted federal agencies to grant
official time for certain meetings between management and
union representatives, at the discretion of the agency. The
management control prevalent when the first executive order
was issued has evolved over time, and today unions operating
at federal government agencies have significant involvement
in operational and management decisions. The use of official
time, which is authorized paid time off from assigned duties
for union activities, has become a routine method of union
operation in the federal government. OPM officials told us
that currently no governmentwide requirement exists to
capture or report the amount of official time charged to
union activities. They further noted that managers and
employees would spend time interacting on personnel and
working condition matters even if there were no unions
operating at agencies.
We determined that over the last 6 years, the time spent on
union activities at SSA has grown from 254,000 to at least
413,000 hours, at a cost to SSA's trust funds of $12.6
million in 1995 alone. That is, SSA currently pays the
equivalent of the salaries and expenses of about 200 SSA
employees to represent the interests of the approximately
52,000 employees represented by unions at SSA. This cost
represents a portion of the $5.5 billion SSA incurred in
administrative expenses for fiscal year 1995.
In addition, SSA has reported to the Congress that the
number of full-time union representatives, those devoting 75
percent or more of their time to union activities, grew from
80 to 145 between 1993 and 1995. We found, however, that the
reporting system for collecting such data does not adequately
track the number of union representatives charging time to
union activities or the actual time spent. Consequently, we
conducted a limited verification of the hours spent on union
activities reported by SSA and found

[[Page S11171]]

that time spent on union activities was underreported. While
SSA is currently developing a new system to more accurately
track the time spent on union activities, it plans to
implement this system to replace only the automated reporting
system for union representatives in the field offices and
teleservice centers. SSA is not planning to improve the less
accurate manual time-reporting system for its other
components.
Under the terms of the current SSA union contract
negotiated in 1993, the selection of union representatives
and the amount of time they spend on union activities are
determined by the union without the consent of local
managers. We found that over 1,800 designated union
representatives in SSA are authorized to spend time on union
activities, although most of the time spent is by SSA's 146
full-time representatives. Some SSA field managers told us
that their having no involvement in decisions about how much
time is spent by individuals and who the individuals are
causes problems in managing the day-to-day activities of
their operations. Union representatives, on the other hand,
told us that the time they use is necessary to fully
represent the interests of their coworkers.
SSA reported that it paid for 404,000 hours for union
activities in fiscal year 1995, as compared with 442,000
hours reported by IRS in fiscal year 1994, the most recent
information available. The Postal Service reported that 1.7
million hours spent on union activities in fiscal year 1995
related to grievances. This Postal Service estimate does not
include substantial additional time spent on other types of
union activities and paid for by either the unions or the
Postal Service.
With regard to union activity in private industry, some
employers pay some or all of the salaries and expenses of
union representatives, as the federal government does, while
others do not.

background

Labor unions are groups of employees organized to bargain
with employers over such issues as wages, hours, benefits,
and working conditions. The current federal labor/management
program differs from nonfederal programs in three important
ways: (1) federal unions bargain on a limited number of
issues--bargaining over pay and other economic benefits is
generally prohibited,\1\ (2) strikes and lockouts are
prohibited, and (3) federal employees cannot be compelled
to join, or pay dues to, the unions that represent them.
At SSA, employees are represented by three unions: the
American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE), which
represents over 95 percent of SSA employees who are
represented by a union; the National Treasury Employees
Union (NTEU); and the National Federation of Federal
Employees (NFFE). Of SSA's 65,000 employees, about 52,000
nonsupervisory employees are represented by the unions,
and about 47 percent of those represented are dues-paying
union members. Union operations at SSA are governed by a
national AFGE contract and six other union contracts with
individual NTEU and NFFE components.
At the other federal organizations we visited, five unions
had national collective bargaining agreements--four at the
Postal Service and one at IRS. There were 751,000 employees
represented by unions at the Postal Service and 97,000 at the
IRS. Although other unions without national collective
bargaining agreements represented Postal Service employees,
the number of employees represented by these unions is less
than one percent of all represented employees.
There are two main categories of official time, or
government paid time spent on union activities, at SSA. The
category known as ``bank time'' in field offices, and
equivalent categories of official time in other components,
refers to time that is negotiated and limited by SSA
contracts with its unions. Bank time includes time spent on
union- or employee-initiated grievances (complaints regarding
any matter related to employment) as well as on union-
initiated activities, such as training or representational
duties. The category known as ``nonbank time'' in field
offices, and equivalent categories in other components,
generally refers to time spent on management-initiated
activities; bargaining over changes to work assignments and
working conditions (such as disallowed leave, employee work
space, and equipment); management-initiated grievances; and
any other time not specifically designated as bank time.

history of union activity in the federal government

In 1912, the Lloyd-LaFollette Act established the right of
postal employees to join a union and set a precedent for
other federal employees to join unions. The government did
little to provide agencies with guidance on labor relations
until the early 1960s.
In 1962, President Kennedy issued Executive Order 10988,
establishing in the executive branch a framework for federal
agencies to bargain with unions over working conditions and
personnel practices. The order established a decentralized
labor/management program under which each agency had
discretion in interpreting the order, deciding individual
agency policy, and settling its own contract disputes and
grievances.
In 1969, President Nixon issued Executive Order 11491,
which established a process for resolving labor disputes in
the executive branch by forming the Federal Labor Relations
Council to prescribe regulations and arbitrate grievances.
This order clarified language to expressly permit bargaining
on operational issues for employees adversely affected by
organizational realignments or technological changes.
In 1970, the Postal Reorganization Act brought postal labor
relations under a structure similar to that applicable to
companies in the private sector. Collective bargaining for
wages, hours, and working conditions was authorized subject
to regulation by the National Labor Relations Board. Like
other federal employees, postal employees could not be
compelled to join or pay dues to a union and could not
strike.
The Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 provided a statutory
basis for the current federal labor/management relations
program and set up an independent body, the Federal Labor
Relations Authority (FLRA), to administer the program. The
act expanded the scope of collective bargaining--the process
under which union representatives and management bargain over
working conditions--to allow routine negotiation of some
operational issues, such as the use of technology and the
means for conducting agency operations.
In 1993, President Clinton issued Executive Order 12871,
which articulated a new vision of labor/management relations,
called ``Partnership.'' Partnership required agencies to
involve labor organizations as full partners with management
in identifying problems and crafting solutions to better
fulfill the agency mission. It also expanded the scope of
bargainable issues. This new arrangement was intended to end
the sometimes adversarial relationship between federal unions
and management and to help facilitate implementation of
National Performance Review initiatives, which were intended
to improve public service and reduce cost of government.

basis for paying salaries of union representatives

In 1962, Executive Order 10988 permitted federal agencies
to grant official time, which is authorized paid time off
from assigned government duties, for meetings between
management and union representatives for contract
negotiation, at the discretion of the agency. In 1971,
Executive Order 11491 was amended to prohibit the use of
official time for contract negotiation unless the agency
and union agreed to certain arrangements. Specifically,
the agency could authorize either (1) up to 40 hours of
official time for negotiation during regular working hours
or (2) up to one-half the time actually spent in
negotiations. Over the next 4 years, a series of Federal
Labor Relations Council decisions and regulations
continued to liberalize the use of official time by
allowing negotiations for the use of official time for
other purposes.
The Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 authorized official
time for federal agency union representatives in negotiating
a collective bargaining agreement. \4\ The act also permitted
agencies and unions to negotiate whether union
representatives would be granted official time in connection
with other labor/management activities, as long as the
official time was deemed reasonable, necessary, and in the
public interest. The act continued to permit agencies to
provide unions with routine services and facilities at agency
expense. The act prohibited the use of official time for
internal union business, such as solicitation of members.

TIME SPENT ON AND COST OF UNION ACTIVITIES AT SSA

SSA has a national system for reporting time spent on union
activities by union representatives. This system is separate
from the agency's time and attendance and workload reporting
systems. Under this system, union representatives generally
fill out and submit forms to their supervisors to account for
union time. The hours reported on these forms are then
periodically aggregated and submitted to SSA headquarters for
totaling. This time-reporting system consists of two
component systems that cover roughly an equal number of
employees. The first is an automated system that captures
time reported by union representatives working in field
offices, which are the primary point of public contact with
SSA, and at teleservice centers, where calls to SSA's
national 800 number are answered. The second component is a
manual system used to capture time spent by union
representatives at SSA headquarters, as well as at Program
Service Centers, the Office of Hearings and Appeals, and
other components. Neither system is designed to capture
either time spent by management on union-related matters or
the number or names of individuals charging union time.
We conducted a limited verification of time captured in
SSA's national reporting system at one SSA region and several
headquarters components. By tracing source documents for
union representatives' time to reported totals in the system,
we discovered additional time not captured by the two
systems. These gaps occurred primarily in the manual system
and resulted from inaccurate reporting from the source
documents, overlooked reports for some union representatives,
and uncounted reports for some organizational units during
certain reporting periods. We also verified that similar
procedures were being used at three other regions, which
could result in similar underreporting at these locations.
The overall time spent on union activities has grown
steadily from 254,000 hours in 1990 to over 413,000 in 1995.
This is the equivalent

[[Page S11172]]

of paying the salaries and other expenses of about 200 SSA
employees to represent the 52,000 employees in the bargaining
unit in 1995. SSA reported 254,000 hours of official time
devoted to union activities in 1990, 269,000 in 1991, 272,000
in 1992, 314,000 in 1993, 297,000 in 1994, and 404,000 in
1995.
Because of limitations in SSA's reporting system, it is not
possible to estimate actual time spent agencywide for any
reporting period. Although it is likely that the actual time
spent agencywide exceeds our estimates, our verification
sample was not large enough to be statistically valid, so it
cannot be extrapolated to all of SSA.
To determine what contributed to the increase in time spent
on union activities, we developed information on the
categories of time used.
SSA is currently developing a new system to better track
and account for time spent on union activities in its field
offices and teleservice centers. SSA says the purpose of this
system is to provide management and the union with a more
accurate and up-to-date accounting of time spent and the
number of employees working on union activities and to ensure
that time expended on certain activities does not exceed time
allotted to the unions by the contracts. SSA, however, has no
current plans to apply this new system to headquarters, the
Program Service Centers, the Office of Hearings and Appeals,
or other components using the manual system and did not
explain why the agency made this decision.
SSA has no system for routinely calculating and reporting
the cost of union activity, although it does provide annual
estimates of the expenses for union activities to the
Congress.
In order to determine the accuracy of these estimates, we
tried to construct our own estimate of union-related costs.
Because the salaries of union representatives make up most of
the cost, we asked SSA for a list of current representatives
and the time they spend on union activities. SSA estimated
that there were about 1,600 union representatives, but the
lists they maintained were outdated and incomplete. We
identified about 1,800 union representatives who are
currently authorized by the union to spend time on SSA union
activities. SSA has also reported to the Congress that the
number of full-time representatives--those spending 75
percent or more of their time on union activities--grew from
80 to 145 between fiscal years 1993 and 1995. We identified
145 current full-time representatives. The average annual
salary in 1995 for the 146 full-time representatives was
$41,970. In 1996, their salaries ranged from $23,092 to
$81,217.
We estimate that the total cost to SSA for union activities
of all representatives was about $12.6 million in 1995. We
calculated the 1995 personnel cost to be $11.4 million by
multiplying the average hourly salary of union
representatives (about $27.64, including benefits) by the
413,000 hours we estimated the representatives spent on union
activities.
The remaining $1.2 million in total SSA costs for union
activities includes related travel expenses; SSA's share of
arbitration costs; and support costs, such as supplies,
office space, and telephone use. More specifically, in
accordance with the union contracts, SSA pays for travel
related to contract negotiations and grievance cases. In
addition, it pays the travel and per-diem costs of all union
representatives, whenever meetings are held at management's
initiative. Union representation at major SSA initiatives,
such as the reengineering of its disability programs, the
National Partnership Council, and Partnership training, has
added to travel and per-diem costs. In 1995, SSA estimated
that it spent about $600,000 on travel-related expenses for
union representatives. Union representatives told us that the
union pays travel costs for union-sponsored training,
internal union activities, and some local travel.
Under the national contract agreements, arbitration fees
and related expenses are shared equally between the union and
SSA. SSA reported that its share of arbitration costs was
$54,000 for the 38 cases heard in 1995.
SSA also incurs other costs for telephones, computers, fax
machines, furniture, space and supplies used by union
representatives. In 1995, SSA estimated this cost at
$500,000.
Regarding the amount of dues collected from union members,
we determined that about $4.8 million was collected in 1995,
mainly through payroll deduction. The unions use these funds
for their internal expenses, which include the cost of
lodging and transportation for union-provided training; the
union's share of grievance costs; miscellaneous furniture,
supplies, and equipment for some union offices; the salaries
of the AFGE local president and his staff, who represent SSA
headquarters employees; and a share of national union
expenses.
The recent advent of Partnership activities in SSA will
likely increase the time spent on union activities. The
executive order on Partnership directs agencies to involve
unions as the representatives of employees to work as full
partners with management to design and implement changes
necessary to reform government. Partnership activities at SSA
are just starting, and we found that these limited activities
are not routinely designated by SSA in its union time-
reporting system. It is possible that time spent on
Partnership activities is currently being reported in other
activity categories. Consequently, as Partnership activities
increase, we would expect the time devoted to them to also
increase. However, this will be evident only if agency time-
reporting systems adequately designate this time. It should
be noted that many public and private organizations without
unions are involving employees in quality management
initiatives similar to Partnership activities.

ssa management and union views on union time

SSA managers and union officials and representatives have
offered their views about the use of official time for union
activities. SSA managers, both individually and through their
managers' associations, have expressed concern to us and to
the Congress about limitations in their ability to
effectively manage their operations and control the use of
time spent by their employees under the current union/
management arrangement. By contract, the assignment of union
representatives and the amount of time they spend on union
activities are determined by the union without the consent of
local management.
Of the 31 field managers we interviewed, 21 said that it is
more difficult to manage day-to-day office functions because
they have little or no control over when and how union
activities are conducted. They said that they have trouble
maintaining adequate staffing levels in the office to serve
walk-in traffic, answer the telephones, and handle routine
office workloads. Additionally, 18 expressed concern about
the amount of time they spend responding to union requests
for information regarding bargaining and grievances. We did
not verify the accuracy of any of the field managers'
statements. We tried to quantify the time spent by managers
on union related activities, but SSA had no time reporting
system to track it. However, managers would be spending some
of their time interacting with employees about similar issues
even if there were no unions.
Nine out of the 15 union officials and representatives we
talked to felt that it was counterproductive in the
Partnership era to track time spent on union activities. They
believe that union representation is an important function
that is authorized by a negotiated agreement with SSA that
authorizes them to represent the interests of their
coworkers. They consider the amount of time currently
allocated for their activities as appropriate and believe
that more attention should be paid to the value of their
efforts than to the time it takes to conduct them.

comparison of time spent and cost of union activity at irs, the postal
service and ssa

The Postal Service and IRS provided data to us on time
spent on union activities in their agencies. Postal Service
records show that during fiscal year 1995, union
representatives at the Postal Service reported spending 1.7
million hours of official time on grievance processing and
handling in the early stages. This number does not include
substantial amounts of official time spent on employee
involvement programs similar to SSA's Partnership activities,
which are paid for by the Postal Service. Neither does this
number include official time spent on activities such as
employee involvement training and ULP charges.
IRS records showed that their union representatives
reported spending 442,000 hours on union activities in fiscal
year 1994, the most recent year for which data are available.
We did not attempt to verify these estimates. In fiscal year
1995, the Postal Service reported spending $29 million in
basic pay on grievance processing and handling for the 1.7
million hours. IRS did not develop cost data for union
operations.

who pays union costs in private industry?

