[Pages S4588-S4606]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

By Mr. BUMPERS (for himself, Ms. Landrieu, Mr. Cleland, Mr.
Kerry, and Mr. Daschle):
S. 745. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to modify
the partial exclusion from gross income of gain on certain small
business stock, to provide a rollover of capital gains on certain small
business investments, and for other purposes; to the Committee on
Finance.

THE SMALL BUSINESS CAPITAL GAINS ENHANCEMENT ACT OF 1997

Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Small
Business Capital Gains Enhancement Act of 1997, which will make several
important improvements to section 1202 of the Internal Revenue Code, a
measure I authored in 1993 to provide an incentive for investment in
entrepreneurial efforts. Section 1202 provides a 50 percent exclusion
for capital gains from qualified small business stock held at least 5
years.
The purpose of section 1202 is clear. Because small businesses are
inherently riskier than large businesses,

[[Page S4589]]

most investors are reluctant to invest in the smaller enterprises.
This, obviously, tends to create a dearth of capital for entrepreneurs.
But maintaining a healthy investment environment for small businesses
is extremely important for the well-being of our economy. Most new jobs
come from small businesses, not large ones. From 1991-95, businesses
with fewer than 500 employees created 22 million new jobs, while
businesses of greater than 500 employees cut 3 million jobs. And it was
because of this dynamic small business impact on our economy that
Congress passed section 1202 with great bipartisan support in both
chambers: we wanted to create a capital formation incentive for small
business.
Now, for two reasons, it has become crucial that we make certain
improvements to section 1202. First, section 1202 is not adequate. The
small business incentive I originally proposed in 1993 was considerably
more extensive than section 1202. After years of discussions among
entrepreneurs and tax experts regarding what would be helpful and
workable, we had determined that the incentive should, for example,
include companies of up to $100 million in assets, allow corporate
investors, and not be subject to the alternative minimum tax. But
because of budget concerns during the Omnibus Reconciliation Act of
1993, the proposal was scaled back to include only companies of $50
million or less, allow no corporate investors, and subject 50 percent
of the benefit to the alternative minimum tax. The bill my cosponsors
and I are introducing today will expand section 1202 to provide the
kind of incentive originally envisioned and more.
The second reason that today's legislation is crucial is to preserve
the incentive in the face of other impending capital gains cuts which
would effectively nullify it. As we all know, it appears that we are
headed toward an across-the-board capital gains cut following the
recent budget agreement between the Clinton administration and
Republican congressional leaders. Ironically, an across-the-board cut
could obliterate the small business incentive if the latter is not
adjusted accordingly.

Here is how that would happen. Under the GOP capital gains proposal
in S. 2, the top regular capital gains rate will be 19.8 percent, while
the top rate for small business capital gains will remain at 14
percent. In other words, an investor could buy stock in, say,
Microsoft, hold that stock 1 year, sell the stock, and, if a gain were
realized, pay a maximum tax of 19.8 percent. Alternatively, the
investor could make that investment in, say, a new biotech firm, hold
that stock 5 years, sell the stock, and, if a gain were realized, pay a
maximum tax of 14 percent. The logical choice would be clear: the
investor would choose the big business over the small business. After
all, who would choose a risky 5-year small business investment over a
1-year Microsoft investment for a tax differential of only 5.8 percent?
Clearly, a major across-the-board tax cut without a corresponding
increase in the exclusion for small business investments will
obliterate section 1202's effectiveness. Small business will be left
without a viable capital gains incentive.
Not only would the situation described above nullify the small
business incentive for the future, it would be unfair to those who have
already made small business investments based on section 1202--those
who accepted the risk of investing in a small business stock for the
promise of preferential capital gains treatment. We would be saying,
``Thanks for taking a risk with your small business investment, but
we've decided to change the rules. We're gonna give you about the same
tax rate we give other people for their less-risky Fortune 500
investments.'' As a matter of fairness to those who have already
invested in a small business based on section 1202, we must maintain a
substantial difference between small business and big business capital
gains taxes. This bill will make that adjustment by increasing the
exclusion for small business capital gains from 50 percent to 75
percent.
Here is a list of all the improvements our legislation would make to
section 1202. Increase the small business deduction from 50 percent to
75 percent; increase the asset limit for ``qualified small businesses''
from $50 to $100 million; make the incentive available to corporate
investors; exempt the incentive from alternative minimum tax
calculations; change the working capital spend-down period (intended to
prevent abuse through inactivity) from 2 years to 5 years to allow
companies to raise adequate capital before beginning to spend it;
increase the per-taxpayer benefit limit to $20 million or 10 times
investment. Presently, the limit is $10 million or 10 times investment;
and allow the tax-deferred rollover of capital gains from one qualified
small business to another.

Although we have not yet received a Joint Tax Committee revenue
estimate on this measure, it would appear from previous estimates to
cost under $500 million over 5 years and under $1 billion over 10
years. Compared to the cost of an across-the-board capital gains tax
cut and other major tax cuts being considered by this Congress, this is
a pittance.
Mr. President, section 1202 is the major, if not the only, capital
formation incentive for small business in the entire Tax Code. It would
be a tragedy and a slap in the face of America's entrepreneurs if we
fail to maintain this measure in viable form. The bill we are
introducing today will do that, and I urge my colleagues to support it.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in
the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:

S. 745

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ``Small Business Capital Gains
Enhancement Act of 1997''.

SEC. 2. MODIFICATIONS TO EXCLUSION OF GAIN ON CERTAIN SMALL
BUSINESS STOCK.

(a) Increased Exclusion.--
(1) In general.--Subsection (a) of section 1202 of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to 50-percent
exclusion for gain from certain small business stock) is
amended--
(A) by striking ``50 percent'' and inserting ``75
percent'', and
(B) by striking ``50-percent'' in the heading and inserting
``75-percent''.
(2) Conforming amendments.--
(A) The heading for section 1202 of such Code is amended by
striking ``50-percent'' and inserting ``75-percent''.
(B) The table of sections for part I of subchapter P of
chapter 1 of such Code is amended by striking ``50-percent''
in the item relating to section 1202 and inserting ``75-
percent''.
(b) Exclusion Available to Corporations.--
(1) In general.--Subsection (a) of section 1202 of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended by subsection (a),
is amended by striking ``other than a corporation''.
(2) Technical amendment.--Subsection (c) of section 1202 of
such Code is amended by adding at the end the following new
paragraph:
``(4) Stock held among members of controlled group not
eligible.--Stock shall not be treated as qualified small
business stock if such stock was at any time held by any
member of the parent-subsidiary controlled group (as defined
in subsection (d)(3)) which includes the qualified small
business.''
(c) Repeal of Minimum Tax Preference.--
(1) In general.--Section 57(a) of the Internal Revenue Code
of 1986 (relating to items of tax preference) is amended by
striking paragraph (7).
(2) Technical amendment.--Section 53(d)(1)(B)(ii)(II) of
such Code is amended by striking ``, (5), and (7)'' and
inserting ``and (5)''.
(d) Stock of Larger Businesses Eligible for Exclusion.--
(1) Section 1202(d)(1) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986
(relating to qualified small business) is amended by striking
``$50,000,000'' each place it appears and inserting
``$100,000,000''.
(2) Section 1202(d) of such Code is amended by adding at
the end the following new paragraph:
``(4) Inflation adjustment of asset limitation.--In the
case of stock issued in any calendar year after 1997, the
$100,000,000 amount contained in paragraph (1) shall be
increased by an amount equal to--
``(A) such dollar amount, multiplied by
``(B) the cost-of-living adjustment determined under
section 1(f)(3) for the calendar year in which the taxable
year begins, determined by substituting `calendar year 1996'
for `calendar year 1992' in subparagraph (B) thereof.

If any amount as adjusted under the preceding sentence is not
a multiple of $1,000,000, such amount shall be rounded to the
next lower multiple of $1,000,000.''
(e) Per-Issuer Limitation.--Section 1202(b)(1)(A) of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to per-issuer
limitation on taxpayer's gain) is amended by striking
``$10,000,000'' and inserting ``$20,000,000''.
(f) Other Modifications.--

[[Page S4590]]

(1) Working capital limitation.--Section 1202(e)(6) of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to working capital)
is amended by striking ``2 years'' each place it appears and
inserting ``5 years''.
(2) Redemption rules.--Section 1203(c)(3) of such Code
(relating to certain purchases by corporation of its own
stock) is amended by adding at the end the following new
subparagraph:
``(D) Waiver where business purpose.--A purchase of stock
by the issuing corporation shall be disregarded for purposes
of subparagraph (B) if the issuing corporation establishes
that there was a business purpose for such purchase and one
of the principal purposes of the purchase was not to avoid
the limitation of this section.''
(g) Effective Dates.--
(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), the
amendments made by this section shall apply to stock issued
after the date of the enactment of this Act.
(2) Special rule.--The amendments made by subsection (c),
(e), and (f) shall apply to stock issued after August 10,
1993.

SEC. 3. ROLLOVER OF CAPITAL GAINS ON CERTAIN SMALL BUSINESS
INVESTMENTS.

(a) In General.--Part III of subchapter O of chapter 1 of
the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to common
nontaxable exchanges) is amended by adding at the end the
following new section:

``SEC. 1045. ROLLOVER OF GAIN ON SMALL BUSINESS INVESTMENTS.

``(a) Nonrecognition of Gain.--In the case of the sale of
any eligible small business investment with respect to which
the taxpayer elects the application of this section, gain
from such sale shall be recognized only to the extent that
the amount realized on such sale exceeds--
``(1) the cost of any other eligible small business
investment purchased by the taxpayer during the 6-month
period beginning on the date of such sale, reduced by
``(2) any portion of such cost previously taken into
account under this section.

This section shall not apply to any gain which is treated as
ordinary income for purposes of this subtitle.
``(b) Definitions and Special Rules.--For purposes of this
section--
``(1) Purchase.--The term `purchase' has the meaning given
such term by section 1043(b)(4).
``(2) Eligible small business investment.--Except as
otherwise provided in this section, the term `eligible small
business investment' means any stock in a domestic
corporation, and any partnership interest in a domestic
partnership, which is originally issued after December 31,
1996, if--
``(A) as of the date of issuance, such corporation or
partnership is a qualified small business entity,
``(B) such stock or partnership interest is acquired by the
taxpayer at its original issue (directly or through an
underwriter)--
``(i) in exchange for money or other property (not
including stock), or
``(ii) as compensation for services (other than services
performed as an underwriter of such stock or partnership
interest), and
``(C) the taxpayer has held such stock or interest at least
6 months as of the time of the sale described in subsection
(a).

A rule similar to the rule of section 1202(c)(3) shall apply
for purposes of this section.
``(3) Active business requirement.--Stock in a corporation,
and a partnership interest in a partnership, shall not be
treated as an eligible small business investment unless,
during substantially all of the taxpayer's holding period for
such stock or partnership interest, such corporation or
partnership meets the active business requirements of
subsection (c). A rule similar to the rule of section
1202(c)(2)(B) shall apply for purposes of this section.
``(4) Qualified small business entity.--
``(A) In general.--The term `qualified small business
entity' means any domestic corporation or partnership if--
``(i) such entity (and any predecessor thereof) had
aggregate gross assets (as defined in section 1202(d)(2)) of
less than $25,000,000 at all times before the issuance of the
interest described in paragraph (2), and
``(ii) the aggregate gross assets (as so defined) of the
entity immediately after the issuance (determined by taking
into account amounts received in the issuance) are less than
$25,000,000.
``(B) Aggregation rules.--Rules similar to the rules of
section 1202(d)(3) shall apply for purposes of this
paragraph.
``(c) Active Business Requirement.--
``(1) In general.--For purposes of subsection (b)(3), the
requirements of this subsection are met by a qualified small
business entity for any period if--
``(A) the entity is engaged in the active conduct of a
trade or business, and
``(B) at least 80 percent (by value) of the assets of such
entity are used in the active conduct of a qualified trade or
business (within the meaning of section 1202(e)(3)).

Such requirements shall not be treated as met for any period
if during such period the entity is described in subparagraph
(A), (B), (C), or (D) of section 1202(e)(4).
``(2) Special rule for certain activities.--For purposes of
paragraph (1), if, in connection with any future trade or
business, an entity is engaged in--
``(A) startup activities described in section 195(c)(1)(A),
``(B) activities resulting in the payment or incurring of
expenditures which may be treated as research and
experimental expenditures under section 174, or
``(C) activities with respect to in-house research expenses
described in section 41(b)(4),

such entity shall be treated with respect to such activities
as engaged in (and assets used in such activities shall be
treated as used in) the active conduct of a trade or
business. Any determination under this paragraph shall be
made without regard to whether the entity has any gross
income from such activities at the time of the determination.
``(3) Certain rules to apply.--Rules similar to the rules
of paragraphs (5), (6), (7), and (8) of section 1202(e) shall
apply for purposes of this subsection.
``(d) Certain Other Rules To Apply.--Rules similar to the
rules of subsections (f), (g), (h), and (j) of section 1202
shall apply for purposes of this section, except that a 6-
month holding period shall be substituted for a 5-year
holding period where applicable.
``(e) Basis Adjustments.--If gain from any sale is not
recognized by reason of subsection (a), such gain shall be
applied to reduce (in the order acquired) the basis for
determining gain or loss of any eligible small business
investment which is purchased by the taxpayer during the 6-
month period described in subsection (a).
``(f) Statute of Limitations.--If any gain is realized by
the taxpayer on the sale or exchange of any eligible small
business investment and there is in effect an election under
subsection (a) with respect to such gain, then--
``(1) the statutory period for the assessment of any
deficiency with respect to such gain shall not expire before
the expiration of 3 years from the date the Secretary is
notified by the taxpayer (in such manner as the Secretary may
by regulations prescribe) of--
``(A) the taxpayer's cost of purchasing other eligible
small business investments which the taxpayer claims results
in nonrecognition of any part of such gain,
``(B) the taxpayer's intention not to purchase other
eligible small business investments within the 6-month period
described in subsection (a), or
``(C) a failure to make such purchase within such 6-month
period, and
``(2) such deficiency may be assessed before the expiration
of such 3-year period notwithstanding the provisions of any
other law or rule of law which would otherwise prevent such
assessment.
``(g) Regulations.--The Secretary shall prescribe such
regulations as may be appropriate to carry out the purposes
of this section, including regulations to prevent the
avoidance of the purposes of this section through splitups,
shell corporations, partnerships, or otherwise and
regulations to modify the application of section 1202 to the
extent necessary to apply such section to a partnership
rather than a corporation.''
(b) Conforming Amendment.--Paragraph (23) of section
1016(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended--
(1) by striking ``or 1044'' and inserting ``, 1044, or
1045'', and
(2) by striking ``or 1044(d)'' and inserting ``, 1044(d),
or 1045(e)''.
(c) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections for part III
of subchapter O of chapter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code of
1986 is amended by adding at the end the following new item:

``Sec. 1045. Rollover of gain on small business investments.''

(d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to taxable years ending after December 31, 1996.

Mr. CLELAND. Mr. President, I rise this morning, to join my good
colleague from Arkansas in support of the Small Business Capital Gains
Enhancement Act of 1997.
Today, our country's economy is more robust and is growing faster
than it has in the last decade and maybe even the last several decades.
Fostering this growth is crucial to sustain the great and important
strides that our economy has made in these past years and I believe
that this legislation will go a long way to improving incentives for
investment in small businesses. Cutting the capital gains tax in this
targeted fashion is something that small businesses have time and again
asked for because they know, as we all do, that investing in small
businesses and providing capital for that investment creates growth
and, more importantly, jobs.
Small businesses have had a striking impact on Georgia's economy.
They are vital as job creators, and their diversity and composition
provide a work force with endless opportunities and are easily the envy
of the country.
Mr. President, according to the SBA, 97.6 percent of the business
firms in Georgia are small businesses. Women-owned businesses have
increased 62.7 percent since 1987. African American owned firms have
increased 79.8 percent between 1987 and 1992. Hispanic firms, including
part-time businesses, grew 184.9 percent in the same period of time. So
the impact of this legislation is huge. These figures are numbers that
corporate investors cannot--cannot--

[[Page S4591]]

ignore, but if section 1202 of the Internal Revenue Code doesn't allow
them to invest in these small businesses, then I believe we are missing
out on far more than the taxes that we collect as the law is now. We
must make certain that these investors have every opportunity to become
involved in the growing of small businesses. These are the ideal
investors, they recognize that, and so should we, Mr. President.
I wish to add support to my colleague's comments that across-the-
board cuts, while they may sound wonderful, can in fact have a negative
impact toward small businesses as they compete with big businesses for
investment dollars. It is important to maintain the differences between
small business and big business capital gains taxes. Making adjustment
in the present law and fine tuning where needed is smarter, in my
opinion, than the alternatives of wide ranging or all encompassing
legislative action.

This is an affordable tax cut and one that puts important capital
dollars in the coffers of the men and women of this country who are
creating jobs, creating economic opportunity, and giving hope to the
country and I believe hope to our great future. I believe many of our
colleagues will join us in our commitment to the small businesses of
this country. I thank my friend from the wonderful State of Arkansas
for his leadership and the opportunity to participate here with him
this morning. This is a great opportunity that I look forward to
supporting.
Mr. President, I yield the floor and any time that may remain.
______

By Mr. LEVIN:
S. 746. A bill to reaffirm and clarify the Federal relationship of
the Burt Lake Band as a distinct federally recognized Indian tribe, and
for other purposes; to the Committee on Indian Affairs.

The Burt Lake Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians Act

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill to
reaffirm the Federal recognition of the Burt Lake Band of Ottawa and
Chippewa Indians. This legislation will reestablish the government-to-
government relations of the United States and the Burt Lake Band. This
is the same legislation which I introduced last Congress and which was
originally introduced in the 103d Congress by my friend and colleague,
Senator Donald Riegle.
Federal recognition for Burt Lake is vitally important for a variety
of reasons. With this process completed the Band can move on to the
tasks of improving the economic and social welfare of its people. More
important however, passage of this legislation will clarify that the
Burt Lake Band is a historically independent tribe.
The Band is named after Burt Lake, a small inland lake about 20 miles
south of the straits of Mackinac. The Band already had deep roots in
the area when a surveyor named Burt inspected the area in 1840. During
the 1800's, the Burt Lake Band was a signatory to several Federal
treaties, including the 1836 Treaty of Washington and the 1855 Treaty
of Detroit. These treaties were enacted for the purpose of securing
territory for settlement and development.
During the mid-1800's, the Federal Government turned over to the
State of Michigan annuity moneys on the Band's behalf in order to
purchase land. This land was later lost by the Band through tax sales,
although trust land is nontaxable. The Band was subsequently evicted
from their village. In 1911, the Federal Government brought a claim on
behalf of Burt Lake against the State of Michigan. The autonomous
existence of the Band at this stage is clear.
Although the Band has never had its Federal status legally
terminated, the Bureau of Indian Affairs since the 1930's has not
accorded the Band that status nor treated the Band as a federally
recognized tribe. The Burt Lake Band, as well as the other tribes
located in Michigan's lower peninsula were improperly denied the right
to reorganize under the terms of the Indian Reorganization Act of 1934
even though they were deemed eligible to do so by the Indian Service at
that time.
My Michigan colleague, Congressman Dale Kildee, has sponsored a
similar piece of legislation. I look forward to the consideration of
this legislation by the respective committees in both the Senate and
the House and its enactment into law. I also ask unanimous consent that
a copy of this bill be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:

S. 746

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ``Burt Lake Band of Ottawa and
Chippewa Indians Act''.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

Congress finds that--
(1) the Burt Lake Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians are
descendants and political successors to the signatories of
the treaty between the United States and the Ottawa and
Chippewa nations of Indians at Washington, D.C. on March 28,
1836 (7 Stat. 491 et seq.), and the treaty between the United
States and the Ottawa and Chippewa Indians of Michigan at
Detroit on July 31, 1855 (11 Stat. 621 et seq.);
(2) the Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians,
the Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians, and the Bay
Mills Band of Chippewa Indians, whose members are also
descendants of the signatories to the treaties referred to in
paragraph (1), have been recognized by the Federal Government
as distinct Indian tribes;
(3) the Burt Lake Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians
consists of over 650 eligible members who continue to reside
close to their ancestral homeland as recognized in the
reservations of lands under the treaties referred to in
paragraph (1) in the area that is currently known as
Cheboygan County, Michigan;
(4) the Band continues to exist and carry out political and
social activities with a viable tribal government;
(5) the Band, along with other Michigan Odawa and Ottawa
groups, including the tribes described in paragraph (2),
formed the Northern Michigan Ottawa Association in 1948;
(6) the Northern Michigan Ottawa Association subsequently
submitted a successful land claim with the Indian Claims
Commission;
(7) during the period between 1948 and 1975, the Band
carried out many governmental functions through the Northern
Michigan Ottawa Association, and at the same time retained
control over local decisions;
(8) in 1935, the Band submitted a petition under the Act of
June 18, 1934 (commonly referred to as the ``Indian
Reorganization Act'') (48 Stat. 984 et seq., chapter 576; 25
U.S.C. 461 et seq.), to form a government on behalf of the
Band;
(9) in spite of the eligibility of the Band to form a
government under the Act referred to in paragraph (8), the
Bureau of Indian Affairs failed to act on the petition
referred to in that paragraph; and
(10) from 1836 to the date of enactment of this Act, the
Federal Government, the government of the State of Michigan,
and political subdivisions of the State have had continuous
dealings with the recognized political leaders of the Band.

SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

In this Act:
(1) Band.--The term ``Band'' means the Burt Lake Band of
Ottawa and Chippewa Indians.
(2) Member.--The term ``member'' means any individual
enrolled in the Band pursuant to section 7.
(3) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of the Interior.

SEC. 4. FEDERAL RECOGNITION.

(a) Federal Recognition.--Congress reaffirms the Federal
recognition of the Burt Lake Band of Ottawa and Chippewa
Indians.
(b) Applicability of Federal Laws.--Each provision of
Federal law (including any regulation) of general application
to Indians or Indian nations, tribes, or bands, including the
Act of June 18, 1934 (commonly referred to as the ``Indian
Reorganization Act'') (48 Stat. 984 et seq., chapter 576; 25
U.S.C. 461 et seq.), that is inconsistent with any specific
provision of this Act shall not apply to the Band or any of
its members.
(c) Federal Services and Benefits.--
(1) In general.--
(A) In general.--The Band and its members shall be eligible
for all services and benefits provided by the Federal
Government to Indians because of their status as federally
recognized Indians.
(B) Services and benefits.--Notwithstanding any other
provision of law, the services and benefits referred to in
subparagraph (A) shall be provided after the date of
enactment of this Act to the Band and its members without
regard to--
(i) whether an Indian reservation exists for the Band; or
(ii) the location of the residence of any member on or near
an Indian reservation.
(2) Service areas.--
(A) In general.--For purposes of the delivery of Federal
services to the enrolled members of the Band, the area of the
State of Michigan within a 70-mile radius of the boundaries
of the reservation for the Burt Lake Band, as set forth in
the seventh paragraph of Article I of the treaty between the
United States and the Ottawa and Chippewa Indians of
Michigan, done at Detroit on July 31, 1855 (11 Stat. 621 et
seq.), shall be deemed to be within or near an Indian
reservation.

[[Page S4592]]

(B) Effect of establishment of an indian reservation after
the date of enactment of this act.--If an Indian reservation
is established for the Band after the date of enactment of
this Act, subparagraph (A) shall continue to apply on and
after the date of the establishment of that reservation.
(C) Provision of services and benefits outside the service
area.--Unless prohibited by Federal law, the services and
benefits referred to in paragraph (1) may be provided to
members outside the service area described in subparagraph
(A).

SEC. 5. REAFFIRMATION OF RIGHTS.

(a) In General.--To the extent consistent with the
reaffirmation of the recognition of the Band under section
4(a), all rights and privileges of the Band and its members,
which may have been abrogated or diminished before the date
of enactment of this Act, are reaffirmed.
(b) Existing Rights of Tribe.--Nothing in this Act may be
construed to diminish any right or privilege of the Band or
its members that existed before the date of enactment of this
Act. Except as otherwise specifically provided, nothing in
this Act may be construed as altering or affecting any legal
or equitable claim the Band may have to enforce any right or
privilege reserved by or granted to the Band that was
wrongfully denied to the Band or taken from the Band before
the date of enactment of this Act.

SEC. 6. TRIBAL LANDS.

The tribal lands of the Band shall consist of all real
property held by, or in trust for, the Band. The Secretary
shall acquire real property for the Band. Any property
acquired by the Secretary pursuant to this section shall be
held in trust by the United States for the benefit of the
Band and shall become part of the reservation of the Band.

SEC. 7. MEMBERSHIP.

(a) In General.--Not later than 18 months after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Band shall submit to the Secretary
a membership roll consisting of all individuals currently
enrolled for membership in the Band at the time of the
submission of the membership roll.
(b) Qualifications.--The Band shall, in consultation with
the Secretary, determine, pursuant to applicable laws
(including ordinances) of the Band, the qualifications for
including an individual on the membership roll.
(c) Publication of Notice.--The Secretary shall publish
notice of receipt of the membership roll in the Federal
Register as soon as practicable after receiving the
membership roll pursuant to subsection (a).
(d) Maintenance of Roll.--The Band shall maintain the
membership roll of the Band prepared pursuant to this section
in such manner as to ensure that the membership roll is
current.

SEC. 8. CONSTITUTION AND GOVERNING BODY.

(a) Constitution.--
(1) Adoption.--Not later than 2 years after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall conduct, by secret
ballot, elections for the purpose of adopting a new
constitution for the Band. The elections shall be held
according to the procedures applicable to elections under
section 16 of the Act of June 18, 1934 (commonly referred to
as the ``Indian Reorganization Act'') (48 Stat. 987, chapter
576; 25 U.S.C. 476).
(2) Interim governing documents.--Until such time as a new
constitution is adopted under paragraph (1), the governing
documents in effect on the date of enactment of this Act
shall be the interim governing documents for the Band.
(b) Officials.--
(1) Elections.--Not later than 180 days after the Band
adopts a constitution and bylaws pursuant to subsection (a),
the Band shall conduct elections by secret ballot for the
purpose of electing officials for the Band as provided in the
governing constitution of the Band. The elections shall be
conducted according to the procedures described in the
governing constitution and bylaws of the Band.
(2) Interim governments.--Until such time as the Band
elects new officials under paragraph (1), the governing
bodies of the Band shall include each governing body of the
Band in effect on the date of the enactment of this Act, or
any succeeding governing body selected under the election
procedures specified in the applicable interim governing
documents of the Band.
______

By Mr. ROTH (for himself, Mr. Moynihan, Mr. Chafee, Mr. Graham,
Mr. Hatch, Ms. Moseley-Braun, Mr. Grassley, Mr. Baucus, Mr.
Gramm, Mr. Conrad, Mr. Nickles, Mr. Breaux, Mr. Jeffords, Mr.
Bryan, Mr. Rockefeller, Mr. Kerrey, Mr. Murkowski, Mr. D'Amato,
and Mr. Lott):
S. 747. A bill to amend trade laws and related provisions to clarify
the designation of normal trade relations; to the Committee on Finance.