Union operations in private industry vary widely. In
addition to bargaining over working conditions as SSA unions
do, unions in private industry bargain over wages, hours, and
benefits. In discussions with National Labor Relations Board
officials, we were told that some private-sector firms do not
pay their employees' salaries for the time they spend
performing union activities, and other firms pay for some or
all of the time. For example, during our review of 10
contracts, we found that 7 provided for company employees,
acting as union representatives, to perform certain union
functions in addition to their company duties, at the expense
of the employer. In a 1992 publication that summarized basic
patterns in private industry union contracts, the Bureau of
National Affairs (BNA) reported that over 50 percent of the
400 labor contracts it analyzed guaranteed pay to employees
engaged in union activity on company time. It also reported
that 22 percent of the contracts specifically prohibit
conducting union activities on company time.
Private-sector employers negotiate company time with pay
for union representatives to handle grievances more
frequently than they do for contract negotiations. Of the
contracts reviewed by BNA, 53 percent guaranteed pay for
union representatives to present, investigate, or handle
grievances. This practice was reported occurring twice as
often in manufacturing as in nonmanufacturing businesses. BNA
reported that only 10 percent of the contracts guaranteed pay
for employees to negotiate contracts.
Forty-one percent of the private-sector contracts
guaranteeing employees pay when they conduct union activities
on company time place restrictions on representatives. BNA
reported that in 19 percent of the cases with such pay
guarantees, management limited the amount of hours that it
would pay

[[Page S11173]]

for. Our review of 10 private-sector contracts submitted to
the Bureau of Labor Statistics found one negotiated contract
under which employees were limited to 6 hours a day of
company time for union representation and another under which
they were limited to 8 hours per week of company time for
processing grievances.

Conclusions

SSA, like other federal agencies and some private firms,
pays for approved time spent by their employees on union
activities. SSA has a special fiduciary responsibility to
effectively manage and maintain the integrity of the Social
Security trust funds from which most of these expenses are
paid. In a time of shrinking budgets and personnel resources,
it is especially important for SSA, as well as other
agencies, to evaluate how resources are being spent and to
have reliable monitoring systems that facilitate this
evaluation.
To ensure accurate tracking of time spent on union
activities and the staff conducting these activities, SSA has
developed and is testing a new time-reporting system for its
field offices and teleservice centers. We agree that these
are valuable goals for a time-reporting system and believe
that it should be implemented agencywide, including at
headquarters, Program Service Centers, the Office of Hearings
and Appeals, and other components currently using the less
reliable manual reporting system. With an improved agencywide
system, SSA management should have better information on
where its resources are being spent.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my formal remarks. I would be
happy to answer any question from you or other members of the
Subcommittee. Thank you.

footnotes

\1\ The U.S. Postal Service generally does not pay the
salaries and expenses of full-time union representatives.
Instead, salaries and expenses are covered by union dues. The
Postal Services does, however, pay for the time spent on
union activities by some parttime union representatives and
for union-occupied space in postal facilities.
\2\ Postal labor/management relations are governed by the
Postal Reorganization Act of 1970, which incorporates many
provisions of the National Labor Relations Act.
\3\ Postal unions, however, can bargain over wages and other
economic benefits.
\4\ The Postal Service is not governed by this act. The basis
for paying certain union representatives for specified union
activities at the Postal Service is contained in union
contracts. Contract negotiations are carried out at union
expense.
______

By Mr. FRIST:
S. 2105. A bill to amend chapter 29 of title 35, United States Code,
to provide for a limitation on patent infringements relating to a
medical practitioner's performance of a medical activity; to the
Committee on the Judiciary.

patent infringements limitation legislation

<bullet> Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the
text of the bill be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:

S. 2105

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

SECTION 1. LIMITATION ON PATENT INFRINGEMENTS RELATING TO A
MEDICAL PRACTITIONER'S PERFORMANCE OF A MEDICAL
ACTIVITY.

Section 287 of title 35, United States Code, is amended by
adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(c)(1) With respect to a medical practitioner's
performance of a medical activity that constitutes an
infringement under section 271 (a) or (b) of this title, the
provisions of sections 281, 283, 284, and 285 of this title
shall not apply against the medical practitioner or against a
related health care entity with respect to such medical
activity.
``(2) This subsection does not apply to the activities of
any person, or employee or agent of such person (regardless
of whether such person is a tax exempt organization under
section 501(c) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986), who is
engaged in the commercial development, manufacture, sale,
importation, or distribution of a machine, manufacture, or
composition of matter or the provision of pharmacy or
clinical laboratory services (other than laboratory services
provided in a physician's office), if such activities are--
``(A) directly related to the commercial development,
manufacture, sale, importation, or distribution of a machine,
manufacture, or composition of matter or the provision of
pharmacy or clinical laboratory services (other than clinical
laboratory services provided in a physician's office); and
``(B) regulated under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic
Act, the Public Health Service Act, or the Clinical
Laboratories Improvement Act.
``(3) For purposes of this subsection:
``(A) the term `body' means--
``(i) a human body, organ, or cadaver; or
``(ii) a nonhuman animal used in medical research or
instruction directly relating to the treatment of humans.
``(B) The term `medical activity' means the performance of
a medical or surgical procedure on a body, but shall not
include--
``(i) the use of a patented machine, manufacture, or
composition of matter in violation of such patent;
``(ii) the practice of a patented use of a composition of
matter in violation of such patent; or
``(iii) the practice of a process in violation of a
biotechnology patent.
``(C) The term `medical practitioner' means any natural
person who is--
``(i) licensed by a State to provide the medical activity
described under paragraph (1); or
``(ii) acting under the direction of such natural person in
the performance of the medical activity.
``(D) The term `patented use of a composition of matter'
does not include a claim for a method of performing a medical
or surgical procedure on a body that recites the use of a
composition of matter if the use of that composition of
matter does not directly contribute to achievement of the
objective of the claimed method.
``(E) The term `professional affiliation' means staff
privileges, medical staff membership, employment or
contractual relationship, partnership or ownership interest,
academic appointment, or their affiliation under which a
medical practitioner provides a medical activity on behalf
of, or in association with, a health care entity.
``(F) The term `related health care entity'--
``(i) means an entity with which a medical practitioner has
a professional affiliation under which the medical
practitioner performs a medical activity; and
``(ii) includes without limitation such an affiliation with
a nursing home, hospital, university, medical school, health
maintenance organization, group medical practice, or a
medical clinic.
``(G) The term `State' means any State or territory of the
United States, the District of Columbia, and the Commonwealth
of Puerto Rico.
``(4) This subsection shall not apply to any patent issued
before the date of enactment of this subsection.''.<bullet>
______

By Mr. McCONNELL:
S. 2106. A bill to amend the United Nations Participation Act of 1945
to prohibit the placement of members of the United States Armed Forces
under the command, direction, or control of the United Nations, and for
other purposes; to the Committee on Foreign Relations.

the united nations participation act of 1945 amendment act of 1996

<bullet> Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, for several months, I have tried
to get a straight answer from the administration on the legal
justification for the deployment of U.S. troops under United Nations'
command in Macedonia. While the soldiers have a mission, I do not
believe they have a clear, legal mandate.
The question of our involvement in Macedonia was first brought to my
attention by Ron Ray, a constituent of mine who was representing
Michael New. Apparently, Michael New asked his commanding officer to
provide some explanation as to why an American Army specialist was
being asked to wear a U.N. uniform and deploy to Macedonia under the
U.N. flag.
In a recent hearing with Ambassador Madeleine Albright, usually one
of the more plain spoken members of the President's foreign policy
team, we reviewed the procedures for deploying American troops under
the United Nation's flag. She offered the view that while there were
clear guidelines defining chapter VII deployments, using chapter VI to
justify a mission had evolved as a matter of U.N. custom and tradition.
Since 1948, 27 peace operations have been authorized by the United
Nations Security Council. In addition to being authorized by a specific
chapter of the United Nations Charter, U.S. troop deployments must be
authorized consistent with U.S. legal requirements spelled out in the
United Nations Participation Act.
In July 1993, President Clinton wrote the Congress stating, ``U.N.
Security Council Resolution 795 established the UNPROFOR Macedonia
mission under a chapter VI of the U.N. Charter and UNPROFOR Macedonia
is a peacekeeping force under chapter VI of the Charter.'' But this
assertion is not substantiated by the record of resolutions and reports
passed by the United Nations.
Between 1991 and the end of 1995, the United Nations passed 97
Security Council resolutions related to the former Yugoslavia. In
addition, 13 reports were issued by the U.N. Secretary General relative
to the mandate of the UNPROFOR Macedonia operation. None of these
resolutions or reports mention a chapter VI mandate for Macedonia. In
fact, there are 27 resolutions which specifically refer to UNPROFOR,
which includes Macedonia, as chapter VII. It is worth pointing to just
one of

[[Page S11174]]

these resolutions which states that the United Nations Security Council
was ``Determined to ensure the security of UNPROFOR and its freedom of
movement for all its missions (i.e., Macedonia) and to these ends was
acting under chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations.''
In spite of the record, the administration continues to insist that
Macedonia is a chapter VI operation. When I asked them to document this
determination, I was provided the following guidance by the Acting
Assistant Secretary of State:

The U.N. Charter authority underlying the mandate of a U.N.
peace operation depends on an interpretation of the relevant
resolutions of the U.N. Security Council. As a matter of
tradition, the Security Council explicitly refers to a
``Chapter VII'' when it authorizes an enforcement operation
under that Chapter. The absence of a reference to Chapter VII
in a resolution authorizing or establishing a peacekeeping
operation thus indicates that the operation is not considered
by the Security Council to be an enforcement operation.
Neither does the Security Council refer explicitly to
``Chapter VI'' in its resolutions pertaining to peacekeeping
operations. This practice evolved over time as a means for
the Security Council to develop practical responses to
problems without unnecessarily invoking the full panoply of
provisions regarding the use of force under Chapter VII, and
without triggering other Charter provisions that might impede
Member States on the Security Council if Chapter VI were
referenced.

In essence what this explanation means is U.S. troops can be deployed
in harm's way as a matter of U.N. tradition rather than U.S. law. It
means U.S. soldiers are deployed in a combat zone with an absence of
reference to the actual legal mandate because the U.N. Security Council
does not want to refer explicitly to chapter VI due to a reluctance to
inconvenience member states on the Security Council.
Mr. President, let me try to add a little clarity to just what the
Acting Assistant Secretary means when stating the administration does
not want to invoke a ``panoply of provisions regarding the use of
force.'' In simple English, when a chapter VII mission is authorized by
the U.N., U.S. law requires the operation to be approved by the
Congress. In simple terms, the State Department is using a chapter VI
designation to avoid having to come to the Congress to justify the
financial and military burden the United States has assumed in
Macedonia.
When the State Department calls a panoply of provisions problem, I
call surrendering U.S. interests to U.N. command. This is not the first
time Congress has been circumvented. I had hoped the administration had
learned from our experience in Somalia. I had hoped the tragic loss of
life would help the President understand the value and importance of a
full congressional debate and approval of the merits of deploying
American soldiers overseas into hostile conditions. Apparently, the
lesson is lost on this administration. When the U.N. calls, we send our
young men and women to serve.
Mr. President, I have taken the time to review the circumstances of
our military involvement in Macedonia, in order to explain why I am
introducing legislation today which assures U.S. troops will not serve
under U.N. commanders and will not be forced to wear a U.N. uniform.
Our soldiers sign up to serve and pledge allegiance to their Nation--
not the United Nations. This bill will protect them as they fulfill
both their oath and responsibilities.<bullet>
______

By Mr. THOMAS (for himself, Mr. Robb and Mr. McCain):
S. 2107. A bill to authorize the extension of nondiscriminatory
treatment--most-favored-nation treatment--to the products of Mongolia;
to the Committee on Finance.

mongolia most-favored-nation status legislation

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I rise as chairman of the Subcommittee on
East Asian and Pacific Affairs to introduce S. 2107, a bill to
authorize the extension of nondiscriminatory treatment--formerly known
as most-favored-nation status--to the products of Mongolia. I am
pleased to be joined by the subcommittee's ranking minority member,
Senator Robb, and Senator McCain as original cosponsors.
Mongolia has undergone a series of remarkable and dramatic changes
over the last few years. Sandwiched between the former Soviet Union and
China, it was one of the first countries in the world to become
Communist after the Russian revolution. After 70 years of Communist
rule, though, the Mongolian people recently have made great progress in
establishing a democratic political system and creating a free-market
economy. Just this year, the country held its third election under its
new constitution, resulting in a parliamentary majority for the
coalition of democratic opposition parties. Rather than attempt to
maintain its hold on power, the former government peaceably--and
commendably--transferred power to the new government.
Mongolia has demonstrated a strong desire to build a friendly and
cooperative relationship with the United States on trade and related
matters since its turn toward democracy. We concluded a bilateral trade
treaty with that country in 1991, and a bilateral investment treaty in
1994. Mongolia has received nondiscriminatory trading status since
1991, and has been found to be in full compliance with the freedom of
emigration requirements under title IV of the Trade Act of 1974. In
addition, it has acceded to the Agreement Establishing the World Trade
Organization.
Mr. President, Mongolia has clearly demonstrated that it is fully
deserving of joining the ranks of those countries to which we extend
nondiscriminatory trade status. The extension of that status would not
only serve to commend the Mongolians on their fine progress, but would
also enable the United States to avail itself of all its rights under
the WTO with respect to Mongolia.

I have another, more personal, reason for being interested in MFN
status for Mongolia. Mongolia and my home State of Wyoming are sister
states; a strong relationship between the two has developed over the
past 3 years. Several Mongolian Provincial Governors have visited the
State, and the two governments have established partnerships in
education and agriculture. Like Wyoming, Mongolia is a high plateau
with high mountains on the northwest border, where many of the
inhabitants make their living by raising livestock. I am pleased to see
the development of this mutually beneficial relationship, and am sure
that the extension of nondiscriminatory trade status will serve to
strengthen it further.
Mr. President, Congressman Bereuter has introduced similar
legislation in the House. While we both realize that it is probably too
late in the legislative year to move this bill forward before we
adjourn sine die, we hope that introducing the bill now will serve as a
starting point to move forward with this important measure early in the
next Congress.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:

S. 2107

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

SECTION 1. CONGRESSIONAL FINDINGS.

The Congress finds that Mongolia--
(1) has received most-favored-nation treatment since 1991
and has been found to be in full compliance with the freedom
of emigration requirements under title IV of the Trade Act of
1974;
(2) has since ending its nearly 70 years of dependence on
the former Soviet Union, made remarkable progress in
establishing a democratic political system and creating a
free-market economic system;
(3) has recently held its third election under its new
constitution, resulting in a parliamentary majority for the
coalition of democratic opposition parties and a peaceable
transfer of power to the new government;
(4) has concluded a bilateral trade treaty with the United
States in 1991, and a bilateral investment treaty in 1994;
(5) has acceded to the Agreement Establishing the World
Trade Organization;
(6) has demonstrated a strong desire to build a friendly
and cooperative relationship with the United States on trade
matters; and
(7) the extension of unconditional most-favored-nation
treatment to the products of Mongolia would enable the United
States to avail itself of all rights under the World Trade
Organization with respect to Mongolia.

SEC. 2. TERMINATION OF APPLICATION OF TITLE IV OF THE TRADE
ACT OF 1974 TO MONGOLIA.