normal trade relations legislation

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill to clarify
the meaning of the term, ``most-favored-nation trading status.'' I do
so because the term gives the false impression that MFN is some sort of
special privilege or reward.
In fact, MFN is not a special privilege or reward. It designates the
most ordinary, most normal trading relationship among countries. Since
the founding of our Republic, the principle of nondiscrimination
embodied in MFN has served as the cornerstone of U.S. international
trade policy.
In its most basic trade application, this principle requires a
country to apply the same tariff duty rate on a particular product from
one country as it applies to imports of the same product from all other
countries.
For example, if the U.S. tariff on imported clock radios is 5
percent, all clock radios imported from countries with MFN status are
subject to a 5-percent tariff. Imports from countries that do not have
MFN status--and there are only six countries that fall into this
category--are subject to far higher duty rates.
Another important point about MFN is that it is not a one-way street.
When we give MFN status to a particular country, that country, in
return, gives the United States most-favored-nation status.
Therefore, because we give Singapore MFN status, the clock radios we
import from that country are subject to the same tariff rates as clock
radios from Thailand, Spain, or any other country to which we extend
MFN.
In return, when Singapore imports our computer chips, it imposes the
same tariff on United States chips as those imported from Japan, Korea,
Great Britain, or any other country to which it extends MFN.
What does the United States get out of all this? American companies
get to compete on fair and equal terms with their foreign rivals.
Let me emphasize again: MFN status does not confer--let alone imply--
special treatment.
In fact, when we decide to give special treatment to imports from
other countries--as Congress has expressly chosen to do for certain
products from over 130 nations--those imports are subject to tariff
rates substantially below the MFN rate. Sometimes we even allow
specified countries to export products to the United States duty free.
In short, MFN status denotes the standard, not the exceptional,
trading relationship. Ending this standard trading relationship by
revoking MFN is an extreme measure. In fact, because MFN is so
fundamental to trade relations among countries, some correctly liken
its withdrawal to a declaration of economic war.
Because of the confusion created by the phrase, ``most-favored-nation
trading status,'' Senator Moynihan and I and virtually all the Members
of the Finance Committee have agreed to introduce legislation to
replace the phrase wherever appropriate in U.S. trade law with a more
suitable term--``normal trade relations''--a term that underscores the
unexceptional nature of the MFN concept. I believe that if we adopt
this legislation, we will all better understand the issue, and our
discussions on extending normal trade relations to various countries
will be more constructive.
It should be clear to our trading partners that creating this new
term will not alter our international rights and obligations. Rather,
in choosing the term ``normal trade relations'' we aim to describe more
accurately the nondiscriminatory principles underlying U.S. trade law
and policy.
Last year, similar legislation passed the Senate unanimously. I ask
my colleagues to do the same again this year.
Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I am pleased to join once again with the
distinguished Chairman of the Finance Committee, Senator Roth, to
reintroduce legislation that will, we believe, help to dispel the fog
that sometimes shrouds our discussions of trade policy. This bill
would, simply and directly, replace the term ``most favored nation''
with the phrase ``normal trade relations''--a more accurate, less
muddled phrase that better describes this fundamental principle of
trade policy.
The concept is well established. It has been traced by historians to
the 13th century. More particularly, to a clause in the treaty of
November 8, 1226, in which the Emperor Frederick II conceded to the
city of Marseilles the privileges previously granted to the citizens of
Pisa and of Genoa. Not greater privileges, but merely the same as had
been extended to others.
The term itself--``most favored nation''--dates to the end of the
17th century. And has been nearly as long a

[[Page S4593]]

cornerstone of American trade policy. Since the 18th century, our trade
policy has been grounded on the principle of nondiscrimination: the
vast majority of our trading partners receive treatment equal to the
treatment we give every other trading partner. In no sense can this
fairly be characterized as most favored treatment; rather it is the
treatment that we normally accord our trading partners.
And yet we continue to use that 17th century term in treaties and
agreements, in executive orders and in trade laws, a term that, even at
the beginning, was a misnomer. There is, Mr. President, no single most
favored nation. There never really was.
As noted in a 1919 report to the Congress by the United States Tariff
Commission, known today as the United States International Trade
Commission:

It is neither the purpose nor the effect of the most-
favored-nation clause to establish a ``most favored nation'';
on the contrary its use implies the intention that the
maximum of advantages which either of the parties to a treaty
has extended or shall extend to any third State--for the
moment the ``most-favored''--shall be given or be made
accessible to the other party.

That is, the most favored nation is not the nation with which we are
negotiating, but rather a third nation altogether that happens to
benefit at the moment from lower tariffs or other preferences with
respect to some particular product. The most-favored-nation principle
means merely that we will grant to our negotiating partner the same
terms that we have given to that third country, for the moment more
favored.

Little wonder, then, that the term has created confusion. And yet we
must continue to discuss the concept for the simple reason that there
exists still, in U.S. law, a very unfavorable tariff--the Smoot-Hawley
tariff (stemming from the 1930 act of the same name). This was the last
tariff schedule enacted line-by-line by the Congress and it produced
the highest tariff rates, overall, in our history. It is still on the
books, though it applies only to a handful of countries.
In response to the disaster that followed enactment of the Smoot-
Hawley tariff, which, at the time applied to all of our trading
partners, Congress authorized the Roosevelt administration to negotiate
a series of trade agreements aimed at reducing tariffs worldwide. These
efforts culminated in a series of trade agreements with individual
countries, and ultimately paved the way for a series of broad
multilateral negotiations under the auspices of the General Agreement
on Tariffs and Trade that reduced American tariffs, just as they
slashed tariffs worldwide. These much lower tariff rates are the
tariffs that we call our most-favored-nation tariff rates and they
apply, in fact, to the vast majority of countries. They are thus the
norm, and not in any way more favorable tariffs.
They are, indeed, not the lowest tariff rates that the United States
applies. We have free-trade arrangements with Canada, Israel, and
Mexico that call for the complete elimination of tariffs. We have
eliminated tariffs on certain imports from developing countries under
the Generalized System of Preferences, from Caribbean nations under the
Caribbean Basin Initiative and from Andean countries under the Andean
Trade Preferences Act. The tariff rates under these regimes are, in all
cases, lower than what we now call our most-favored-nation tariff
rates. Hence the confusion, and hence the need to find a more apt
phrase.
Mr. President, this legislation will be familiar to most of my
colleagues. The identical bill was introduced in the 104th Congress
with the cosponsorship of the entire Finance Committee and it passed
the Senate by unanimous consent. I expect that we will be able to
repeat that victory in the 105th Congress, and I hope that we can do so
promptly.
Let me underscore that this legislation in no way alters the bedrock
principles of equal treatment or nondiscrimination. It merely drops an
outdated term in favor of one that ought to help make our trade policy
more comprehensible to the American public.
Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, today Senators Roth, Moynihan, and I,
along with others on the Finance Committee, are introducing legislation
to clarify the meaning of most favored nation [MFN] trading status--a
change I have advocated for some time.
Over the past few years, MFN has gained notoriety as a special favor
that the U.S. grants to other nations. Not true. Indeed, MFN is a
misnomer if there ever was one.
Rather, MFN refers to a centuries-old concept used by all trading
nations--the concept that no nation shall be granted trade treatment
less favorable than that granted to the most-favored-nation. In other
words, no playing favorites! Every nation is to receive equal treatment
when it comes to the terms of trade.
Thus, the MFN concept represents the lowest common denominator of
trade status.
Over the centuries, this simple non-discrimination concept came to be
known as most favored nation status. Frankly, that is unfortunate. That
particular terminology has fostered the mistaken view that MFN is a
special treatment granted only to a privileged few. Yet just the
opposite is true: MFN, as the basic trading status between nations, is
granted to virtually all nations with whom the U.S. trades. The
exceptions can almost be counted on one hand: Serbia, Laos,
Afghanistan, Vietnam, Cuba, and North Korea.
In sum, while the concept of MFN is sound, the term used to denote
that concept is misleading and has resulted in a good deal of
mischief--a fact that Senators Moynihan and I have lamented often
during Senate Finance Committee hearings. It is high time that we
called the MFN nondiscrimination concept by a term that more accurately
represents its meaning.
Therefore, today my colleagues and I are introducing this bill to
amend U.S. law, where appropriate, to replace the term ``MFN'' with the
term ``NTR''; normal trade relations. From this point on, we will
discuss legislation and hold debate on the nondiscrimination concept
using the term ``NTR'' in place of MFN.
Will the concept of MFN remain the same? Yes. Are we signalling a
change in domestic policy, or modifying our international obligations
in any way? No. But we are making perfectly clear to everyone the true
meaning and purpose of this centuries-old concept. And it is my hope
that our legislation will result in a better understanding of
international trade relations, both here in the Congress and in the
eyes of the public.
Last year, Senators Roth, Moynihan, and I introduced a virtually
identical bill, again with the support of Finance Committee members.
That bill sailed through the Senate unanimously, and was sent to the
House of Representatives. However, the house was not able to act on the
bill prior to the date of adjournment of the 104th Congress. It is my
hope that by introducing this bill tody, there will be more than enough
time this year to move the measure through both chambers and send it to
the President for his signature. I therefore urge swift consideration
of our legislation by the Senate.
______

By Mr. BINGAMAN (for himself, Mrs. Hutchison, Ms. Mikulski, Mr.
Bumpers, Ms. Collins, and Mr. Robb):
S. 748. A bill to provide for college affordability and high
standards; to the Committee on Labor and Human Resources.

the college affordability and high standards act of 1997

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, during the last few years, many of us
have been trying to figure out how to solve some of the troubling
questions surrounding public education. These issues include two core
questions, one about inadequate academic standards and the the other
about the skyrocketing cost of going on to college.
What can we do to improve the standards of academic performance in
our schools and, how can we make college more affordable to more of our
students?
One very straightforward answer is to expand the number of advanced
placement courses taught in our schools and to increase the number of
students who have the opportunity to take those courses.
Let me briefly describe what an advanced placement, or AP, course
really is. The AP program is a set of college-level courses that are
usually taught to high school juniors and seniors for college credit.
They are taken on a voluntary basis. These courses are now

[[Page S4594]]

taught in a majority of our high schools. They use locally developed
materials. However, the year-end AP exams are evaluated on a uniform
basis, making test scores comparable nationwide. Overall, there are 30
different AP courses, although most students take them in the areas of
math and history and science and English.
Today, I rise to introduce the College Affordability and High
Standards Act of 1997, which is also being cosponsored by Senators
Hutchison, Mikulski, Bumpers and Collins. This legislation will allow
thousands of additional high school students to participate in AP
courses. The bill focuses on low-income and minority students who often
attend school in less affluent or in isolated areas.
I am introducing this bill based in part on several recent visits to
New Mexico high schools, where I learned that what students want is
more well-trained teachers. They are asking for more challenging
academic work. In my home State, in schools like West Mesa High School
in Albuquerque and Las Cruces High School, AP students told me they
never thought they could succeed in classes that are this challenging.
There is great satisfaction and pride, evidenced by their ability to
succeed.
While it may seem new, this is not an entirely new approach to
raising academics and lowering college costs. In fact, we have had
legislation proposed before by Senator Kassebaum and a bipartisan group
of other Members, which became law in 1992 and is still in effect. We
are just building on this approach. In addition, Secretary Riley, the
late President of the AFT Al Shanker, and Boston Schools Superintendent
Tom Payzant have spoken out on this.
Most importantly, 23 States today provide some type of incentive
program to encourage more AP participation. I have a chart I want to
show my colleagues to make the point, which shows where there are
initiatives to promote AP instruction.
The States in white do not have an incentive program in place. We
need to supplement the 23 States listed on this map with AP programs in
the other 27 States, and we need to have every State in the Union
promoting more advance placement courses. In essence, that is the
purpose of this legislation.
There is a long-outdated myth that I want to address very briefly
about what type of students take these AP courses. There has been in
the past the impression that AP courses are only for the elite. The
truth is, more and more students from minority groups from various
backgrounds are taking AP courses today, as this chart shows, with out
a decrease in rigor or quality.
Roughly 1.5 million students participated--80 percent from public
schools, 55 percent female, and 30 percent minority.
Almost 60 percent of all high schools offered AP courses, and over
800,000 exams were taken.
As a result of this growth, the AP program is the most widely
accepted program of high academic standards in the nation.

THE BENEFITS OF PARTICIPATING IN AP

Participation is skyrocketing and States are spending funds on AP
largely because of the benefits of the program:
AP test scores of 3 or better are valuable because they are accepted
for credit at nearly 3,000 colleges and universities nationwide.
AP programs raise academic standards in schools and improve students'
academic performance in college.
For students who plan to go directly to work, AP programs provide a
world-class education with high-level skills that can be easily
compared among prospective job candidates.

GROWTH IN MINORITY PARTICIPATION

Largely as a result of the 23 State AP incentive programs, overall
participation and in particular the number of minority participants
have increased tremendously:
The overall number of exams taken by minorities has increased to over
200,000 students in 1996--an increase of 36,000 students--21 percent--
in just 2 years.
Minority participation in the New Mexico program increased 74 percent
for Hispanic students and 950 percent for native Americans from 1994 to
1996.
Participation among Hispanics in Texas nearly tripled over the last 4
years, from under 2,000 students to over 5,000.
These figures are showing us that low-income and underserved students
have the same ability to meet the academic challenge and the same need
to lower college costs.

STATE PROGRAMS

Each of the States trying to increase AP participation does it a
little bit differently, with annual budgets that range from $50,000 to
over $2 million.
Some States focus more on training more AP teachers, some on helping
schools with start-up funding for new classes and labs, and others on
subsidizing part of the AP test fee for some students.
However, despite the growing number of State programs, AP programs
are still often distributed unevenly among regions, States, and even
among high schools in the same districts.
Some States like Texas are quickly catching up to the rising national
participation rate by dedicating a significant amount of consistent
State funding.
Meanwhile, other States such as New Mexico are struggling to keep up,
with relatively small annual budgets that rise and fall each year.

WHAT THE LEGISLATION DOES

The legislation I am introducing today will both help the remaining
States start new programs and help the States that are already involved
continue and expand their efforts.
To help expand access to these courses more evenly, this legislation
is designed to accommodate the variety of programs that States have
designed.
At its core, the bill focuses on supporting State programs that help
increase AP participation among underserved groups of students, and
helping pay for part of the AP test fees for low-income students.
In addition, it would help make AP programs a part of other federal
education initiatives, encouraging States and districts to use
education technology and teacher training funds to provide AP courses
to underserved areas.
Several Star Schools and State Eisenhower Program grantees are
already taking this approach, with tremendous success being reported.

CONCLUSION

Let me conclude by pointing out that this approach has a long,
bipartisan history, and was originally advocated by Members including
Senators Stevens, Kassebaum, and Seymour, as well as Congressmen
Cunningham, Goodling, Owens, Becerra, and Miller.
Having seen from New Mexico's experience what tremendous good can
come out of even a small investment in AP incentives.
For these reasons, I urge my colleagues to consider the many benefits
of this approach and support this legislation and the $6 million
appropriations request for 1998 that has already been made by the
administration.
Mr. President, I encourage my colleagues to support this legislation
as the session proceeds.
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. 748

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ``College Affordability and
High Standards Act of 1997''.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSES.

(a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
(1) far too many students are not being provided sufficient
academic preparation in secondary school, which results in
limited employment opportunities, college dropout rates of
over 25 percent for the first year of college, and
remediation for almost one-third of incoming college
freshmen;
(2) there is a growing consensus that raising academic
standards, establishing high academic expectations, and
showing concrete results are at the core of improving public
education;
(3) modeling academic standards on the well-known program
of advanced placement courses is an approach that many
education leaders and almost half of all States have
endorsed;
(4) advanced placement programs already are providing
almost 30 different college-level courses, serving almost 60
percent of all secondary schools, reaching a 1,500,000
student population (of which 80 percent attend public
schools, 55 percent are females, and 30 percent are
minorities), and providing test scores that are accepted for
college credit at

[[Page S4595]]

almost 3,000 colleges and universities, every university in
Germany, France, and Austria, and most institutions in Canada
and the United Kingdom;
(5) 24 States are now funding programs to increase
participation in advanced placement programs, including 19
States that provide funds for advanced placement teacher
professional development, 3 States that require that advanced
placement courses be offered, 10 States that pay the fees for
advanced placement tests for some or all students, and 4
States that require that their universities grant uniform
academic credit for scores of 3 or better on advanced
placement tests; and
(6) the State programs described in paragraph (5) have
shown the responsiveness of schools and students to such
programs, raised the academic standards for both students
participating in such programs and other children taught by
teachers who are involved in advanced placement courses, and
shown tremendous success in increasing enrollment,
achievement, and minority participation in advanced placement
programs.
(b) Purposes.--The purposes of this Act are--
(1) to encourage more of the 600,000 students who take
advanced placement courses but do not take advanced placement
exams each year to demonstrate their achievements through
taking the exams;
(2) to build on the many benefits of advanced placement
programs for students, which benefits may include the
acquisition of skills that are important to many employers,
Scholastic Aptitude Tests (SAT) scores that are 100 points
above the national averages, and the achievement of better
grades than the grades of students who have not participated
in the programs;
(3) to support State and local efforts to raise academic
standards through advanced placement programs, and thus
further increase the number of students who participate and
succeed in advanced placement programs;
(4) to increase the availability and broaden the range of
schools that have advanced placement programs, which programs
are still often distributed unevenly among regions, States,
and even secondary schools within the same school districts,
while also increasing and diversifying student participation
in the programs;
(5) to build on the State programs described in subsection
(a)(5) and demonstrate that larger and more diverse groups of
students can participate and succeed in advanced placement
programs; and
(6) to provide access to advanced placement courses for
secondary school juniors at schools that do not offer
advanced placement programs, increase the rate of secondary
school juniors and seniors who participate in advanced
placement courses to 25 percent of the secondary school
student population, and increase the numbers of students who
receive advanced placement test scores for which college
academic credit is awarded.

SEC. 3. ADVANCED PLACEMENT DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM GRANTS.

(a) Grants Authorized.--
(1) In general.--Subject to subsection (e) and from amounts
appropriated under the authority of subsection (g) for a
fiscal year, the Secretary shall award grants, on a
competitive basis, to eligible entities for the fiscal year
to enable the eligible entities to carry out the authorized
activities described in subsection (c).
(2) Duration and payments.--
(A) Duration.--The Secretary shall award a grant under this
section for a period of 3 years.
(B) Payments.--The Secretary shall make grant payments
under this section on an annual basis.
(3) Definition of eligible entity.--In this section, the
term ``eligible entity'' means a State educational agency, or
in the case of a State for which the State educational agency
does not receive a grant under this section, a local
educational agency in the State.
(b) Priority.--In awarding grants under this section the
Secretary shall give priority to eligible entities submitting
applications under subsection (d) that demonstrate--
(1) a pervasive need for access to advanced placement
incentive programs;
(2) the involvement of business and community organizations
in the activities to be assisted;
(3) a focus on developing or expanding advanced placement
programs and participation in the core academic areas of
English, mathematics, and science; and
(4) the availability of matching funds from State or local
sources.
(c) Authorized Activities.--An eligible entity may use
grant funds under this section to expand access for low-
income individuals to advanced placement incentive programs
that involve--
(1) teacher training;
(2) preadvanced placement course development;
(3) curriculum coordination and articulation between grade
levels that prepares students for advanced placement courses;
(4) curriculum development; and
(5) any other activity related to expanding access to and
participation in advanced placement incentive programs for
low-income individuals.
(d) Application.--Each eligible entity desiring a grant
under this section shall submit an application to the
Secretary at such time, in such manner, and accompanied by
such information as the Secretary may require.
(e) Special Rule.--The Secretary shall award a grant under
this section for a fiscal year only if the College Board
expends for the College Board Fee Assistance Program for the
fiscal year at least the amount of funds the College Board
expended for the program for the preceding fiscal year.
(f) Data Collection and Reporting.--
(1) Data collection.--Each eligible entity receiving a
grant under this section shall annually report to the
Secretary--
(A) the number of advanced placement tests taken by
students served by the eligible entity;
(B) the scores on the advanced placement tests; and
(C) demographic information regarding individuals taking
the advanced placement tests.
(2) Report.--The Secretary shall annually compile the
information received from each eligible entity under
paragraph (1) and report to Congress regarding the
information.
(g) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized
to be appropriated to carry out this section $25,000,000 for
fiscal year 1998, and such sums as may be necessary for each
of the 4 succeeding fiscal years.

SEC. 4. ADDITIONAL PRIORITIES FOR ADVANCED PLACEMENT.