(a) Presidential Determinations and Extensions of
Nondiscriminatory Treatment.--Notwithstanding any provision
of title IV of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2431 et
seq.), the President may--
(1) determine that such title should no longer apply to
Mongolia; and

[[Page S11175]]

(2) after making a determination under paragraph (1) with
respect to Mongolia, proclaim the extension of
nondiscriminatory treatment (most-favored-nation treatment)
to the products of that country.
(b) Termination of Application of Title IV.--On or after
the effective date of the extension under subsection (a)(2)
of nondiscriminatory treatment to the products on Mongolia,
title IV of the Trade Act of 1974 shall cease to apply to
that country.
______

By Mr. DORGAN (for himself, Mr. Ashcroft, Mr. Biden, Mr. Breaux,
Mr. Coats, Mr. DeWine, Mr. Faircloth, Mr. Ford, Mr. Grassley,
Mr. Hatfield, Mr. Inhofe, Mr. Lott, Mr. Mack, Mr. McConnell,
Mr. Murkowski, Mr. Pressler, and Mr. Thurmond):
S. 2108. A bill to clarify Federal law with respect to assisted
suicide, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Labor and Human
Resources.

THE ASSISTED SUICIDE FUNDING RESTRICTION ACT

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I rise today, along with my colleague,
Senator Ashcroft, to introduce a piece of legislation. We understand
that it is late in the session, but we have just completed work on the
legislation, and we hope that introducing it now and reintroducing it
in the next Congress will allow us to make some progress toward
enacting this bill.
There are 15 original cosponsors besides myself and Senator Ashcroft:
Senators Biden, Breaux, Coats, DeWine, Faircloth, Ford, Grassley,
Hatfield, Inhofe, Lott, Mack, McConnell, Murkowski, Pressler, and
Thurmond.
This is obviously a bipartisan group of Senators who are today
introducing this legislation. I will describe it briefly, and then I
will ask my colleague, Senator Ashcroft from Missouri, with whom I am
pleased to introduce this today, to add to that description.
Our legislation is called the Assisted Suicide Funding Restriction
Act. That is a rather long name, but simply stated, what this bill
ensures is that Federal tax dollars will not be used to pay for
assisting in suicide.
We are in a circumstance in this country where only one State--the
State of Oregon--has legalized physician-assisted suicides. The State
has every right to do that. And Oregon is now engaged in the courts in
a challenge of its law. When and if the court challenge is dismissed
and it becomes law in Oregon--as is expected based on an earlier Ninth
Circuit Court of Appeals decision--the folks who run the Medicaid
Program in Oregon indicate that the State fully intends to use its
Medicaid dollars to pay for physician-assisted suicides.
Some of us here in Congress believe that we ought not to in any way
countenance the use of Federal dollars in the furtherance of physician-
assisted suicides. We are not telling the States what their policies
ought to be with respect to whether physician-assisted suicides should
be allowed. Most States have already made that judgment and decided
that assisted suicide is not appropriate. But to a State that has said
it intends to use Federal dollars to further their State policy
allowing assisted suicide, we say no. That is not what we would expect
Federal dollars, especially Federal health care dollars, to be used
for. We would expect Federal health care dollars to be used to advance
the health of patients and the delivery of medicine to those in this
country who need it--not to advance Federal payment for those who would
elect physician-assisted suicide.
Some might say, ``Well, why do you have to legislate on this?'' I say
to them, if we do not, when the courts resolve the legal questions with
respect to the Oregon law, we likely will immediately be using Federal
dollars to pay for physician-assisted suicide in that State, regardless
of whether Congress and the public want them to or not. The officials
in that State have indicated that will be the case. So with this
legislation we say we think it is inappropriate from a public policy
standpoint and we would not want scarce Federal dollars used for that
purpose.
I would like to describe what this legislation is not because it is
as important as describing what it is.
This legislation does not limit the withholding of, or the withdrawal
of, medical treatment, or of nutrition, or hydration from terminally-
ill patients who have decided they do not want their lives sustained by
medical technology. Most people and States recognize that there are
ethical, moral, and legal distinctions between actively taking steps to
end a patient's life and withholding or withdrawing treatment in order
to allow a patient to die naturally. Again, this legislation
specifically states that we are not interfering with the ability of
patients and their families to end or withdrawal treatment.
This legislation also does not prohibit Federal funding for any care
or service that is intended to alleviate a patient's pain or
discomfort, even if the use of this pain control ultimately hastens the
patient's death. I think we would all agree that we should make the
utmost effort to ensure that terminally ill patients do not spend their
final days in pain and suffering, and this legislation does not hinder
that.

Finally, this legislation does not prohibit a State from using its
own dollars to assist in suicide. If a State decides that it wants to
allow and pay for physician-assisted suicide as a matter of policy, it
can use its own money to further that aim. This bill simply says we do
not want Federal dollars used for that purpose.
Mr. President, I understand that the issue of assisted suicide is an
enormously emotional one. All of us in this country have read the news
accounts of a doctor who is actively involved in assisting in his
patients' suicides and of those who have taken him to court saying he
has violated their State law. People have very strongly held opinions
about this subject because issues of life and death reach to the inner
core of people's moral beliefs. But regardless of one's personal views
about assisted suicide, there is little disagreement on the broader
question of whether we ought to use Federal health care dollars to pay
for physician-assisted suicide.
In fact, a national survey earlier this year found that 83 percent of
the American people believe that tax dollars should not be used for
assisted suicide. I believe this legislation should and will have wide
support. The National Conference of Catholic Bishops and the National
Right to Life Committee have both endorsed the bill. The American
Medical Association and the American Nurses Association have position
statements opposing assisted suicide. President Clinton has also
indicated his opposition to assisted suicide, and Senator Ashcroft and
I hope that our colleagues will join us as cosponsors of this
legislation. We hope to advance this legislation in the intervening
days, and also, if necessary, to reintroduce it early in the next
session to see if we can get the Congress to enact this legislation
soon.
Let me again sum up what this bill would and would not do, along with
why it is necessary. Mr. President, this legislation will prohibit
Federal funds from being used for the costs associated with assisted
suicide.
Let me say again that I am pleased to work with my colleague, Senator
Ashcroft of Missouri, who I know feels strongly about this issue as
well.
Mr. President, this legislation will prohibit Federal funds from
being used for the costs associated with assisted suicide.
I understand that the decisions that confront individuals and their
families when a terminal illness strikes are among the most difficult a
family will ever have to make. At times like this, each of us must rely
on our own religious beliefs and conscience to guide us. But regardless
of one's personal views about assisted suicide, I do not believe that
taxpayers should be forced to pay for this controversial practice. The
majority of taxpayers I have talked to do not want their tax money used
to assist in suicides. In fact, when asked in a poll in May of this
year whether tax dollars should be spent for assisting suicide, 83
percent of taxpayers feel tax money should not be spent for this
purpose.
The Assisted Suicide Funding Restriction Act prevents any Federal
funding from being used for any item or service which is intended to
cause, or assist in causing, the suicide, euthanasia, or mercy killing
of any individual. The programs covered under this bill include
Medicare, Medicaid, the military health care system, Federal Employees
Health Benefits [FEHB] plans, Public Health Service programs, programs
for the disabled, and the Indian Health Service.

[[Page S11176]]

This bill does make some important exceptions. First, let me make
clear that this bill does not limit the withholding or withdrawal of
medical treatment or of nutrition or hydration from terminally ill
patients who have decided that they do not want their lives sustained
by medical technology. Most people and States recognize that there are
ethical, moral, and legal distinctions between actively taking steps to
end a patient's life and withholding or withdrawing treatment in order
to allow a patient to die naturally. Every State now has a law in place
governing a patient's right to lay out in advance, through an advanced
directive, living will, or some other means, his or her wishes related
to medical care at the end of life. Again, this bill would not
interfere with the ability of patients and their families to make clear
and carry out their wishes regarding the withholding or withdrawal of
medical care that is prolonging the patient's life.
This bill also makes clear that it does not prevent Federal funding
for any care or service that is intended to alleviate a patient's pain
or discomfort, even if the use of this pain control ultimately hastens
the patient's death. Large doses of medication are often needed to
effectively reduce a terminally ill patient's pain, and this medication
may increase the patient's risk of death. I think we all would agree
that the utmost effort should be made to ensure that terminally ill
patients do not spend their final days in pain and suffering.
Finally, while I think Federal dollars ought not be used to assist a
suicide, this bill does not prohibit a State from using its own dollars
for this purpose. However, I do not think taxpayers from other States,
who have determined that physician-assisted suicide should be illegal,
should be forced to pay for this practice through the use of Federal
tax dollars.
I realize that the legality of assisted suicide has historically been
a State issue. Thirty-five States, including my State of North Dakota,
have laws prohibiting assisted suicide and at least eight other States
consider this practice to be illegal under common law. Only one State,
Oregon, has a law legalizing assisted suicide.
However, two circumstances have changed that now make this an issue
of Federal concern. First, Federal courts are already handing down
decisions that will have enormous consequences on our public policy
regarding assisted suicide. Second, we are on the brink of a situation
where Federal Medicaid dollars may soon be used to reimburse physicians
who help their patients die. Should this occur, Congress will not have
considered this issue. I believe it was never Congress' intention for
Medicaid or other Federal dollars to be used to assist in suicide, and
I hope we will take action soon to stop this practice before it starts.
If Congress does not act, a few States, or a few judges, may very well
make this decision for us.
In two separate cases this year, Compassion in Dying versus State of
Washington and Quill versus Vacco, the Federal Ninth and Second Circuit
Courts of Appeal, respectively, have struck down Washington and New
York State statutes outlawing assisted suicide. In the Compassion in
Dying case, the ninth circuit held that the ``right to die'' is
constitutionally recognized and that Washington State's law prohibiting
physicians from prescribing life-ending medication therefore violates
the ``due process'' clause of the 14th amendment for terminally ill
adults who wish to end their life. In Quill versus Vacco, the second
circuit also found that a State law prohibiting physician-assisted
suicide violates the Constitution, but it did not agree with the ninth
circuit's reasoning that such a law violates the due process clause.
Rather, the second circuit held that the New York State law was
unconstitutional because it violates the ``equal protection'' clause of
the Constitution. The Supreme Court could decide to take up one or both
of these cases as early as next year.
Ironically, in a third case, Lee versus Oregon, a Federal district
court judge also used the ``equal protection'' clause as the basis for
his decision--but he ruled that Oregon's 1994 law allowing assisted
suicide for the terminally ill violates the Constitution, and the judge
enjoined the implementation of Oregon's law. However, this decision has
been appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which has already
affirmed a constitutional ``right to die.'' The ninth circuit's
decision, which is expected to overturn the district court and lift the
injunction against Oregon's law, could be handed down any day. The
State's Medicaid director has already stated that, when the injunction
against Oregon's law is lifted, Oregon will use Medicaid dollars to pay
for the costs associated with a physician assisting in suicide.
I hope you agree with me and the vast majority of Americans who
oppose using scarce Federal dollars to pay for assisted suicide. I
invite you to join me, Senator Ashcroft and 15 of our colleagues in
this effort by cosponsoring the Assisted Suicide Funding Restriction
Act.<bullet>
I yield the floor.
Mr. ASHCROFT addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri is recognized.
Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, let me begin by commending my colleague
form North Dakota for his excellent remarks, and his clear explanation
of this important concept that I believe the American people would have
us do. And, after all, we come to this body as servants of the people.
The people are overwhelmingly aware of this issue, and the vast
majority of American citizens do not believe that tax dollars should be
used in the conduct of medicine in such a way as to take lives rather
than to save them.
I thank my colleague from North Dakota and those who have joined us
in cosponsoring this particular measure.
Mr. President, President Jefferson wrote in words that are now
inscribed on the Jefferson Memorial that the ``care and protection of
human life, and not its destruction'' are the only legitimate
objectives of good government. Thomas Jefferson believed that our
rights were God-given and that life was an inalienable right.
In this spirit and understanding, I join today with Senator Dorgan in
sponsoring the Assisted Suicide Funding Restriction Act. It is a modest
and timely response to a challenge to our legal system and a challenge
to the moral character of this country. What this bill says simply is
that Federal tax dollars shall not be used to pay for and promote
assisted suicide, or euthanasia.
This bill is urgently needed to preserve the intent of the Founding
Fathers and the integrity of Federal programs as they now exist and
serve the elderly and seriously ill in America--programs which were
intended to support life and to enhance human life, not to promote its
destruction.
Government's role in this culture should be to call us to our highest
and best. I do not believe Government has a role in hastening Americans
to their graves.
Our court system is in the process now of litigating serious issues
in this respect, and, as a result, we find ourselves with the need for
this kind of clarifying legislation dramatized. This bill is intended
to prevent the morally contemptible injustice of taking money from an
American citizen and then using that money to kill another American
citizen through assisted suicide.
This is a bill which is very narrowly focused. It is clearly
targeted. It only affects Federal funding for actions whose direct
purpose is to cause or assist in causing suicide--actions that are
clearly condemned as unethical by the American Medical Association and
also illegal in the vast majority of our States. Again, this bill
simply prohibits any Federal funding for medical actions that assist
suicide.
This bill is needed because, in March, the Ninth Circuit Court of
Appeals contradicted the positions of 49 States, when it found a
``Federal constitutional right'' to physician-assisted suicide in a
case involving Washington State law. Similarly, the State of Oregon
passed Measure 16, the first law in America to authorize the dispensing
of drugs to terminally ill patients to assist in their suicide.
Although a Federal court in Oregon struck down the law that Oregon
had enacted, the case is being appealed to that same ninth circuit,
which has already signaled that it believes in a right, a
constitutional right, to assisted suicide.
Oregon's Medicaid director and the chairman of Oregon's Health
Services

[[Page S11177]]

Commission have both said that whenever the ninth circuit allows the
Oregon law to go into effect, that the federally funded Medicaid
Program in Oregon will begin paying for assisted suicide with Federal
taxpayers' funds. According to Oregon's authorities, the procedure
would be listed on Medicaid reimbursement forms under the grotesque
euphemism of ``comfort care.''
That is a rather startling, almost Orwellian label to put on assisted
suicide. I would think if I were going over an insurance policy and
someone said, ``Do you want to be covered for comfort care,'' I would
say, ``Oh, yes, throw in the comfort care.'' But comfort care turns out
to be a phrase that is destined to be used for assisted suicide, and I
do not believe it is intended by this Congress or previous Congresses,
or in the law of the United States, that tax dollars from Federal
resources be used to support that kind of ``comfort care.''
The problem is greatly magnified when we consider that Oregon will be
drawing down Federal taxpayers' funds to help pay for such assisted
suicides. Neither Medicaid nor Medicare nor any other Federal health
program has explicit language to prohibit the use of Federal funds to
dispense lethal drugs for suicide, primarily because nobody in the
history of these programs felt that we would be appropriating money or
creating a program to provide for suicide. We felt we were providing
for individuals, developing therapeutic approaches to health problems,
not providing for something that the American Medical Association would
say was unethical and inappropriate, and which would shock the
conscience of most Americans.
When Oregon's ninth circuit reinstates measure 16, Federal funds will
be used for comfort care, a.k.a.--also known as--assisted suicide. As a
result, I think it is important for us to step up and to define and to
place into law the kinds of restrictions which I think we felt were
implied in all of our activities prior to this time. We would be
derelict in our duty if we were now to ignore this problem and allow a
few officials, either in a Federal circuit or in a specific State, to
decide that the taxpayers of all other States and jurisdictions would
have to help subsidize a practice which they have never authorized and
that millions find to be morally abhorrent.
It is crystal clear that the American people do not want their tax
dollars spent on dispensing toxic drugs with the sole intent to assist
suicide. Recently, a Wirthlin Poll showed 83 percent of the public
opposed such use of Federal funds. Even the voters of Oregon, who
narrowly approved Measure 16 by a vote of 51 to 49 percent, did not
consider the question of public funding. Voters of two other west coast
States, California and Washington, soundly defeated similar initiatives
to legalize assisted suicide. Since November of 1994, when Oregon
passed its law, 15 other States have considered and rejected bills to
legalize assisted suicide. Of course, the Federal funding question has
never been placed before the people in a ballot initiative.