(a) Student Incentives.--
(1) Byrd scholarships.--Section 419G(a) of the Higher
Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1070d-37(a)) is amended by
adding at the end the following: ``The criteria shall take
into consideration participation and performance in advanced
placement courses.''.
(2) Dissemination of advanced placement information.--Each
institution of higher education receiving Federal funds for
research or for programs assisted under the Higher Education
Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1001 et seq.)--
(A) shall distribute to secondary school counselors or
advanced placement coordinators in the State information with
respect to the amount and type of academic credit provided to
students at the institution of higher education for advanced
placement test scores; and
(B) shall standardize, not later than 4 years after the
date of enactment of this Act, the form and manner in which
the information described in subparagraph (A) is disseminated
by the various departments, offices, or other divisions of
the institution of higher education.
(b) State and Local Initiatives.--
(1) Javits gifted and talented students.--Section 10205(a)
of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20
U.S.C. 8035(a)) is amended--
(A) in paragraph (1), by striking ``and'' after the
semicolon;
(B) in paragraph (2), by striking the period and inserting
``; and''; and
(C) by adding at the end the following:
``(3) to programs and projects for gifted and talented
students that build on or otherwise incorporate advanced
placement courses and tests.''.
(2) Upward bound program.--Section 402C of the Higher
Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1070a-13) is amended by
adding at the end the following:
``(f) Priority.--The Secretary shall give priority in
awarding grants under this section to upward bound projects
that focus on increasing secondary school student
participation and success in advanced placement courses.''.
(3) Eisenhower professional development.--
(A) Federal activities.--Section 2101 of the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6621) is amended
by adding at the end the following:
``(c) Priority.--The Secretary shall give priority in
awarding grants and entering into contracts and cooperative
agreements under this part to activities that involve
training in advanced placement instruction.''.
(B) State and local activities.--Section 2207 of the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C.
6647) is amended--
(i) in paragraph (12), by striking ``and'' after the
semicolon;
(ii) in paragraph (13), by striking the period and
inserting ``; and''; and
(iii) by adding at the end the following:
``(14) providing professional development activities
involving training in advanced placement instruction.''.
(4) Technology.--
(A) Star schools.--Section 3204 of the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6894) is amended
by adding at the end the following:
``(i) Advanced Placement Instruction.--Each eligible entity
receiving funds under this part is encouraged to deliver
advanced placement instruction to underserved communities.''.
(B) Education technology grants.--Subpart 2 of part A of
title III of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of
1965 (20 U.S.C. 6841 et seq.) is amended--
(i) in section 3134 (20 U.S.C. 6844)--

(I) in paragraph (5), by striking ``and'' after the
semicolon;
(II) in paragraph (6), by striking the period and inserting
``; and''; and
(III) by adding at the end the following:

``(7) providing education technology for advanced placement
instruction.''; and
(ii) in section 3136(c) (20 U.S.C. 6846(c))--

(I) in paragraph (4), by striking ``and'' after the
semicolon;

[[Page S4596]]

(II) in paragraph (5), by striking the period and inserting
``; and''; and
(III) by adding at the end the following:

``(6) the project will use education technology for
advanced placement instruction.''.

SEC. 5. ADVANCED PLACEMENT TEST FEE REDUCTION PROGRAM.

Part G of title XV of the Higher Education Amendments of
1992 (20 U.S.C. 1070a-11 note) is amended to read as follows:

``PART G--ADVANCED PLACEMENT TEST FEE REDUCTION PROGRAM

``SEC. 1545. ADVANCED PLACEMENT TEST FEE REDUCTION PROGRAM.

``(a) Grants Authorized.--
``(1) In general.--Subject to subsection (g) and from
amounts appropriated under the authority of subsection (j)
for a fiscal year, the Secretary shall award grants to State
educational agencies for the fiscal year to enable the State
educational agencies to carry out the authorized activities
described in subsection (d).
``(2) Amount.--
``(A) In general.--The Secretary shall award a State
educational agency a grant under this section for a fiscal
year in an amount based on $25 for each eligible low-income
individual in the State who takes an advanced placement test
for the fiscal year.
``(B) Adjustments.--The Secretary may adjust the dollar
figure in subparagraph (A) to reflect changes in inflation or
in amounts appropriated under the authority of subsection
(j).
``(b) Information Dissemination.--The State educational
agency shall disseminate information on the activities
assisted under this section to low-income individuals through
secondary school teachers and guidance counselors.
``(c) Priority.--The Secretary shall give priority in
awarding grants under this section for a fiscal year to State
educational agencies serving States that--
``(1) expend State funds--
``(A) to lower advanced placement test fees for eligible
low-income individuals; or
``(B) to expand the State pool of teachers prepared to
teach advanced placement courses to low-income individuals or
in underserved communities;
``(2) use more than a negligible amount of funds provided
under title II of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act
of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6601 et seq.) or other Federal funds to
increase participation in advanced placement incentive
programs; or
``(3) operate, on the date of enactment of the College
Affordability and High Standards Act of 1997, an advanced
placement incentive program.
``(d) Authorized Activities.--A State educational agency
may use grant funds under this section for activities that
are related to expanding access for low-income individuals or
in underserved communities to advanced placement tests, and
involve--
``(1) establishing or expanding an advanced placement test
fee reduction program for eligible low-income individuals
that may include--
``(A) varying the amount or type of advanced placement test
fee reimbursement for eligible low-income individuals; or
``(B) establishing a sliding scale advanced placement test
fee reimbursement program based on an eligible low-income
individual's annual gross income; or
``(2) only in the case of a State that operates an advanced
placement test fee reduction program on the date of enactment
of the College Affordability and High Standards Act of 1997,
expanding the program or carrying out any activity that meets
the requirements of subparagraph (A) or (B) of subsection
(c)(1).
``(e) Special Rules.--
``(1) Remaining funds.--If any funds authorized to be
appropriated under the authority of subsection (j) for a
fiscal year remain available after the Secretary awards
grants to State educational agencies under this section for
the fiscal year, then the Secretary shall use the remaining
funds to award grants under this section for the succeeding
fiscal year.
``(2) Maintenance of effort.--The State educational agency,
in utilizing the proceeds of a grant received under this
section, shall maintain the expenditures of the State
educational agency for advanced placement incentive programs
at a level of such expenditures maintained by the State
educational agency for the fiscal year preceding the fiscal
year for which the grant is received.
``(f) Application.--Each State educational agency desiring
a grant under this section shall submit to the Secretary an
application at such time, in such manner, and accompanied by
such information as the Secretary may require.
``(g) Requirement.--The Secretary shall award a grant under
this section for a fiscal year only if the College Board
expends for the College Board Fee Assistance Program for the
fiscal year at least the amount of funds the College Board
expended for such program for the preceding fiscal year.
``(h) Data Collection and Reporting.--
``(1) Data collection.--Each State educational agency
receiving a grant under this section shall annually report to
the Secretary--
``(A) the number of advanced placement tests taken by
students served by the State educational agency;
``(B) the scores on the advanced placement tests; and
``(C) demographic information regarding individuals taking
the advanced placement tests.
``(2) Report.--The Secretary shall annually compile the
information received from each State educational agency under
paragraph (1) and report to Congress regarding the
information.
``(i) Definitions.--In this section:
``(1) Advanced placement incentive program.--The term
`advanced placement incentive program' means a program that
provides advanced placement activities and services to low-
income individuals.
``(2) Advanced placement test.--The term `advanced
placement test' means an advanced placement test administered
by the College Board or approved by the Secretary.
``(3) Eligible low-income individual.--The term `eligible
low-income individual' means a low-income individual (as
defined in section 402A(g)(2) of the Higher Education Act of
1965 (20 U.S.C. 1070a-11(g)(2)) who is academically prepared
to successfully take an advanced placement test as determined
by a secondary school teacher or advanced placement
coordinator taking into consideration factors such as
enrollment and performance in an advanced placement course or
superior academic ability.
``(4) Secondary school; and state educational agency.--The
terms `secondary school' and `State educational agency' have
the meanings given the terms in section 14101 of the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C.
8801).
``(5) Secretary.--The term `Secretary' means the Secretary
of Education.
``(6) State.--The term `State' means each of the several
States of the United States, the District of Columbia, the
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, the United
States Virgin Islands, the Republic of the Marshall Islands,
the Federated States of Micronesia, and the Republic of
Palau.
``(j) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are
authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section
$6,000,000 for fiscal year 1998 and such sums as may be
necessary for each of the 4 succeeding fiscal years.''.

SEC. 6. DEFINITIONS.

In this Act:
(1) Advanced placement incentive program.--The term
``advanced placement incentive program'' means a program that
provides advanced placement activities and services to low-
income individuals.
(2) Advanced placement test.--The term ``advanced placement
test'' means an advanced placement test administered by the
College Board or approved by the Secretary.
(3) Eligible low-income individual.--The term ``eligible
low-income individual'' means a low-income individual (as
defined in section 402A(g)(2) of the Higher Education Act of
1965 (20 U.S.C. 1070a-11(g)(2)) who is academically prepared
to successfully take an advanced placement test as determined
by a school teacher or advanced placement coordinator taking
into consideration factors such as enrollment and performance
in an advanced placement course or superior academic ability.
(4) Institution of higher education.--The term
``institution of higher education'' has the meaning given the
term in section 1201(a) of the Higher Education Act of 1965
(20 U.S.C. 1141(a)).
(5) Local educational agency; secondary school; and state
educational agency.--The terms ``local educational agency'',
``secondary school'', and ``State educational agency'' have
the meanings given the terms in section 14101 of the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C.
8801).
(6) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of Education.
(7) State.--The term ``State'' means each of the several
States of the United States, the District of Columbia, the
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, the United
States Virgin Islands, the Republic of the Marshall Islands,
the Federated States of Micronesia, and the Republic of
Palau.
______

By Mr. DORGAN (for himself and Mr. Conrad):
S. 749. A bill to provide for more effective management of the
national grasslands, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Energy
and Natural Resources.

THE NATIONAL grasslANDS MANAGEMENT ACT

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, today I am introducing the National
Grasslands Management Act. I introduced this bill in the 104th Congress
as well. This bill applies primarily to the grasslands in the Dakotas
and half a dozen other States. I want to explain briefly what the
objective of this bill is and how it came about. North Dakota has been
particularly concerned about management reform because it embraces over
25 percent and 1.2 million acres of all national grasslands. Many North
Dakota ranching families have earned their livelihood on these lands
for several generations.
For several years, however, the ranchers in western North Dakota have
been asking for a less cumbersome approach to management of the
grasslands and both chambers of the 1995 legislature passed a
resolution unanimously asking for management reform on the grasslands
as well. Here is why.
The current regulatory regime is cumbersome mainly because the Forest

[[Page S4597]]

Service must manage the grasslands under the same framework as it does
the rest of the National Forest System. It doesn't handle efficiently
the day-to-day problems of the ranchers and grazing associations. For
example, ranchers have had to wait for as long as 2 to 3 years to get
approval for a stock tank because of the labyrinth of regulations that
the Forest Service overlays on the management of the grasslands. This
legislation will change that by removing the national grasslands from
the National Forest System and creating a new structure of rules
specifically suited to the ecology of the grasslands.
However, it is not only the rancher's needs that my bill addresses.
It will also protect a broad range of uses on the public lands. All
hunting, fishing, and recreational activities will continue as before
and environmental protections will continue actually be strengthened.
Further, it is my intention that the public must be involved in the
decisionmaking process as these new rules are implemented. Only by
working together can we solve the problems on the grasslands.
Let me reassure the conservation community that this bill, which was
originally incorporated as part of a larger grazing package during the
104th Congress, will not make grazing the dominant use of the public
lands at the expense of other uses. This bill includes specific
provisions to protect hunting and fishing, and preserves the multiple
uses of the national grasslands, preserves public participation in the
management of the grasslands and keeps the link between the Grasslands
and major environmental laws such as the Endangered Species Act, the
Clean Air Act, and the Clean Water Act.
I have worked diligently with the ranchers, environmentalists, and
other recreational users of the grasslands to ensure a balanced
approach to grasslands management. The result of that work is the
National Grasslands Management Act that I am introducing today.
The legislation explicitly states that there will be no diminished
hunting or fishing opportunities, that all applicable environmental
laws will apply to those lands, and that the grasslands will be managed
under a multiple use policy. The bill directs the Secretary to
promulgate regulations which both promote the efficient administration
of livestock agriculture and provide environmental protection
equivalent to that of the National Forest System.
In short, I believe that the National Grasslands Management Act is a
solid piece of legislation that will make the administration of the
grasslands more responsive to the people who live there, without
diminishing the rights and opportunities of other multiple users of
this public land. It will help to preserve the historic ranching
economy and lifestyle of western North Dakota and other areas in the
West will be protecting the environment. I urge my colleagues to
support this initiative.
______

By Mr. DORGAN (for himself and Mr. Conrad):
S. 750. A bill to consolidate certain mineral interests in the
National Grasslands in Billings County, North Dakota, through the
exchange of Federal and private mineral interests to enhance land
management capabilities and environmental and wildlife protection, and
for other purposes; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.

Mineral Exchange Legislation

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, today I am introducing a bill that will
facilitate a mineral exchange in western North Dakota. I introduced
this bill at the end of the last Congress and hope to move forward in
this Congress with a proposal based on that effort. The purpose of this
mineral exchange is to consolidate certain mineral estates of both the
U.S. Forest Service and Burlington Resources, formerly known as
Meridian Oil. This consolidation will produce tangible benefits to an
economically distressed region in North Dakota and also protect
environmentally-sensitive areas.
For years, the land and mineral ownership pattern in Western North
Dakota has been extremely fragmented. In many cases the Forest Service
owns and manages the surface land while private parties, such as
Burlington Resources, own the subsurface mineral estates. This
fragmentation has not only frustrated the management objectives of the
Forest Service, it has also inhibited mineral exploration and
development.
The bill will definitely promote environmental protection. By
consolidating the mineral estates, the Forest Service will have the
opportunity to protect the view-shed along the wonderfully scenic
Little Missouri River, creating a more attractive hunting, fishing, and
hiking area. Further, the mineral exchange will protect certain bighorn
sheep lambing areas. The area protected by the mineral exchange is one
of the last places that provides adequate habitat and escape cover for
bighorn sheep. The Forest Service and Burlington have already signed a
memorandum of understanding which will bolster the protection of
wildlife and wildlife habitat after the exchange is concluded. The
exchange is also supported by all major environmental groups in the
state, the Governor of North Dakota, and the Bureau of Land
Management's Dakotas Resource Advisory Council.

The bill will also strengthen the regional economy. Burlington
Resources supports this legislation. Burlington will have better
opportunities for mineral exploration and development within its
consolidated mineral estates. This increased development will benefit
not only Burlington, but also Billings County and the State of North
Dakota through increased tax revenues.
One point that I would like to make clear is that this mineral
exchange should in no way be seen as affecting the multiple uses of the
land. Current multiple uses, such as recreation, livestock grazing,
watershed protection or fish, and wildlife purposes, will continue as
before. This is not a wilderness bill, but a proposal to swap mineral
rights in order to enhance the environment and to stimulate economic
activity in a depressed area. I do not favor the designation of
wilderness within Billings County.
May I further underscore that this mineral exchange costs the U.S.
taxpayer nothing. The bill provides for an exchange of about the same
number of acres with equivalent monetary values. Yet, this no-cost
transaction will yield substantial economic, environmental, and
management dividends.
Further, the bill does not rely on the government imposing a
solution. Rather, this voluntary agreement embodies a consensus reached
between the affected parties, the mineral holders, the state and its
citizens, the environmental organizations, and the U.S. Forest Service.

Finally, may I stress that there is an urgent need for action on the
exchange. I would ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill,
letters of support from the Governor of North Dakota, the Bureau of
Land Management's Dakotas Resource Council, and the Sierra Club, and
the memorandum of understanding signed by the Forest Service and
Burlington Resources be entered into the Record in order to aid my
colleagues in their deliberations on the bill. In turn, I urge my
colleagues to support timely passage of this bill.
There being no objection, the items were ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:

S. 750

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

SECTION 1. EXCHANGE OF CERTAIN MINERAL INTERESTS IN BILLINGS
COUNTY, NORTH DAKOTA.

(a) Purpose.--The purpose of this section is to consolidate
certain mineral interests in the Little Missouri National
Grasslands in Billings County, North Dakota, through the
exchange of Federal and private mineral interests in order to
enhance land management capability and environmental and
wildlife protection.
(b) Exchange.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law--
(1) if, not later than 45 days after the date of enactment
of this Act, Burlington Resources Oil & Gas Company (referred
to in this section as ``Burlington'' and formerly known as
Meridian Oil Inc.), conveys title acceptable to the Secretary
of Agriculture (referred to in this section as the
``Secretary'') to rights and interests identified on the map
entitled ``Billings County, North Dakota, Consolidated
Mineral Exchange--November 1995'', by quitclaim deed
acceptable to the Secretary, the Secretary shall convey to
Burlington, subject to valid existing rights, by quit-claim
deed, all Federal rights and interests identified on that
map; and
(2) if Burlington makes the conveyance under paragraph (1)
and, not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of
this Act,

[[Page S4598]]

the owners of the remaining non-oil and gas mineral interests
identified on that map convey title acceptable to the
Secretary to all rights, title, and interests in the
interests held by them, by quitclaim deed acceptable to the
Secretary, the Secretary shall convey to those owners,
subject to valid existing rights, by exchange deed, all
Federal rights, title, and interests in National Forest
System lands and National Grasslands in the State of North
Dakota as are agreed to by the Secretary and the owners of
those interests.
(c) Leasehold Interests.--As a condition precedent to the
conveyance of interests by the Secretary to Burlington under
this section, all leasehold and contractual interests in the
oil and gas interests to be conveyed by Burlington to the
United States under this section shall be released, to the
satisfaction of the Secretary.
(d) Approximate Equal Value of Exchanges With Other
Interest Owners.--The values of the interests to be exchanged
under subsection (b)(2) shall be approximately equal, as
determined by the Secretary.
(e) Land Use.--
(1) Exploration and development.--The Secretary shall grant
to Burlington, and its successors and assigns, the use of
Federally-owned surface lands to explore for and develop
interests conveyed to Burlington under this Act, subject to
applicable Federal and State laws.
(2) Surface occupancy and use.--Rights to surface occupancy
and use that Burlington would have absent the exchange under
this Act on its interests conveyed under this Act shall apply
to the same extent on the federally owned surface estate
overlying oil and gas rights conveyed to Burlington under
this Act.
(f) Environmental Protection for Environmentally Sensitive
Lands.--All activities of Burlington, and its successors and
assigns, relating to exploration and development on
environmentally sensitive National Forest System lands, as
described in the ``Memorandum of Understanding Concerning
Certain Severed Mineral Estates, Billings County, North
Dakota'', executed by the Forest Service and Burlington and
dated November 2, 1995, shall be subject to the terms of the
memorandum.
(g) Map.--The map referred to in subsection (b) shall be
provided to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources of
the Senate and the Committee on Resources of the House of
Representatives, kept on file in the office of the Chief of
the Forest Service, and made available for public inspection
in the office of the Forest Supervisor of the Custer National
Forest within 45 days after the date of enactment of this
Act.
(h) Other Laws.--The exchange under subsection (b)(1) shall
be deemed to meet the requirements of all other Federal laws,
including all land exchange laws, environmental laws, and
cultural laws (such as the National Historic Preservation Act
(16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.)), and no further compliance with any
other law shall be required in order to implement the
exchanges.
(i) Continuation of Multiple Use.--Nothing in this Act
shall limit, restrict, or otherwise affect the application of
the principle of multiple use (including outdoor recreation,
range, timber, watershed, and fish and wildlife purposes) in
any area of the Little Missouri National Grasslands. Federal
grazing permits or privileges in areas designated on the map
entitled ``Billings County, North Dakota, Consolidated
Mineral Exchange--November 1995'' or those lands described in
the ``Memorandum of Understanding Concerning Certain Severed
Mineral Estates, Billings County, North Dakota'', shall not
be curtailed or otherwise limited as a result of the exchange
authorized by this Act.
____

Office of the Governor,

Bismarck, ND, July 25, 1996.
Hon. Byron L. Dorgan,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Dorgan: The State of North Dakota supports the
introduction of a bill which would implement a proposed
mineral exchange between the United States Forest Service and
Meridian Oil, Inc. This effort will advance our ``2020''
program to plan and implement sound management of the
Badlands well into the future.
Current land and mineral ownership patterns in the Bullion
Butte and Ponderosa Pine areas of the Little Missouri
National Grasslands are fragmented, thereby complicating
management of surface and mineral resources.
The proposed exchange is an opportunity to consolidate
ownership, enhance natural badlands habitat adjacent to the
Little Missouri River and facilitate mineral development
while reducing conflict by competing activities.
Finally, I have included a summary describing more
completely, the intended exchange and its effect.
Sincerely,
Edward T. Schafer,
Governor.
Enclosure.