I would like to say a few words about the way this legislation is
crafted. It is very carefully limited, and it is very modest. It does
not in any way forbid a State to legalize assisted suicide. If a State
like Oregon chooses to do so, the Federal Government does not choose to
intrude under this bill, or even forbid the State to provide its own
funds.
If the State were to provide for assisted suicide and were to fund
that with State dollars, in spite of the fact that is not my idea of
good State government, it would be allowed under this bill. This bill
simply would prevent Federal funds and Federal programs from being
drawn into and providing support for and promoting assisted suicide.
After the passage of this bill, States may choose to legalize or even
fund assisted suicide. They simply could not choose to draw down
Federal funds to promote or develop that program.
The bill also does not attempt to resolve the constitutional issue
that is on its way to the Supreme Court, that issue being whether there
is a right to assisted suicide or euthanasia. Nor would this
legislation be affected by what the Supreme Court might do when it
decides that issue. Congress would still have the right to prevent
Federal funding of such a practice, even if the Supreme Court found
that there was a constitutional right to assisted suicide.
It is also important to understand what this bill does not cover. As
its rule of construction clearly provides, it does not affect abortion.
It does not affect complex issues, such as the withholding or
withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment, even of nutrition and
hydration. Nor does this bill affect the disbursing of large doses of
morphine or other pain killers to ease the pain of individuals with
terminal illnesses, even though the administration of such drugs does,
in some cases, carry the risk of hastening death as a side effect. The
administration of pain killers is a long-acknowledged, legally accepted
practice in all 50 States--and is ethically accepted by the medical
profession and even pro-life and religious organizations as well.
What we are dealing with here is the Federal funding of actions whose
direct purpose is to cause or assist in causing the suicide of a
patient.
I am pleased that in spite of the fact the Democrats and Republicans
may disagree on how to reform Federal programs like Medicaid and
Medicare, there are things on which we do agree. One thing we should be
able to agree on is the measure in this bill. Of course, our agreement
is reflected in the cosponsorship of this measure by individuals on
both sides of the aisle. These Federal programs should provide a means
to care for and to protect our citizens, not become vehicles for the
destruction of our citizens, especially as a result of Federal funding.
I would like to close by quoting the hallmark of Jeffersonian
principles embodied in the Declaration of Independence:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are
created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with
certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life,
Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.

I therefore urge all my colleagues to support this bill, an effort to
uphold congressional responsibility, to defend the foremost of our
unalienable rights, the right that citizens have to life.
______

By Mr. DASCHLE:

S. 2109. A bill to provide a 1-year delay in the imposition of
penalties on small businesses failing to make electronic fund transfers
of business taxes; to the Committee on Finance.

SMALL BUSINESS LEGISLATION

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation that
would waive for 1-year penalties on small businesses that fail to pay
their taxes to the Internal Revenue Service [IRS] electronically.
In July of this year, millions of small business owners received a
letter from the IRS announcing that, beginning January 1, 1997,
business tax payments would have to be made via electronic funds
transfer. This letter sent shock waves through the small business
community in South Dakota. The letter was vague and provided little
information on how the new deposit requirement would work.
In meetings, letters, and phone calls, South Dakotans have posed many
questions to me that the IRS letter did not answer: ``How much will
this cost my business?''; ``Will I have to purchase new equipment to
make these electronic transfers?''; and ``Will the IRS be taking the
money directly out of my account?''
As you may recall, this new requirement was adopted as part of a
package of revenue offsets for the North American Free-Trade Agreement.
The Treasury Department was directed to draw up regulations phasing
in the requirement, which will raise money by eliminating the float
banks accrue on the delay between the time they receive tax deposits
from businesses and the time they transfer this money to the Treasury.
All businesses with $47 million or more in annual payroll taxes are
already required to pay by electronic funds transfer. The new, lower
threshold is estimated to bring 1.3 million small- and medium-sized
businesses into the program for the first time.
As a result of protests registered by many small businesses, the IRS
decided to delay for 6 months the 10 percent penalty on firms failing
to begin making deposits electronically by January 1, 1997. Not
satisfied with this step, Congress recently passed an outright 6 month
delay in the electronic filing requirement as part of the Small
Business Job Protection Act of 1996.

[[Page S11178]]

I strongly supported this amendment. However, I believe that these
1.3 million businesses should be given further time to comply without
the threat of financial penalties. Electronic funds transfer may well
prove to be the most efficient system of payment for all concerned,
including small businesses. Once they learn the advantages of the new
system, these firms may well come to prefer it to the existing one,
which requires a special kind of coupon and a lot of paperwork. But
this is a new procedure, and many small employers are not sure what it
will entail. That is why I believe we should enact a temporary waiver
of penalties.
The bill I am introducing today would suspend penalties for
noncompliance for 1 year, until July 1, 1998. I believe this step is
necessary to provide time for small businesses to be properly educated
about the easiest, least burdensome, and most cost-efficient way to
comply. In my view, whenever possible the IRS should avoid taking an
adversarial approach toward the small business community, and, for that
matter, any taxpayers. At every opportunity, the IRS should seek to
help taxpayers comply with their obligations. I believe that, by
removing the threat of penalties for a short while longer, this
legislation will help the IRS fulfill this important part of its
mission.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:

S. 2109

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

SECTION 1. WAIVER OF PENALTY ON SMALL BUSINESSES FAILING TO
MAKE ELECTRONIC FUND TRANSFERS OF TAXES.

No penalty shall be imposed under the Internal Revenue Code
of 1986 solely by reason of a failure by a person to use the
electronic fund transfer system established under section
6302(h) of such Code if--
(1) such person is a member of a class of taxpayers first
required to use such system on or after July 1, 1997, and
(2) such failure occurs during the 1-year period beginning
on July 1, 1997.
______

By Mr. DASCHLE:
S. 2110. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide
special rules for certain gratuitous transfers of employer securities
for the benefit of employees; to the Committee on Finance.

EMPLOYEE STOCK OWNERSHIP PLANS LEGISLATION

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I today am introducing legislation that
would take a small but significant step toward improving the
productivity of American businesses and workers. My bill would permit
certain employee stock ownership plans [ESOP's] to be beneficiaries of
charitable remainder trusts under estate tax law.
We have all heard stories about closely held companies being sold and
broken up in order to raise cash to pay a large estate tax bill to the
Internal Revenue Service. Not infrequently, a company that has been
built over a period of decades is dismantled, cutting adrift employees
with years of service.
My bill would provide a way for an owner of a nonpublicly traded
company to benefit company employees without having the estate tax
stand in the way. It would permit the owner under certain circumstances
to donate his or her shares to the company's ESOP through the use of a
charitable/ESOP remainder trust. If carried out in accordance with the
restrictions set forth in the bill, the transfer would be eligible for
an estate tax deduction. By being transferred to an ESOP, the stock
would be allocated directly to company employees.
The legislation includes a number of safeguards against abuse. First,
stock transferred to an ESOP in this fashion could not be used to
benefit any ESOP participant who was related to the decedent or who
owned more than 5 percent of the company. This safeguard is aimed at
ensuring that no estate tax deduction would be available where the
transfer benefited the decedent's family members or the company's major
stockholders. Second, the bill would require that the transferred stock
be allocated to ESOP participants over time. This would provide an
incentive for employees to continue to build the business. It would
also prevent the creation of instant windfalls for employees that could
encourage them to terminate employment.
Any owner of a non-publicly traded company would be free to take
advantage of this legislation to preserve a business beyond his or her
death. I believe that quite a few family and closely held businesses
will find the legislation of interest, as these firms tend to be run by
people who take an interest in their employees and would like to see
their companies make a continuing contribution to their communities. I
salute these entrepreneurs and propose this modest legislation in an
effort to help them realize that goal.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:

S. 2110

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

SECTION 1. GRATUITOUS TRANSFERS FOR THE BENEFIT OF EMPLOYEES.

(a) In General.--Subparagraph (C) of section 664(d)(1) of
the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 and subparagraph (C) of
section 664(d)(2) of such Code are each amended by striking
the period at the end and inserting ``or, to the extent the
remainder interest is in qualified employer securities (as
defined in paragraph (3)(B)), is to be transferred to an
employee stock ownership plan (as defined in section
4975(e)(7)) in a qualified gratuitous transfer (as defined by
paragraph (3)).''
(b) Qualified Gratuitous Transfer Defined.--Subsection (d)
of section 664 of such Code is amended by redesignating
paragraph (3) as paragraph (4) and by inserting after
paragraph (2) the following new paragraph:
``(3) Qualified gratuitous transfer of qualified employer
securities.--
``(A) In general.--For purposes of this section, the term
`qualified gratuitous transfer' means a transfer of qualified
employer securities to an employee stock ownership plan (as
defined in section 4975(e)(7)) but only to the extent that--
``(i) the securities transferred previously passed from a
decedent to a trust described in paragraph (1) or (2);
``(ii) no deduction under section 404 is allowable with
respect to such transfer;
``(iii) such plan provides that the securities so
transferred are allocated to plan participants in a manner
consistent with section 401(a)(4);
``(iv) such plan treats such securities as being
attributable to employer contributions but without regard to
the limitations otherwise applicable to such contributions
under section 404;
``(v) such plan provides that such securities are held in a
suspense account under the plan to be allocated each year, up
to the limitations under section 415(c), after first
allocating all other annual additions for the limitation
year, up to the limitations under sections 415 (c) and (e);
and
``(vi) the employer whose employees are covered by the plan
described in this subparagraph files with the Secretary a
verified written statement consenting to the application of
sections 4978 and 4979A with respect to such employer.
``(B) Qualified employer securities.--For purposes of this
section, the term `qualified employer securities' means
employer securities (as defined in section 409(l)) which are
issued by a domestic corporation which has no outstanding
stock which is readily tradable on an established securities
market.
``(C) Treatment of securities allocated by employee stock
ownership plan to persons related to decedent or 5-percent
shareholders.--
``(i) In general.--If any portion of the assets of the plan
attributable to securities acquired by the plan in a
qualified gratuitous transfer are allocated to the account
of--

``(I) any person who is related to the decedent (within the
meaning of section 267(b)), or
``(II) any person who, at the time of such allocation or at
any time during the 1-year period ending on the date of the
acquisition of qualified employer securities by the plan, is
a 5-percent shareholder of the employer maintaining the plan,

the plan shall be treated as having distributed (at the time
of such allocation) to such person or shareholder the amount
so allocated.
``(ii) 5-percent shareholder.--For purposes of clause (i),
the term `5-percent shareholder' means any person who owns
(directly or through the application of section 318(a)) more
than 5 percent of--

``(I) any class of outstanding stock of the corporation
which issued such qualified employer securities or of any
corporation which is a member of the same controlled group of
corporations (within the meaning of section 409(l)(4)) as
such corporation, or
``(II) the total value of any class of outstanding stock of
any such corporation; and

For purposes of the preceding sentence, section 318(a) shall
be applied without regard to the exception in paragraph
(2)(B)(i) thereof.
``(iii) Cross reference.--

``For excise tax on allocations described in clause (i), see section
4979A.''

[[Page S11179]]

(1) Section 401(a)(1) of such Code is amended by inserting
``or by a charitable remainder trust pursuant to a qualified
gratuitous transfer (as defined in section 664(d)(3)(A)),''
after ``stock bonus plans),''.
(2) Section 404(a)(9) of such Code is amended by inserting
after subparagraph (B) the following new subparagraph:
``(C) A qualified gratuitous transfer (as defined in
section 664(d)(3)(A)) shall have no effect on the amount or
amounts otherwise deductible under paragraph (3) or (7) or
under this paragraph.''
(3) Section 415(c)(6) of such Code is amended by adding at
the end the following new sentence:
``The amount of any qualified gratuitous transfer (as defined
in section 664(d)(3)(A)) allocated to a participant for any
limitation year shall not exceed the limitations imposed by
this section, but such amount shall not be taken into account
in determining whether any other amount exceeds the
limitations imposed by this section.''
(4) Section 415(e) of such Code is amended--
(A) by redesignating paragraph (6) as paragraph (7), and
(B) by inserting after paragraph (5) the following new
paragraph:
``(6) Special rule for qualified gratuitous transfers.--Any
qualified gratuitous transfer of qualified employer
securities (as defined by section 664(d)(3)) shall not be
taken into account in calculating, and shall not be subject
to, the limitations provided in this subsection.''
(5) Paragraph (3) of section 644(e) of such Code is amended
to read as follows:
``(3) acquired by a charitable remainder annuity trust (as
defined in section 664(d)(1)) or a charitable remainder
unitrust (as defined in sections 664(d) (2) and (4)), or''.
(6) Subparagraph (B) of section 664(d)(1) of such Code and
subparagraph (B) of section 664(d)(2) of such Code are each
amended by inserting ``and other than qualified gratuitous
transfers described in subparagraph (C)'' after
``subparagraph (A)''.
(7) Paragraph (4) of section 674(b) of such Code is amended
by inserting before the period ``or to an employee stock
ownership plan (as defined in section 4975(e)(7)) in a
qualified gratuitous transfer (as defined in section
664(d)(3))''.
(8)(A) Section 2055(a) of such Code is amended--
(i) by striking ``or'' at the end of paragraph (3),
(ii) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (4) and
inserting ``; or'', and
(iii) by inserting after paragraph (4) the following new
paragraph:
``(5) to an employee stock ownership plan if such transfer
qualifies as a qualified gratuitous transfer of qualified
employer securities within the meaning of section
664(d)(3).''
(B) Clause (ii) of section 2055(e)(3)(C) of such Code is
amended by striking ``section 664(d)(3)'' and inserting
``section 664(d)(4)''.
(9) Paragraph (8) of section 2056(b) of such Code is
amended to read as follows:
``(8) Special rule for charitable remainder trusts.--
``(A) In general.--If the surviving spouse of the decedent
is the only beneficiary of a qualified charitable remainder
trust who is not a charitable beneficiary nor an ESOP
beneficiary, paragraph (1) shall not apply to any interest in
such trust which passes or has passed from the decedent to
such surviving spouse.
``(B) Definitions.--For purposes of subparagraph (A)--
``(i) Charitable beneficiary.--The term `charitable
beneficiary' means any beneficiary which is an organization
described in section 170(c).
``(ii) Esop beneficiary.--The term `ESOP beneficiary' means
any beneficiary which is an employee stock ownership plan (as
defined in section 4975(e)(7)) that holds a remainder
interest in qualified employer securities (as defined in
section 664(d)(3)) to be transferred to such plan in a
qualified gratuitous transfer (as defined in section
664(d)(3)).
``(iii) Qualified charitable remainder trust.--The term
`qualified charitable remainder trust' means a charitable
remainder annuity trust or a charitable remainder unitrust
(described in section 664).''
(10) Section 4947(b) of such Code is amended by inserting
after paragraph (3) the following new paragraph:
``(4) Section 507.--The provisions of section 507(a) shall
not apply to a trust which is described in subsection (a)(2)
by reason of a distribution of qualified employer securities
(as defined in section 664(d)(3)) to an employee stock
ownership plan (as defined in section 4975(e)(7)) in a
qualified gratuitous transfer (as defined by section
664(d)(3)).''
(11) The last sentence of section 4975(e)(7) of such Code
is amended by inserting ``and section 664(d)(3)'' after
``section 409(n)''
(12) Subsection (a) of section 4978 of such Code is amended
by inserting ``or acquired any qualified employer securities
in a qualified gratuitous transfer to which section 664(d)(3)
applied'' after ``section 1042 applied''.
(13) Paragraph (2) of section 4978(b) of such Code is
amended--
(A) by inserting ``or acquired in the qualified gratuitous
transfer to which section 664(d)(3) applied'' after ``section
1042 applied'', and
(B) by inserting ``or to which section 664(d)(3) applied''
after ``section 1042 applied'' in subparagraph (C) thereof.
(14) Subsection (c) of section 4978 of such Code is amended
by striking ``written statement'' and all that follows and
inserting ``written statement described in section
664(d)(3)(A)(vi) or in section 1042(b)(3) (as the case may
be).''
(15) Paragraph (2) of section 4978(e) of such Code is
amended by striking the period and inserting ``; except that
such section shall be applied without regard to subparagraph
(B) thereof for purposes of applying this section and section
4979A with respect to securities acquired in a qualified
gratuitous transfer (as defined in section 664(d)(3)(A)).''
(16) Subsection (a) of section 4979A of such Code is
amended to read as follows:
``(a) Imposition of Tax.--If--
``(1) there is a prohibited allocation of qualified
securities by any employee stock ownership plan or eligible
worker-owned cooperative, or
``(2) there is an allocation described in section
663(d)(3)(C)(i),

there is hereby imposed a tax on such allocation equal to 50
percent of the amount involved.''
(17) Subsection (c) of section 4979A of such Code is
amended to read as follows:
``(c) Liability for Tax.--The tax imposed by this section
shall be paid by--
``(1) the employer sponsoring such plan, or
``(2) the eligible worker-owned cooperative,

which made the written statement described in section
664(d)(3)(A)(vi) or in section 1042(b)(3)(B) (as the case may
be).''
(18) Section 4979A of such Code is amended by redesignating
subsection (d) as subsection (e) and by inserting after
subsection (c) the following new subsection:
``(d) Special Statute of Limitations for Tax Attributable
to Certain Allocations.--The statutory period for the
assessment of any tax imposed by this section on an
allocation described in subsection (a)(2) of qualified
employer securities shall not expire before the date which is
3 years from the later of--
``(1) the 1st allocation of such securities in connection
with a qualified gratuitous transfer (as defined in section
664(d)(3)(A)), or
``(2) the date on which the Secretary is notified of the
allocation described in subsection (a)(2).''
(d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to transfers made by trusts to, or for the use
of, an employee stock ownership plan after the date of the
enactment of this Act.
______

By Mr. McCAIN:
S. 2111. A bill to amend the act commonly known as the Navajo-Hopi
Land Settlement Act of 1974, and for other purposes; to the Committee
on Indian Affairs.

THE NAVAJO-HOPI LAND SETTLEMENT ACT AMENDMENTS OF 1996

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I introduce legislation to make certain
amendments to the Navajo-Hopi Land Settlement Act of 1974 in order to
bring the relocation process to an orderly conclusion within 5 years.
This legislation will phase out the Navajo-Hopi relocation program by
September 30, 2001, and at that time transfer any remaining
responsibilities to the Secretary of the Interior. This legislation
will provide a time certain for eligible Navajo and Hopi individuals to
apply for and receive relocation benefits and after that time the
Federal Government will no longer be obligated to provide replacement
housing for such individual. Under this legislation, the funds that
would have been used to provide replacement housing to such individual
will be kept in trust by the Secretary for distribution to the
individual or their heirs.
Mr. President, the Navajo-Hopi Land Settlement Act of 1974 was
enacted to resolve longstanding disputes that have divided the Navajo
and Hopi Indian Tribes for more than a century. The origins of this
dispute can be traced directly to the creation of the 1882 reservation
for the Hopi Tribe and the creation of the 1934 Navajo Reservation. At
the times these reservations were established there were Navajo
families residing within the lands set aside for the Hopi Tribe and
Hopi families residing on lands set aside for the Navajo Nation.
Tensions between the two tribes continued to heighten until in 1958
Congress, in an effort to resolve this dispute, passed legislation that
authorized the tribes to file suit in Federal court to quiet title to
the 1882 reservation and to their respective claims and rights. That
legislation has given rise to more than 35 years of continuous
litigation between the tribes in an effort to resolve their respective
rights and claims to the land.
In 1974, Congress enacted the Navajo-Hopi Land Settlement Act which
established Navajo and Hopi negotiating teams under the auspices of a
Federal mediator to negotiate a settlement to the 1882 reservation land
dispute. The act also authorized the tribes to file suit in Federal
court to quiet title to the 1934 reservation and to file any

[[Page S11180]]

claims for damages arising out of the dispute against each other or the
United States. The act also established a three member Navajo-Hopi
Indian Relocation Commission to oversee the relocation of members of
the Navajo Nation who were residing on lands partitioned to the Hopi
Tribe and members of the Hopi Tribe who were residing on lands
partitioned to the Navajo Nation. Since its establishment, the
relocation program has proven to be an extremely difficult and
contentious process.
When this program was first established, it was estimated that the
cost of relocation would be roughly $40 million to provide relocation
benefits to approximately 6,000 Navajos estimated to be eligible for
relocation. These figures woefully underestimated the number of
families impacted by relocation and the tremendous delays that have
plagued this program. To date, the United States has expended over $350
million to relocate more than 11,000 Navajo and Hopi tribal members.
There remain over 640 eligible families who have never received
relocation benefits and an additional 50 to 100 families who have never
applied for relocation benefits. In addition, there are over 130
eligibility appeals still pending. The funding for this settlement has
exceeded the original cost estimates by more than 900 percent.

Mr. President, we cannot continue to fund this program with no end in
sight. I am convinced that our current Federal budgetary pressures
require us to ensure that the Navajo-Hopi relocation housing program is
brought to an orderly and certain conclusion. It is for that reason
that I am introducing the Navajo-Hopi Land Settlement Act Amendments of
1996. This legislation will phase out the Navajo-Hopi Indian relocation
program by September 30, 2001, and transfer the remaining
responsibilities under the act to the Secretary of the Interior. Under
the bill, the relocation commissioner shall transfer to the Secretary
such funds as are necessary to construct replacement homes for any
eligible head of household who has left the Hopi partitioned land but
has not received a replacement home by September 30, 2001. These funds
will be held in trust by the Secretary of the Interior for distribution
to such individual or their heirs. In addition, the bill includes
provisions establishing an expedited procedure for handling appeals of
final eligibility determinations.
Mr. President, I have developed this legislation as an initial
starting point for ongoing discussions with the representatives of the
Office of Navajo and Hopi Indian Relocation and the administration, the
Hopi Tribe, the Navajo Nation, and the affected families of both
tribes. It is my hope that this bill will stimulate discussions that
will lead to the passage of legislation in the 105th Congress that will
bring this long and difficult process to a certain and ordered
conclusion.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that additional material be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

S. 2111

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Navajo-Hopi
Land Settlement Act Amendments of 1996''.

TITLE I--AMENDMENTS TO THE NAVAJO-HOPI LAND SETTLEMENT ACT OF 1974

SEC. 101. REFERENCES.

Whenever in this Act an amendment or repeal is expressed in
terms of an amendment or repeal to a section or other
provision, the references shall be considered to be made to a
section or other provision of the Act commonly known as the
Navajo-Hopi Land Settlement Act of 1974 (Public law 93-531;
25 U.S.C. 640 et seq.).

SEC. 102. AMENDMENTS TO THE NAVAJO-HOPI LAND SETTLEMENT ACT
OF 1974.

(a) Repeals.--Sections 1 through 5 (25 U.S.C. 640d through
640d-4) and section 30 (25 U.S.C. 640d-28) are each repealed.
(b) Amendments and Redesignations.--
(1) Section 6 (25 U.S.C. 640d-5) is amended--
(A) by striking the matter preceding subsection (a) through
subsection (c);
(B) by inserting the following before subsection (d):

``SECTION 1. PARTITIONED LANDS.

(C) by redesignating subsection (d) as subsection (a);
(D) by striking subsections (e) and (f); and
(E) by redesignating subsections (g) and (h) as subsections
(b) and (c), respectively; and
(F) in subsection (a), as so designated, by striking, ``In
any partition of the surface rights to the joint use area,''
and inserting the following:
``With regard to the final order issued by the United
States District Court for the District of Arizona (hereafter
in this Act referred to as the `District Court') on August
30, 1978, that provides for the partition of surface rights
and interest of the Navajo and Hopi tribes (hereafter in this
Act referred to as the `Tribes') by lands laying within the
reservation established by Executive order on December 16,
1982,''.
(2) Section 7 (25 U.S.C. 640d-6) is amended by striking
``Sec. 7. Partitioned'' and inserting the following:

``SEC. 2. JOINT OWNERSHIP OF MINERALS.

``Partitioned''.
(3) Section 8 (25 U.S.C. 640d-7) is amended--
(A) by striking ``Sec. 8. (a) Either tribe'' and inserting
the following:

``SEC. 3. ACTIONS.

``(a) Authorizations to Commence and Defend Actions in
District Court.--Either tribe'';
(B) in subsection (b), by inserting ``Allocation of Land to
Respective Reservations Upon Determinations of Interests.--''
after ``(b)'';
(C) in subsection (c)--
(i) by inserting ``Actions for Accounting, Fair Value of
Grazing, and Claims for Damages to Land.--'' after ``(c)'';
and
(ii) by striking ``section 18'' each place it appears and
inserting ``section 12'';
(D) in subsection (d), by inserting ``Rule of
Construction.--'' after ``(d)'';
(E) in subsection (e), by inserting ``Payment of Legal
Fees, Court Costs, and Other Expenses.--'' after ``(e)''; and
(F) by striking subsection (f).
(4) Section 9 (25 U.S.C. 640d-8) is amended by striking
``Sec. 9. Notwithstanding'' and inserting the following:

``SEC. 4. PAUITE INDIAN ALLOTMENTS.

``Notwithstanding''.
(5) Section 10 (25 U.S.C. 640d-9) is amended--
(A) by striking ``Sec. 10. (a) Subject'' and inserting the
following:

``SEC. 5. PARTITIONED AND OTHER DESIGNATED LANDS.

``(a) Navajo Trust Lands.--'';
(B) in subsection (a), by striking ``sections 9 and 16(a)''
and inserting ``sections 4 and 10(a)'';
(C) in subsection (b)--
(i) by inserting ``Hopi Trust Lands.--'' after ``(b)'';
(ii) by striking ``sections 9 and 16(a)'' and inserting
``sections 4 and 10(a)'';
(iii) by striking ``sections 2 and 3'' and inserting
``section ``1'' and
(iv) by striking ``section 8'' and inserting ``section 3'';
(D) in subsection (c)--
(i) by inserting ``Protection of Rights and Property.--''
after ``(c)''; and
(ii) by striking the comma after ``pursuant thereto'' and
all that follows through the end of the subsection and
inserting a period;
(E) in subsection (d), by inserting ``Protection of
Benefits and Services.--'' after ``(d)''; and
(F) in subsection (e)--
(i) by inserting ``Tribal Jurisdiction Over Partitioned
Lands.--'' after ``(e)''; and
(ii) in the last sentence, by striking ``life tenants
and''.
(6) Section 11 (25 U.S.C. 640d-10) is amended--
(A) by striking ``Sec. 11. (a) The Secretary'' and
inserting the following:

``SEC. 6. RESETTLEMENT LANDS FOR NAVAJO TRIBE.

``(a) Transfer of Lands.--The Secretary'';
(B) in subsection (b), by inserting ``Proximity of Lands To
Be Transferred or Acquired.--'' before ``(b)'';
(C) in subsection (c)--
(i) by inserting ``Selection of Lands To Be Transferred or
Acquired.--'' after ``(c)''; and
(ii) by striking the period at the end and inserting the
following: ``: Provided further, That the authority of the
Commissioner to select lands under this subsection shall
terminate on September 30, 2000.'';
(D) in subsection (d), by inserting ``Reports.--'' after
``(d)'';
(E) in subsection (e), by inserting ``Payments.--'' after
``(e)'';
(F) in subsection (f), by inserting ``Acquisition of Title
To Surface and Subsurface Interests.--'' after ``(f)'';
(G) in subsection (g), by inserting ``Lands Not Available
for Transfer.--'' after ``(g)''; and
(H) in subsection (h)--
(i) by inserting ``Administration of Lands Transferred or
Acquired.--'' after ``(h)'';
(ii) by striking the period at the end and inserting the
following: ``: Provided further, That, in order to facilitate
relocation, in the discretion of the Commissioner, the
Commissioner may grant homesite leases on land acquired
pursuant to this section to members of the extended family of
a Navajo who is certified as eligible to receive benefits
under this Act, except that the Commissioner may not expend,
or otherwise make available funds made available by
appropriations to the Commissioner to carry out this Act, to
provide housing to those extended family members.''; and
(I) in subsection (i)--
(i) by inserting ``Negotiations Regarding Land Exchanges or
Leases.'' after ``(i); and
(ii) by striking ``section 23'' and inserting ``section
18''.
(7) Section 12 (25 U.S.C. 640d-11) is amended--

[[Page S11181]]

(A) by striking ``Sec. 12. (a) There is hereby'' and
inserting the following:

``SEC. 7. OFFICE OF NAVAJO AND HOPI INDIAN RELOCATION.

``(a) Establishment.--There is hereby'';
(B) in subsection (b), by inserting ``Appointment.--''
after ``(b)'';
(C) in subsection (c), by inserting ``Continuation of
Powers.--'' after ``(c)'';
(D) in subsection (d), by inserting ``Powers of
Commissioner.--'' after ``(d)'';
(E) in subsection (e), by inserting ``Administration.--''
after ``(e)'';
(F) in subsection (f) and by inserting the following:
``(f) Termination.--The Office of Navajo and Hopi Indian
Relocation shall cease to exist on September 30, 2001. On
that date, any functions of the Office that have not been
fully discharged, as determined in accordance with this Act
shall be transferred to the Secretary of the Interior in
accordance with title III of the Navajo-Hopi Land Settlement
Act Amendments of 1996.''; and
(G) by adding at the end the following new subsections:
``(g) Office of Relocation.--Effective on October 1, 2001,
there is established in the Department of the Interior an
Office of Relocation. The Secretary of the Interior, acting
through the Office of Relocation, shall carry out the
functions of the Office of Navajo and Hopi Indian Relocation
transferred to the Secretary of the Interior in accordance
with title III of the Navajo-Hopi Land Settlement Act
Amendments of 1996.
``(h) Termination of Office of Relocation.--The Office of
Relocation shall cease to exist on the date on which the
Secretary of the Interior determines that the functions of
the Office have been fully discharged.''.
(8) Section 13 (25 U.S.C. 640d-12) is amended--
(A) by striking ``Sec. 13. (a) Within'' and inserting the
following:

``SEC. 13. REPORT CONCERNING RELOCATION OF HOUSEHOLD AND
MEMBERS OF EACH TRIBE.

``(a) In General.--Within'''
(B) in subsection (b), by inserting ``Content of Report.--
'' after ``(b)''; and
(C) in subsection (c), by inserting ``Detailed Plan for
Relocation.--'' after ``(c)'';
(9) Section 14 (25 U.S.C. 640d-13) is amended--
(A) by striking ``Sec. 14. (a) Consistent'' and inserting
the following:

``SEC. 8. RELOCATION OF HOUSEHOLDS AND MEMBERS.

``(a) Authorization.--;
(B) in subsection (a)--
(i) in the first sentence--
(I) by striking ``section 8'' each place it appears and
inserting ``section 3''; and
(II) by striking ``sections 2 and 3'' and inserting
``section 1''; and
(ii) by striking the second sentence;
(C) in subsection (b)--
(i) by inserting ``Additional Payments to Heads of
Households'' after ``(b)''; and
(ii) by striking ``section 15'' and inserting ``section
9'';
(D) in subsection (c), by inserting ``Payments for Persons
Moving After a Certain Date.--''; and
(E) by adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(d) Prohibition.--No payment for benefits under this Act
may be made to any head of a household if, as of September
30, 2001, that head has not been certified as eligible to
receive those payments.''.
(10) In section 15 (25 U.S.C. 640d-14)--
(A) by striking ``Sec. 15. (a) The Commission'' and
inserting the following:

``SEC. 9. RELOCATION HOUSING.

``(a) Purchase of Habitation and Improvements.--The
Commission'';
(B) in the last sentence of subsection (a), by striking
``as determined under section 13(b)(2) of this title'';
(C) in subsection (b), by inserting ``Rembursement for
Moving Expenses and Payment for Replacement Dwelling.--''
after ``(b)'';
(D) in subsection (c)--
(i) by inserting ``Standards; Certain Payments.--'' after
``(c)'';
(ii) by striking ``section 8'' and inserting ``section 3'';
and
(iii) by striking ``section 3 or 4 of this title'' and
inserting ``section 1'';
(E) in subsection (d), by inserting ``Methods of Payment.--
''after ``(d)'';
(F) by striking subsection (g);
(G) by redesignating subsections (e) and (f) as subsections
(g) and (h), respectively;
(H) by inserting after subsection (d) the following new
subsections:
``(e) Benefits Held in Trust.--
``(1) In general.--On September 30, 2001, the Commissioner
shall notify the Secretary of the Interior (hereafter in this
subsection referred to as the `Secretary') of the identity of
any head of household that is certified as eligible to
receive benefits under this Act (hereafter in this subsection
referred to as an `eligible head of household') who, as of
such date--
``(A) does not reside on lands that have been partitioned
to the tribe of that eligible head of household; and
``(B) has not received a replacement home.
``(2) Transfer of funds.--On the date specified in
paragraph (1), the Commissioner shall transfer to the
Secretary any unexpended funds that were made available to
the Commissioner for the purpose of making payments under
this Act to the eligible heads of household referred to in
paragraph (1).
``(3) Disposition of transferred funds.--
``(A) In general.--The Secretary shall hold the funds
transferred under paragraph (2) in trust for the eligible
heads of household referred to in paragraph (1). The
Secretary shall provide payments in amounts that would have
otherwise have been made to an eligible head of household
before the date specified in paragraph (1) from the amounts
held in trust--
``(i) upon request of the eligible head of household, to be
used for a replacement home; or
``(ii) if the eligible head of household does not make a
request under clause (i), upon the death of the eligible head
of household, in accordance with subparagraph (B).
``(B) Distribution of funds upon the death of an eligible
head of household.--If, upon the death of an eligible head of
household, the Secretary holds funds in trust under this
paragraph for that eligible head of household, the Secretary
shall--
``(i) determine and notify the heirs of the head of
household; and
``(ii) distribute the funds to--
``(I) the heirs who have attained the age of 18; and
``(II) each remaining heir, at the time that the heir
attains the age of 18.
``(f) Notification.--
``(1) In general.--Not later than 180 days after the date
of enactment of the Navajo-Hopi Land Settlement Act
Amendments of 1996, the Commissioner shall, in accordance
with section 700.138 of title 25, Code of Federal
Regulations, notify each eligible head of household who has
not entered into a lease with the Hopi Tribe to reside on
lands partitioned to the Hopi Tribe.
``(2) List.--Upon the expiration of the notice periods
referred to in section 700.139 of title 25, Code of Federal
Regulations, the Commissioner shall forward to the Secretary
and the United States Attorney for the District of Arizona a
list containing the name and address of each eligible head of
household who--
``(A) continues to reside on lands that have not been
partitioned to the tribe of that eligible head of household;
and
``(B) has not entered into a lease to reside on those
lands.
``(3) Construction of replacement homes.--Before July 1,
1999, the Commissioner may commence construction of a
replacement home on the lands acquired under section 6 not
later than 90 days after receiving a notice of the imminent
removal of a relocatee from the lands partitioned under this
Act to the Hopi Tribe from--
``(A) the Secretary; or
``(B) the United States Attorney for the District of
Arizona.'';
(I) in subsection (g), as redesignated by subparagraph
(G)--
(i) by inserting ``Disposal of Acquired Dwellings and
Improvements.--'' after ``(g)''
(ii) by striking ``section 8'' and inserting ``section 3'';
and
(iii) by striking ``section 3 or 4 of this title'' and
inserting ``section 1'';
(J) in subsection (h), as redesignated by subparagraph (G),
by inserting ``Preferential Treatment for Heads of House-
holds of the Navajo Tribe Evicted from the Hope Reservation
by Judicial Decision.--''; and
(K) by adding after subsection (h) the following new
subsections:
``(i) Appeals.--
``(1) In general.--The Commissioner shall establish an
expedited hearing procedure that shall apply to an appeal
relating to the denial of eligibility for benefits under this
Act (including the regulations issued under this Act) that
is--
``(A) pending on the date of enactment of Navajo-Hopi Land
Settlement Act Amendments of 1996; or
``(B) filed after the date specified in subparagraph (A).
``(2) Final determinations.--The hearing procedure
established under paragraph (1) shall--
``(A) as necessary, provide for a hearing before an
impartial third party; and
``(B) ensure the achievement of a final determination by
the Office of Navajo and Hopi Indian Relocation for each
appeal described in that paragraph not later than January 1,
1999.
``(3) Notice.--
``(A) In general.--Not later than 30 days after the date of
enactment of the Navajo-Hopi Land Settlement Act Amendments
of 1996, the Commissioner, shall provide written notice to
any individual that the Commissioner determines may have the
right to a determination of eligibility for benefits under
this Act.
``(B) Requirements for notice.--The notice provided under
this paragraph shall--
``(i) specify that a request for a determination of
eligibility referred to in subparagraph (A) shall be
presented to the Commission not later than 180 days after the
date of issuance of the notice; and
``(ii) be provided--
``(I) by mail (which may be carried out by a means other
than certified mail) to the last known address (if available)
of the recipient; and
``(II) in a newspaper of general circulation in the
geographic area in which an address referred to in subclause
(I) is located.
``(j) Procurement of Services.--
``(1) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
this Act, to ensure the full and fair evaluation of the
requests referred to in subsection (i)(3)(A) (including an
appeal hearing before an impartial third party referred to in
subsection (i)(2)(A)), the Commissioner may enter into such
contracts or

[[Page S11182]]

agreements to procure such services, and employ such
personnel (including attorneys), as are necessary.
``(2) Detail of administrative law judges or hearing
officers.--The Commissioner may request the Secretary to act
through the Director of the Office of Hearings and Appeals of
the Department of the Interior, to make available, by detail
or other appropriate arrangement, to the Office of Navajo and
Hopi Indian Relocation, an administrative law judge or other
hearing officer with appropriate qualifications to review the
requests referred to in subsection (i)(3)(A).
``(k) Appeal to United States Circuit Court of Appeals.--
``(l) In general.--Subject to paragraph (3), any individual
who, under the procedures established by the Commissioner
under this section, is determined not to be eligible to
receive benefits under this Act may appeal that determination
to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit (hereafter in this subsection referred to as the
`Circuit Court').
``(2) Review.--
``(A) In general.--The Circuit Court shall, with respect to
each appeal referred to in paragraph (1)--
``(i) review the entire record (as certified to the Circuit
Court under paragraph (3) on which a determination of the
ineligibility of the appellant to receive benefits under this
Act was based; and
``(ii) on the basis of that review, affirm or reverse that
determination.
``(B) Standard of review.--The Circuit Court shall affirm
any determination that the Circuit Court determines to be
supported by substantial evidence.
``(3) Notice of appeal.--
``(A) In general.--An individual who appeals a
determination of ineligibility under paragraph (1) shall, not
later than 30 days after the date of that determination, file
a notice of appeal with--
``(i) the Circuit Court; and
``(ii) the Commissioner.
``(B) Certification of record.--Upon receipt of a notice
provided under subparagraph (A)(ii), the Commissioner shall
certify to the Circuit Court the record on which the
determination that is the subject of the appeal was made.
``(C) Review period.--The Circuit Court shall conduct a
review and render a decision under paragraph (2) not later
than 60 days after receiving a certified record under
subparagraph (B).
``(D) Binding decision.--A decision made by the Circuit
Court under this subsection shall be final and binding on all
parties.
(11) Section 16 (25 U.S.C. 640d-15) is amended--
(A) by striking ``Sec. 16. (a) The Navajo'' and inserting the
following:

``SEC. 10. PAYMENT OF FAIR RENTAL VALUE FOR USE OF LANDS.

``(a) In General.--The Navajo'';
(B) in subsection (a), by striking ``sections 8 and 3 or
4'' and inserting ``sections 1 and 3''; and
(C) in subsection (b)--
(i) by inserting ``Payment.--'' after ``(b)''; and
(ii) by striking sections 8 and 3 or 4'' and inserting
``sections 1 and 3''.
(12) Section 17 (25 U.S.C. 640d-16) is amended--
(A) by striking ``Sec. 17. (a) Nothing'' and inserting the
following:

``SEC. 11. STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION.

(a) In General.--Nothing''; and
(B) in subsection (b), by inserting ``Federal Employees.--
after ``(b)''.
(13) Section 18 (25 U.S.C. 640d-17) is amended--
(A) by striking ``Sec. 18. (a) Either'' and inserting the
following:

``SEC. 12. ACTIONS FOR ACCOUNTING, FAIR VALUE OF GRAZING, AND
CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES TO LAND.

``(a) Either'';
(B) in the matter preceding paragraph (1) in subsection
(a), by striking ``section 3 or 4'' and inserting ``section
1'';
(C) in subsection (b)--
(i) by inserting ``Defenses.--'' after ``(b)'';
(ii) by striking ``section 3 or 4'' and inserting ``section
1'';
(D) in subsection (c), by inserting ``Further Original,
Ancillary, or Supplementary Acts To Insure Quiet Enjoyment.--
'' after ``(c)'';
(E) in subsection (d), by inserting ``United States as
Party; Judgments Against the United States'' after ``(d)'';
and
(F) in subsection (e), by inserting ``Remedies'' after
``(e)''.
(14) Section 19 (25 U.S.C. 640d-18) is amended--
(A) by striking ``Sec. 19. (a) Notwithstanding'' and
inserting the following:

``SEC. 14. REDUCTION IN LIVESTOCK WITH JOINT USE.

``(a) In General.--Notwithstanding'';
(B) in subsection (a), by striking ``section 3 or 4'' and
inserting ``section 1'';
(C) in subsection (b)--
(i) by inserting ``Survey Location of Monuments and Fencing
of Boundaries.--'' after ``(b)'';
(ii) by striking ``sections 8 and 3 or 4'' and inserting
``sections 1 and 3'';
(D) in subsection (c)--
(i) by inserting ``Completion of Surveying, Monumenting,
and Fencing Operations; Livestock Reduction Program.--''
after ``(c)'';
(ii) by striking ``section 4 of this title'' and inserting
``section 1''; and
(iii) by striking ``section 8'' and inserting ``section
3''.
(15) Section 20 (25 U.S.C. 640d-19) is amended by striking
``Sec. 20. The members'' and inserting the following:

``SEC. 15. PERPETUAL USE OF CLIFF SPRINGS FOR RELIGIOUS
CEREMONIAL USES; PIPING OF WATER FOR USE BY
RESIDENTS.

The members''.
(16) Section 21 (25 U.S.C. 640d-20) is amended by striking
``Sec. 21. Notwithstanding'' and inserting the following;

``SEC. 16. USE AND RIGHT OF ACCESS TO RELIGIOUS SHRINES ON
RESERVATION OF OTHER TRIBE.

Notwithstanding''.
(17) Section 22 (25 U.S.C. 640d-21) is amended by striking
``Sec. 22. The availability '' and inserting the following:

``SEC. 17. EXCLUSION OF PAYMENTS FROM CERTAIN FEDERAL
DETERMINATIONS OF INCOME.

The availability''.
(18) Section 23 (25 U.S.C. 649d-22) is amended--
(A) by striking ``Sec. 23. The Navajo'' and inserting the
following:

``SEC. 18. AUTHORIZATION FOR EXCHANGE OF RESERVATION LANDS.

The Navajo''; and
(B) by striking ``sections 14 and 15'' and inserting
``sections 8 and 9''.
(19) Section 24 (25 640d-23) is amended by striking ``Sec.
24. If'' and inserting the following:

``SEC. 19. SEVERABILITY OF PROVISIONS.

If''.
(20) Section 25 (25 U.S.C. 640d-24) is amended to read as
follows:

``SEC. 20 AUTHORIZATIONS OF APPROPRIATIONS.

``(a) In General.--
``(1) Relocation of households and members.--For the
purposes of carrying out the provisions of section 9, there
are authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be
necessary for each of fiscal years 1998 through 2002.
``(2) Return to carrying capacity and institution of
conservation practices.--For the purposes of carrying out
section 14(a), there are authorized to be appropriated
$10,000,000.
``(3) Survey location of monuments and fencing of
boundaries.--For the purpose of carrying out section 14(b),
there are authorized to be appropriated $500,000.
``(4) Relocation of households and members.--For the
purposes of carrying out section 8(b) there are authorized to
be appropriated $13,000,000.''.
(21) Section 26 (88 Stat. 1723) is repealed.
(22) Section 27 (25 U.S.C. 640d-25) is amended--
(A) by striking ``Sec. 27.'' and all that follows through
subsection (b)'' and inserting the following:

``SEC. 21. FUNDING AND CONSTRUCTION OF HOPI HIGH SCHOOL AND
MEDICAL CENTER.''; and

(B) in subsection (c), by striking ``(c)''.
(23) Section 28 (25 U.S.c. 640d-26) is amended-
(A) by striking ``Sec. 28. (a) No action'' and inserting
the following:

``SEC. 22. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT; APPLICABILITY OF WILDERNESS
STUDY; CANCELLATION OF GRAZING LEASES AND
PERMITS.

``(a) In General.--No action'';
(B) in subsection (b), by inserting ``Effect of Wilderness
Study.--'' after ``(b)''; and
(C) by adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(c) Construction Requirements.--
``(1) In general.--Any construction activities that are
undertaken under this Act shall be conducted in compliance
with sections 3 through 7 of Public Law 86-523 (16 U.S.C.
469a-1 through 469c).
``(2) Compliance with other requirements.--With respect to
any construction activity referred to in paragraph (1),
compliance with the provisions referred to in that paragraph
shall be considered to satisfy the applicable requirements
of--
``(A) the Act entitled ``an Act to establish a program for
the preservation of additional historic properties throughout
the Nation, and for other purposes'', approved October 15,
1966 (Public Law, 89-665); and
``(B) the Act entitled ``An Act for the preservation of
American antiquities'', approved June 8, 1906 (34 Stat. 225,
chapter 3060).''.
(24) Section 29 (25 U.S.C. 640d-27) is amended--
(A) by striking ``Sec. 29. (a) In any'' and inserting the
following:

``SEC. 23. ATTORNEY FEES, COSTS AND EXPENSES FOR LITIGATION
OR COURT ACTION.

``(a) Payment by Secretary; Authorization of
appropriations.--In any;
(B) in subsection (b) by inserting ``Award by Court.--''
after ``(b)'';
(C) in subsection (c) by inserting ``Excess Difference.--''
after ``(c)''; and
(D) in subsection (d)--
(i) by inserting ``Litigation of Court Actions
Applicable.--'' after ``(d)''; and
(ii) by striking ``section 8'' and inserting ``section 3''.
(25) Section 31 (25 U.S.C. 640d-29) is amended--
(A) by striking ``Sec. 31. (a) Except'' and inserting the
following:

``SEC. 24. LOBBYING.

``(a) In General.--Except''; and
(B) in subsection (b), by inserting ``Applicability.--''
before ``(b)''.
(26) The first section designated as section 32 (25 U.S.C.
640d-30), as added by section 7 of

[[Page S11183]]

the Navajo-Hopi Relocation Act Amendments of 1988, is
amended--
(A) by striking ``Sec. 32. (a) There'' and inserting the
following:

``SEC. 25. NAVAJO REHABILITATION TRUST FUND.

(a) In General.--There'';
(B) in subsection (b), by inserting ``Deposit of Income
into Fund.--'' after ``(b)'';
(C) in subsection (c), by inserting ``Investment of
Funds.--'' after ``(c)'';
(D) in subsection (d), by inserting ``Availability of
Funds.--'' after ``(d);
(E) in subsection (e), by inserting ``Expenditure of
Funds.--'' after ``(e)'';
(F) in subsection (f), by inserting ``Termination of Trust
Fund.--'' after ``(f)''; and
(G) in subsection (g), by inserting ``Authorization of
Appropriations.--'' after ``(g)''.
(27) Section 32 (25 U.S.C. 640d-31), as added by section
407 of the Arizona-Idaho Conservation Act of 1988m, is
amended by striking ``Sec. 32. Nothing'' and inserting the
following:

``SEC. 26. AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS FOR RELOCATION ASSISTANCE
REGARDLESS OF PLACE OF RESIDENCE.

Nothing''.

TITLE II--PERSONNEL OF THE OFFICE OF NAVAJO AND HOPI INDIAN RELOCATION

SEC. 201. RETENTION PREFERENCE.

The second sentence of section 3501(b) of title 5, United
States Code, is amended--
(1) by striking by striking ``or'' after ``Senate'' and
inserting a comma;
(2) by striking ``or'' after ``Service'' and inserting a
comma; and
(3) by inserting '', or to an employee of the Office of
Navajo and Hopi Indian Relocation before the period.

SEC. 202. SEPARATION PAY.

(a) In General.--Chapter 55 title 5, United States Code, is
amended by adding at the end the following new section:

``Sec. 5598 Separation pay for certain employees of the
Office of Navajo and Hopi Indian Relocation

``(a) In General.--Except as provided in subsections (b)
and (c), the Commissioner of the Office of Navajo and Hopi
Indian Relocation shall establish a program to offer
separation pay to employees of the Office of Navajo and Hopi
Indian Relocation (hereafter in this section referred to as
the `Office') in the same manner as the Secretary of
Defense offers separation pay to employees of a defense
agency under section 5597.
``(b) Separation Pay.--
``(1) In general.--Under the program establish under
subsection (a), the Commissioner of the Office may offer
separation pay only to employees within the occupational
groups or at pay levels that will minimize disruption of
ongoing Office programs at the time that the separation pay
is offered.
``(2) Requirement.--Any separation pay offered under this
subsection shall--
``(A) be paid in a lump sum;
``(B) be in an amount equal to $25,000, if paid on or
before December 31, 1998;
``(C) be in an amount equal to $20,000, if paid after
December 31, 1998, and before January 1, 2000;
``(D) be in an amount equal to $15,000, if paid after
December 31, 1999, and before January 1, 2001;
``(E) not--
``(i) be a basis for payment;
``(ii) be considered as income for the purposes of
computing any other type of benefit provided by the Federal
Government; and
``(F) if an individual is otherwise entitled to receive any
severance pay under section 5595 on the basis of any other
separation, not be payable in addition to the amount of the
severance pay to which that individual is entitled under
section 5595.
``(c) Prohibition.--No amount shall be payable under this
section to any employee of the Office for any separation
occurring after December 30, 2000.''
(b) Conforming Amendment.--The chapter analysis for chapter
55 of title 5 is amended by adding at the end the following
new item:

``5598. Separation pay for certain employees of the Office of Navajo
and Hopi Indian Relocation.''.

SEC. 203. IMMEDIATE RETIREMENT.

Section 8336(j)(1)(B) of title 5, United States Code, is
amended by inserting ``or was employed by the Office of
Navajo and Hopi Indian Relocation during the period beginning
on January 1, 1990, and ending on the date of separation of
that employee'' before the final comma.

SEC. 204. COMPUTATION OF ANNUITY.

Section 8339(d) of title 5, United States Code is amended
by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(8) The annuity of an employee of the Office of Navajo
and Hopi Indian Relocation described in section 8336(j)(1)(B)
shall be determined under subsection 9a), except that with
respect to service of that employee on or after January 1,
1990, the annuity of that employee shall be--
``(A)(i) 2\1/2\ percent of the employee's average pay;
multiplied by
``(ii) so much of the employee's service on or after
January 1, 1990, as does not exceed 10 years; plus
``(B)(i) a percent of the average pay of the employee;
multiplied by
``(ii) so much of the service of the employee on or after
January 1, 1990, as exceeds 10 years.''.

SEC. 205. IMMEDIATE RETIREMENT.

Section 8412 of title 5, United States Code, is amended by
adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(i) An employee of the Office of Navajo and Hopi Indian
Relocation is entitled to an annuity if that employee--
``(1) has been continuously employed in the Office of
Navajo and Hopi Indian Relocation during the period beginning
on January 1, 1990, and ending on the date of separation
of that individual; and
``(2)(A) has completed 25 years of service at any age; or
``(B) has attained the age of 50 years and has completed 20
years of service.''.

SEC. 206. COMPUTATION OF BASIC ANNUITY.

Section 8415 of title 5, United States Code, is amended by
adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(h) The annuity of an employee retiring under section
8412(i) shall be determined under subsection (d), except that
with respect to service during the period beginning on
January 1, 1990, the annuity of the employee shall be--
``(1)(A) 2 percent of the average pay of that individual;
multiplied by
``(B) so much of the total service of that individual as
does not exceed 10 years; plus
``(2)(A) 1\1/2\ percent of the average pay of the
individual; multiplied by
``(B) so much of the total service of that individual as
exceeds 10 years.''.

TITLE III--TRANSFER OF FUNCTIONS AND SAVINGS PROVISIONS

SEC. 301. DEFINITIONS.

For purposes of this title, unless otherwise provided or
indicated by the context--
(1) the term ``Federal agency'' has the meaning given to
the term ``agency'' by section 551(1) of title 5, United
States Code;
(2) the term ``function'' means any duty, obligation,
power, authority, responsibility, right, privilege, activity,
or program; and
(3) the term ``office'' includes any office,
administration, agency, institute, unit, organizational
entity, or component thereof.

SEC. 302. TRANSFER OF FUNCTIONS.

Effective on the date specified in section 307, there are
transferred to the Department of the Interior all functions
which Office of Navajo and Hopi Relocation exercised before
the date of the enactment of this title (including all
related functions of any officer or employee of the Office of
Navajo and Hopi Relocation) relating to functions of the
Office that have not been fully discharged, as determined in
accordance with the Act commonly known as the ``Navajo-Hopi
Land Settlement Act of 1974'' (Public law 93-531; 25 U.S.C.
640 et seq.).

SEC. 303. TRANSFER AND ALLOCATIONS OF APPROPRIATIONS.

Except as otherwise provided in this Act and the amendments
made by this Act, the assets, liabilities, contracts,
property, records, and unexpended balances of appropriations,
authorizations, allocations, and other funds employed, used,
held, arising from, available to, or to be made available in
connection with the functions transferred by this title,
subject to section 1531 of title 31, United States Code,
shall be transferred to the Department of the Interior.
Unexpended funds transferred pursuant to this section shall
be used only for the purposes for which the funds were
originally authorized and appropriated.

SEC. 304. SAVINGS PROVISIONS.

(a) Continuing Effect of Legal Documents.--All orders,
determinations, rules, regulations, permits, agreements,
grants, contracts, certificates, licenses, registrations,
privileges, and other administrative actions--
(1) which have been issued, made, granted, or allowed to
become effective by the President, any Federal agency or
official thereof, or be a court of competent jurisdiction, in
the performance of functions which are transferred under
this title, and
(2) which are in effect at the time this title takes
effect, or were final before the effective date of this title
and are to become effective on or after the effective date of
this title,

shall continue in effect according to their terms until
modified, terminated, superseded, set aside, or revoked in
accordance with law by the President, the Secretary of the
Interior or other authorized official, a court of competent
jurisdiction, or by operation of law.
(b) Proceeding Not Affected.--The provisions of this title
shall not affect any proceedings, including notices of
proposed rulemaking, or any application for any license,
permit, certificate, or financial assistance pending before
the Office of Navajo and Hopi Relocation at the time this
title takes effect, with respect to functions transferred by
this title but such proceedings and applications shall be
continued. Orders shall be issued in such proceedings,
appeals shall be taken therefrom, and payments shall be made
pursuant to such orders, as if this title had not been
enacted, and orders issued in any such proceedings shall
continue in effect until modified, terminated, superseded, or
revoked by a duly authorized official, by a court of
competent jurisdiction, or by operation of law. Nothing in
this subsection shall be deemed to prohibit the
discontinuance or modification of any such proceeding under
the same terms and conditions and to the same extent that
such proceeding could have been discontinued or modified if
this title had not been enacted.
(c) Suits Not Affected.--The provisions of this title shall
not affect suits commenced before the effective date of this
title, and in

[[Page S11184]]

all such suits, proceedings shall be had, appeal taken, and
judgments rendered in the same manner and with the same
effect as if this title had not been enacted.
(d) Nonabatement of Actions.--No suit, action, or other
proceeding commenced by or against Office of Navajo and Hopi
Relocation, or by or against any individual in the official
capacity of such individual as an Office of Navajo and Hopi
Relocation, shall abate by reason of the enactment of this
title.
(e) Administrative Actions Relating to Promulgation of
Regulations.--Any administrative action relating to the
preparation or promulgation of a regulation by Office of
Navajo and Hopi Relocation relating to a function transferred
under this title may be continued by the Department of the
Interior with the same effect as if this title had not been
enacted.
____

Section-By-Section Summary of the Navajo-Hopi Land Settlement Act
Amendments of 1996

Section 1. Short Title. This section provides that the bill
may be cited as the ``Navajo-Hopi Land Settlement Act
Amendments of 1996''.

Title I--Amendments to the Navajo-Hopi Land Settlement Act of 1974

Section 101. References. This section provides that
whenever an amendment or repeal is expressed in this Act it
shall be considered to be made to a section of the Navajo-
Hopi Land Settlement Act of 1974 (25 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 640 et
seq.).
Section 102. Amendments to the Navajo and Hopi Settlement
Act. This section sets forth amendments to the Navajo-Hopi
Land Settlement Act of 1974.
Subsection (a) repeals six sections of the Act in their
entirety: Section 1 (25 U.S.C. Sec. 640d) relating to the
appointment and duties of the mediator; Section 2 (25 U.S.C.
Sec. 640d-1) relating to the appointment and duties of the
Navajo and Hopi negotiating teams; Section 3 (25 U.S.C.
Sec. 640-d-2) relating to the implementation of any
agreements reached by the tribal negotiating teams; Section 4
(25 U.S.C. Sec. 640d-3) relating to the procedures to be used
by the mediator and the Federal District Court in the event
that the tribal negotiating teams did not reach agreement;
Section 5 (25 U.S.C. Sec. 640d-4) relating to other
recommendations by the mediator to the Federal District
Court; Section 30 (25 U.S.C. Sec. 640d-28) relating to the
provision of life estates to Navajos residing on lands
partitioned to the Hopi Tribe.
Subsection (b) redesignates section 6 (25 U.S.C. Sec. 640d-
5) as section 1 and amends the provisions of this section
relating to the partition of the former Joint Use Area of the
1882 Executive Order reservation.
Paragraph (2) amends section 7 by renaming it ``Joint
Ownership of Minerals'' and redesignates it as section 2.
Paragraph (3) redesignates section 8 (25 U.S.C. Sec. 640d-
7) as section 3 and amends the section by repealing
subparagraph (f) which contained special provisions related
to the payment of legal fees for the San Juan Southern Paiute
Tribe prior to the time of its Federal recognition.
Paragraph (4) redesignates section 9 (25 U.S.C. Sec. 640d-
8) as section 4 and retitles it ``Paiute Indian Allotments''.
Paragraph (5) redesignates section 10 (25 U.S.C. Sec. 640d-
9) as section 5 and by amending it to strike references to
Navajo life estates.
Paragraph (6) redesignates section 11 (25 U.S.C. Sec. 640d-
10) as section 6 and amending it to provide for the
termination of the Commissioner's authority to select lands
for the Navajo Nation on September 30, 2000. This section of
the Act is further amended to authorize the Commissioner to
make homesites available to extended family members of those
Navajos who are certified eligible for relocation benefits in
order to facilitate the relocation program.
Paragraph (7) redesignates section 12 (25 U.S.C. Sec. 640d-
11) as section 7. This section of the Act is amended to
provide for: the termination of the Office of Navajo and Hopi
Indian Relocation on September 30, 2001; the transfer of any
remaining duties or functions, resources, funds, property and
staff of the Office to the Secretary of the Department of the
Interior in accordance with Title III of this Act; the
establishment of an Office of Relocation in the Office of the
Secretary which shall remain in existence until the Secretary
determines that its functions have been fully discharged.
Paragraph (8) retitles section 13 (25 U.S.C. Sec. 640d-12)
as ``Report Concerning Relocation of Households and Members
of Each Tribe.''
Paragraph (9) redesignates section 14 (25 U.S.C. Sec. 640d-
13) as section 8. This section of the Act is amended to
delete a reference in subsection (a) to the filing of the
relocation plan and the completion of the relocation program.
A new subsection (d) is added to prohibit the payment of any
benefits to any head of household who has not been certified
eligible by September 30, 2001.
Paragraph (10) redesignates section 15 (25 U.S.C.
Sec. 640d-14) as section 9. This section of the Act is
amended by adding a new subsection (e) which requires the
Commissioner to notify the Secretary of any eligible
relocatees who have left the lands partitioned to the tribe
of which they are not members, but who have not received a
replacement home by September 30, 2001 and to transfer to the
Secretary the funds necessary to provide such homes. The
Secretary is authorized to hold such funds in trust for each
head of household until such time as the head of household
requests the construction of a replacement home. If the
Secretary still holds the funds in trust for a head of
household at the time of the death of the head of household,
then the funds shall be distributed to the heirs of the head
of household upon attaining 18 years of age and shall no
longer be held in trust.
Paragraph (10) further amends the Act by adding a new
subsection (f) which directs the Commissioner to implement
the provisions of 25 C.F.R. Sec. 700.138 within 180 days
after the date of enactment of these amendments. Upon the
expiration of all time periods in 25 C.F.R. Sec. 700.138,
the Commissioner shall provide the notices to the
Secretary and the United States Attorney for the District
of Arizona which are required by 25 C.F.R. Sec. 700.139.
At any time prior to July 1, 1999, the Commissioner is
authorized to construct a replacement home within 90 days
of the receipt of a notice from the Secretary or the
United States Attorney for the District of Arizona that
the removal of a relocatee from the lands partitioned to
the Hopi Tribe is imminent.
Finally, paragraph (10) provides that the Act is also
amended by striking the existing subsection (g) and inserting
in lieu thereof a new subsection (i) which authorizes the
Commissioner to establish an expedited procedure for reaching
final determinations on any appeals from denials of
eligibility. The Commissioner must provide a final notice, by
mail and/or publication, to anyone who may have a right to an
eligibility determination within 30 days from the enactment
of the amendments and all requests for such determinations
must be filed within 180 days from the date of such notice.
A new subsection (j) is added to this section of the Act to
authorize the Commissioner to contract for services and
employ personnel in order to provide for eligibility
determinations and appeals. Upon request, the Director of the
Office of Hearings and Appeals of the Department of the
Interior shall provide a qualified hearing officer to the
Commissioner to assist in hearings to review eligibility
determinations.
A new subsection (k) is added to this section of the Act to
provide for a final and expedited appeal of any final
eligibility determinations by the Office to the Circuit Court
of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. All such appeals shall be
filed within 30 days of the final action by the Office and
the Court shall complete its review within 60 days after
receipt of the certified record from the Office. All such
appeals shall be reviewed on the basis of the certified
record and any denial of eligibility which is supported by
substantial evidence shall be affirmed.
Paragraph (11) redesignates section 16 (25 U.S.C.
Sec. 640d-15) as section 10 and retitles it ``Payment of Fair
Rental Value for Use of Lands''.
Paragraph (12) redesignates section 17 (25 U.S.C.
Sec. 640d-16) as section 11 and retitles it ``Statutory
Construction''.
Paragraph (13) redesignates section 18 (25 U.S.C.
Sec. 640d-17) as section 12 and retitles it ``Actions for
Accounting, Fair Value of Grazing, and Claims for Damages to
Land''.
Paragraph (14) redesignates section 19 (25 U.S.C.
Sec. 640d-18) as section 14 and retitles it ``Reduction in
Livestock with Joint Use''.
Paragraph (15) redesignates section 20 (25 U.S.C.
Sec. 640d-19) as section 15 and retitles it ``Perpetual Use
of Cliff Springs for Religious Ceremonial Uses; Piping of
Water for Use by Residents''.
Paragraph (16) redesignates section 21 (25 U.S.C.
Sec. 640d-20) as section 16 and retitles it ``Use and Right
of Access to Religious Shrines on Reservation of Other
Tribe''.
Paragraph (17) redesignates section 22 (25 U.S.C.
Sec. 640d-21) as section 17 and retitles it ``Exclusion of
Payments from Certain Federal Determination of Income''.
Paragraph (18) redesignates section 23 (25 U.S.C.
Sec. 640d-22) as section 18 and retitles it ``Authorization
for Exchange of Reservation Lands''.
Paragraph (19) redesignates section 24 (25 U.S.C.
Sec. 640d-23) as section 19 and retitles it ``Severability of
Provisions''.
Paragraph (20) redesignates section 25 (25 U.S.C.
Sec. 640d-24) as section 20 and amends this section in
subsection (a) by providing authorizations for appropriations
of such sums as may be necessary for fiscal years 1998
through 2002. The authority for appropriations for the
mediator, life estates and special discretionary funds for
the Commissioner is repealed.
Paragraph (21) repeals section 26 (88 Stat. 1723).
Paragraph (22) redesignates section 27 (25 U.S.C.
Sec. 640d-25) as section 21 and amends it by repealing
subsections (a) and (b) and retitling it ``Funding and
Construction of Hopi High School and Medical Center.''
Paragraph (23) redesignates section 28 (25 U.S.C.
Sec. 640d-26) as section 22 and adding a new subsection (c)
to require all construction activities to be undertaken in
compliance with 16 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 469a-1 through 469c and
declaring that such compliance shall also be deemed to be
compliance with P.L. 89-665, as amended, and P.L. 96-95, as
amended.
Paragraph (24) redesignates section 29 (25 U.S.C.
Sec. 640d-27) as section 23 and retitles it ``Attorney Fees,
Costs and Expenses for Litigation or Court Action''.
Paragraph (25) redesignates section 31 (25 U.S.C.
Sec. 640d-29) as section 24 and retitles it ``Lobbying''.
Paragraph (26) redesignates section 32 (25 U.S.C.
Sec. 640d-30) as section 25 and retitles it ``Navajo
Rehabilitation Trust Fund''.
Paragraph (27) redesignates section 32 (25 U.S.C.
Sec. 640d-31) as section 26 and retitles it

[[Page S11185]]

``Availability of Funds for Relocation Assistance Regardless
of Place of Residence''.

Title II. Personnel of the Office of Navajo and Hopi Indian Relocation

This Title contains six amendments to Title 5 of the United
States Code, as follows:
Section 201. Retention Preference. This section amends
paragraph (b) of section 3501 to exclude employees of the
Office of Navajo and Hopi Indian Relocation from reduction-
in-force regulations.
Section 202. Separation Pay. This section amends section
5597 to provide a new paragraph (a)(3) and new subsections
(h) and (i) to include employees of the Office of Navajo and
Hopi Indian Relocation in the provisions for voluntary
separation incentive payments.
Section 203. Immediate Retirement. This section amends
section 8336 to include employees of the Office of Navajo and
Hopi Indian Relocation in paragraph (1) to make them eligible
for early or optional retirement programs.
Section 204. Computation of Annuity. This section amends
subsection (d) of section 8336 to modify the retirement
computations for those employees of the Office of Navajo and
Hopi Indian Relocation who can retire under early or optional
retirement regulations.
Section 205. Immediate Retirement. This section amends
section 8412 by adding a new subsection (g) to include
employees of the Office of Navajo and Hopi Indian Relocation
in the provisions for annuities.
Section 206. Computation of Basic Annuity. This section
amends section 8415 by adding a new subsection (g) to modify
the annuity computations for those employees of the Office of
Navajo and Hopi Indian Relocation who are eligible for
annuities.

Title III--Transfer of Functions and Savings Provisions

Section 301. Definitions. This section sets out the
definitions used in this title.
Section 302. Transfer of Functions. This section provides
for the transfer of all of the functions of the Office of
Navajo and Hopi Relocation that have not been fully
discharged to the Department of the Interior.
Section 303. Transfer and Allocations of Appropriations.
This section provides that the assets, liabilities,
contracts, property, records and unexpended balances of
appropriations, allocations and other funds related to the
functions transferred under this title, shall be transferred
to the Department of the Interior.
Section 304. Savings Provisions. This section provides that
all orders, determinations, rulings, regulations, permits,
agreements, grants, contracts, licenses, privileges and other
administrative actions shall have continuing legal effect
until modified, superseded, set aside or revoked in
accordance with or by operation of law. It also provides that
proceedings, including notices of proposed rulemaking, and
lawsuits commenced before the effective date of this title
shall not be affected by the transfer.
Section 305. Separability. This section provides that if a
provision of this title is held invalid, the remainder of the
title shall remain unaffected.
Section 306. References. This section provides that any
reference to the Commissioner of the Office of Navajo and
Hopi Relocation and the Office of Relocation shall be deemed
to refer to the Secretary of the Interior and the Office of
Relocation of the Department of Interior respectively.
Section 307. Effective Date. This section provides that
this title shall take effect on September 30, 2001.
______

Mr. Mr. FORD:
S. 2112. A bill to revise the boundary of the Abraham Lincoln
Birthplace National Historic Site in Larue County, KY, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.

the abraham lincoln birthplace national historic site boundary revision
act of 1996

Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the
bill be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:

S. 2112

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

SECTION 1. REVISION OF BOUNDARY OF ABRAHAM LINCOLN BIRTHPLACE
NATIONAL HISTORIC SITE.

(a) In General.--On acquisition of the land known as Knob
Creek Farm pursuant to subsection (b), the boundary of the
Abraham Lincoln Birthplace National Historic Site,
established by the Act of July 17, 1916 (39 Stat. 385,
chapter 247; 16 U.S.C. 211 et seq.), is revised to include
the land.
(b) Acquisition of Knob Creek Farm.--The Secretary of the
Interior may acquire, by donation only, the approximately 228
acres of land known as Knob Creek Farm in Larue County,
Kentucky.
______

By Mr. KERRY:
S. 2113. A bill to increase funding for child care under the
temporary assistance for needy families program; to the Committee on
Finance.

the working families' child care assistance act

<bullet> Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, today I am introducing the ``Working
Families' Child Care Assistance Act'' to help the many working families
who face great struggles to find affordable, good-quality child care.
Mr. President, we no longer live in an era when one parent generally
stays at home full time to take care of the children. Today, 60 percent
of women with children younger than six are in the labor force. The
result is that approximately 7 million children of working parents are
cared for each month by someone other than a parent. And most of these
children spend 30 hours or more each week in child care, according to
the National Research Council.
New research also confirms that our current social reality has placed
enormous strains on working families' budgets because many families
must pay for child care. According to a new study of 100 child care
centers entitled ``Cost, Quality, and Child Outcomes in Child Care
Centers,'' families spend an average of $4,940 per year to provide
services for each enrolled child. Annual child care costs of this size
represent a whopping 28 percent of $17,481, which is the yearly income
of an average family in the bottom two-fifths of the income scale.
But even for families who can afford the cost of child care, in some
communities child care continues to be hard to obtain at any cost. Mr.
President, in 1994, 36 States reported State child care assistance
waiting lists, according to the children's defense fund. Eight States
had at least 10,000 children waiting for assistance. Georgia's list was
the longest with 41,000, while in Texas the list had 36,000 names and a
wait of about 2 years. In Massachusetts, the statewide waiting list
contains the names of 4,000 working families. Additionally, a 1995 U.S.
General Accounting Office [GAO] study found that shortages of child
care for infants, sick children, children with special needs, and
school-age children before and after school pose difficulties for many
families.
I believe the child care situation may worsen because of a provision
which I did not support in the recently passed welfare reform bill
which cuts the title XX social services block grant by 15 percent. Many
States currently use this funding to pay for child care for working
families; unfortunately, this cut will result in even more families
needing child care assistance.
Mr. President, it is time to provide help to working families to
afford quality child care. My bill would double the funding through the
child care development block grant, increasing child care funding by $1
billion per year. This would result in more than 5,000 families in
Massachusetts alone receiving child care help.
Working parents face an extraordinary uphill battle in trying to make
ends meet and cover the high cost of child care. Well over half the
women in the work force are parents of preschool children, and they
need access to affordable, quality child care they can trust. This bill
provides real help to working families and hopefully will send a strong
signal that their work and their efforts to provide reliable child care
for their children is valued and supported.
______

By Mr. AKAKA:
S. 2114. A bill to amend the Animal Welfare Act to ensure that all
dogs and cats used by research facilities are obtained legally, and for
other purposes; to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and
Forestry.

the pet safety and protection act of 1996

<bullet> Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Pet
Safety and Protection Act of 1996, a bill to amend the Animal Welfare
Act to ensure that all dogs and cats used by research facilities are
obtained legally.
Medical research is an invaluable weapon in the battle against
disease. New drugs and surgical techniques offer promise in the fight
against AIDS, cancer, Alzheimer's, heart disease, and a host of other
life-threatening illnesses. Orthopedic surgeons are making tremendous
progress in designing new and improved joint-replacement materials for
patients. Emergency medical techniques, such as CPR, have saved
thousands of lives since they were developed.
What do these advancements in medicine have in common? Animal
research helped make them possible. Animal research ensures that drugs
and surgical techniques, which benefit millions of

[[Page S11186]]

people every day, are safe and effective. Animal research is of great
importance to our future, but there is growing evidence that, in some
instances, research is being carried out using family pets that have
been fraudulently obtained from the owners who love them.
The concern that has prompted me to introduce the Pet Safety and
Protection Act of 1996 does not relate to whether animals should or
should not be used in medical research. Rather, this bill provides a
sensible solution to the growing problem of stray and stolen pets being
sold to research facilities. It addresses problems caused by unethical
Class B ``random source'' animal dealers. The Pet Safety and Protection
Act of 1996 will safeguard family pets while allowing essential
research to continue in an environment free from deception and abuse.
According to the USDA's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
[APHIS], there are 4,325 licensed animal dealers in the United States.
About 1,100 of these dealers are licensed by APHIS as Class B ``random
source'' animal dealers. This means that these dealers do not breed the
animals themselves, but obtain their dogs and cats from other sources.
Unfortunately, there is significant evidence to conclude that many
Class B ``random source'' dealers are profiteering through theft or by
deceptively acquiring animals. For example, in 1995, 50 class B dealers
supplied 24,000 of the 89,000 dogs used for research. APHIS
investigations of these dealers found that up to 50 percent engaged in
fraudulent record-keeping practices. In other words, up to 11,000 of
the dogs sold to medical facilities in 1995 may have been obtained
through pet theft, falsified records, and other unscrupulous
techniques.
The provisions of current law are impossible to enforce effectively.
In response to evidence of repeated violations of Federal law by Class
B ``random source'' dealers, I have introduced the Pet Safety and
Protection Act of 1996. This legislation will ensure that dogs and cats
used by research facilities are obtained from legitimate sources.
The problem of pet theft should not be left unchecked. Dr. Robert
Whitney, former director of the Office of Animal Care and Use at the
National Institutes of Health recently declared that, ``The continued
existence of these virtually unregulatable Class B dealers erodes the
public confidence in our commitment to appropriate procurement, care,
and use of animals in the important research to better the health of
both humans and animals.'' it is in the interests of consumers, pet
owners, and researchers alike, to see that animals used for research
purposes are obtained legitimately and treated with respect.
I urge all of my colleagues to join in supporting this
legislation.<bullet>
______

By Mr. MOYNIHAN:
S. 2116. A bill to facilitate efficient investments and financing of
infrastructure projects and new job creation through the establishment
of a National Infrastructure Development Corporatoin, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on Finance.

THE NATIONAL INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 1996

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce legislation
today that I hope, at the very least, will draw attention to the
interesting possibilities of how private capital might be joined with
public funding of our Nation's infrastructure. The bill is designed to
facilitate investment in, and the financing of, infrastructure
projects--which generate good-paying jobs--through the creation of a
self-sustaining entity, the National Infrastructure Development
Corporation.
In 1991, I sponsored the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency
Act [ISTEA]. One provision called for the establishment of an
Infrastructure Investment Commission. Public investments in
infrastructure have been declining, and so the Commission was charged
with looking at ways to encourage the investment of private capital.
The Commission was chaired by Daniel V. Flanagan, Jr. Under his able
direction, the Commission released a report early in 1993. I found it
truly compelling, and I look forward to revisiting the Commission's
recommendations as we prepare for ISTEA II. In short, we would do well
to listen to Mr. Flanagan, again, as we reauthorize our vitally
important transportation infrastructure policies in the 105th Congress.
There will be hearings, of course, and we look forward to testimony
from the Commission as to its recommendations. I would like to point
out that our colleague, Senator Hutchison from Texas, served as a
member of the Commission; and I certainly look forward to working with
her as the Environment and Public Works Committee takes up this most
important matter next year.
I would like to note that significant infrastructure investment
activity by U.S. pension funds is occurring daily overseas,
particularly in Asia and Latin America. A good part of this has been
prompted by the evolution of the independent power generation spawned
by the action of our Congress in creating such entities as part of the
Energy Policy Act of 1992. As a result, we now have a project finance
industry in existence in this country assisting those American funds in
such infrastructure investment overseas. Also, current policies of the
Overseas Private Investment Corporation, the Export Import Bank, and
the World Bank, encourage this type of overseas investment through
credit enhancements, political risk insurance, and so forth.
The problem in the United States is that we have never provided such
credit enhancement disciplines in our own infrastructure network.
Clearly, there is significant political risk for the entrepreneur, the
architect, the engineer, and even the community group that seeks to
develop improvements and novel and innovative ways of paying for such
services. The Commission's report suggests a ``growing of the pie''
approach to leverage some of our public funds by encouraging such
private investment, and suggests that leverage ratios of approximately
10 to 18 times the public funds involved are attainable.

Recommendations of the Commission and Mr. Flanagan, who has testified
several times before Congress on this subject, are incorporated in this
legislation. For example, it suggests various insurance initiatives,
particularly in the area of development risk, as well as other
innovative procedures, including the reinsurance of long term revenue
streams that would allow new economic activity to ensure either in the
construction of new or rehabilitation of existing facilities.
I commend my colleagues in the House of Representatives, particularly
the Democratic leadership there, for introducing this measure in that
body earlier this year. To me this is a bipartisan effort and we
welcome the support of our Republican colleagues. This legislation, the
National Infrastructure Development Act of 1996, is by no means the
final word on this subject. But I do recommend it to all of my
colleagues for their examination and hope it proves sufficient to
stimulate their interest in this ingenious approach to such an exciting
matter.

____________________