Legislation To Effect an Exchange of Mineral Rights in the Little
Missouri National Grasslands, Billings, ND

For over a decade, the United States Forest Service (USFS)
and Meridian Oil, Inc. (Meridian) have been considering a
possible exchange of oil and gas rights in the Bullion Butte
and Ponderosa Pine areas of the Little Missouri National
Grasslands in North Dakota. The land ownership pattern in
those areas is very fragmented, with both federal and
privately owned mineral rights and federal surface and
private subsurface estates. This lack of unity between the
surface and subsurface estates and intermixture of public and
private mineral rights have complicated both effective
management of surface resource values and efficient
extraction of minerals. The USFS views an exchange to
consolidate mineral ownerships as an opportunity to protect
bighorn sheep and their habitat and the viewshed in the
Little Missouri River corridor. Meridian expects an exchange
to facilitate exploration for and development of oil and gas
by reducing the conflict such activities would have with
other sensitive Grasslands resources.
At the urging of Senator Dorgan and Governor Schafer, the
USFS and Meridian reached an agreement last year on an
exchange of certain federal and private mineral rights and
the imposition of certain constraints on Meridian oil and gas
activities. The agreement would be implemented by this
legislation.
What the legislation does. The legislation would accomplish
the following:
Direct the completion of the transfer of Meridian's mineral
rights in approximately 9,582 acres to the USFS for federal
oil and gas rights in 8,796 acres, all in Billings County,
North Dakota, within 45 days of enactment.
Authorize the exchange of any other private mineral rights
in the same area for federal mineral rights within 6 months
of enactment.
Deem the mineral rights to be transferred in the USFS/
Meridian exchange to be of equal value (since the two parties
have already negotiated the exchange and are of the informed
opinion that the values are equivalent) and require that the
other mineral rights to be transferred be of approximately
equal value.
Require Meridian, as a condition for the exchange, to
secure release of any leasehold or other contractual rights
that may have been established on the Meridian oil and gas
interests that will be exchanged.
Assure Meridian that it will have access across federal
lands to be able, subject to applicable federal and State
laws, to explore for and develop oil and gas on the interests
it will receive in the exchange and that it will have the
same surface occupancy and use rights on the interests it
will receive that it now holds on the interests to be
surrendered.
Find that the USFS/Meridian exchange meets the requirements
of other federal exchange, environmental, and cultural laws
that would apply if the exchange were to be processed without
Congressional approval and direction.
Assure that no provision of the legislation can be
interpreted to limit, restrict, or otherwise affect the
application of the principle of multiple use (including such
uses as hunting, fishing, grazing and recreation) in the
Grasslands.
In addition to facilitating the exchange, the legislation
would memorialize a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) also
negotiated and executed by the USFS and Meridian concerning
management of certain Meridian oil and gas properties that
will remain in Grasslands' areas with high surface resource
values. In particular the MOU, adopted by reference in the
legislation, obligates Meridian to make its best efforts to
locate any oil and gas facilities and installations outside
of the 1/4 mile view corridor on either side of the stretch
of the Little Missouri River being considered for designation
as a Wild and Scenic River and to access certain other
property adjacent to an important bighorn sheep lambing area
only by directional drilling.
Equally important is what the legislation does not do. It
does:
Not increase the amount of surface which the USFS controls.
The USFS currently controls the surface on essentially all
the land involved in the exchange, and this will not change
since only mineral interests will be transferred.
Not decrease the federal land available for oil and gas
development. To the contrary, in the exchange the federal
government will receive a net gain of almost 800 acres in
mineral rights that may be leased for exploration and
development by other parties. And, by consolidating federal
mineral rights which now are scattered in a checkerboard
pattern, access to them should be improved. The extent to
which existing and new federal mineral rights are leased to
private parties will be decided by the USFS in the ongoing
planning and Environmental Impact Statement for the Southern
Little Missouri Grasslands. The ``multiple use'' provision of
the legislation makes certain the legislation will not affect
that decisionmaking process.
Not decrease revenue to the county, state, and federal
governments. For the same reason that the exchange would not
decrease land available for oil and gas development, the
economic interests of taxing entities and the oil and gas
industry should not be affected significantly by the
exchange. In fact, with Meridian consolidating its mineral
holdings in a more manageable and less sensitive unit, area
oil and gas activity should increase and produce a net
positive economic effect.
Not provide either Meridian or USFS with mineral rights of
greater value than those they now hold. The USFS with the
assistance of the Bureau of Land Management, has

[[Page S4599]]

reached the conclusion that the mineral rights to be
exchanged between the USFS and Meridian are of equal value.
Some additional value will accrue to both sets of mineral
rights transferred by the exchange because of the greater
ease of access and management that will result from
consolidation. The legislation requires that any other
mineral rights exchanged by other parties under the
legislation be of approximately equal value.
Not resolve the issue of wilderness designation. Some
parties desire wilderness protection for the area. Other
parties, including Meridian, oppose wilderness designation,
and the USFS has not indicated any intent to establish a
wilderness. The legislation would not increase, or decrease,
the prospect for wilderness designation since wilderness may
be designated whether the mineral rights are privately or
publicly owned, the designation can only be accomplished by a
separate Act of Congress, and the legislation's ``multiple
use'' language makes clear the intent of Congress that the
exchange is not intended to affect the wilderness issue.
____

Dakotas Resource

Advisory Council,

Dickinson, ND, September 13, 1996.
Hon. Ed Schafer,
Governor of North Dakota, State Capitol, Bismarck, ND
Dear Governor Schafer: The Dakota Resource Advisory Council
(RAC), a 12-member body appointed by the Secretary of the
Interior, represents users of public lands in North and South
Dakota. The RAC provides opportunities for meaningful public
participation in land management decisions at the district
level and encourages conflict resolution among various
interest groups.
At our meeting in Dickinson, North Dakota on September 9,
1996, the RAC reviewed and discussed the Meridian Mineral
Exchange that you have been considering. After careful review
by our RAC, a resolution was passed indicating our support
for legislation to allow the Meridian Mineral Exchange to be
completed by the Bureau of Land Management.
Since there is considerable activity in this area, there is
a definite urgency to move this legislation in the remaining
days of this Congress. The Dakota RAC respectfully requests
the introduction and passage of legislation on the Meridian
Mineral Exchange.
If we can be of further assistance to your efforts in this
regard, we are most willing to help. District Manager, Doug
Burger, has more details with respect to the exchange and we
have asked him to assist you.
Thank you for considering the recommendations of the Dakota
RAC.
Sincerely,
Marc Trimmer, Chair,
Dakota RAC.
____

Dacotah Chapter of

the Sierra Club,

Mandan, ND, September 14, 1995.
Re meridian mineral exchange.

Hon. Byron Dorgan,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Dorgan: I am writing to convey the Sierra
Club's support for the ``agreement in principle'' for a
mineral exchange between Meridian Oil Inc. (MOI) and the
Bureau of Land management (BLM) / United States Forest
Service (USFS). This agreement follows extensive negotiations
between MOI, USFS, BLM, the North Dakota Game and Fish
Department (NDGF) and local conservation organizations.
It is my understanding that there are two components to the
agreement. Part One involves the actual exchange of the
mineral estate. Part Two outlines a Memorandum of
Understanding (MOU) between the USFS and MOI to protect the
viewshed of the Little Missouri State Scenic River while
still allowing MOI to access their minerals. The MOU also
addresses a plan to directionally drill an oil well to
protect a bighorn sheep lambing area.
I have also contacted the enclosed list of conservation
organizations and they have also stated their support for
Parts One and Two of the agreement as proposed. I join them
in urging you to introduce enabling legislation at the
earliest opportunity. Your efforts throughout this process
have been very much appreciated. Please contact me if there
is anything conservationists can do to facilitate this
mineral exchange.

conservation organizations in support of the mineral exchange

Dacotah Chapter of the Sierra Club.
National Wildlife Federation.
National Audubon Society.
Clean Water Action.
North Dakota Chapter of the Wildlife Society.
Bismarck Mandan Bird Club.
Lewis and Clark Wildlife Club.
____

Memorandum of Understanding Concerning Certain Severed Mineral Estates,
Billings County, North Dakota

The Memorandum of Understand (MOU) is between Meridian Oil
Inc. (Meridian) with offices in Englewood, Colorado and the
U.S. Forest Service, Custer National Forest (Forest Service).
The intent of the MOU is to set forth agreement regarding
development of certain oil and gas interests beneath Federal
surface. This MOU is in addition to, and does not abrogate,
any rights the United States otherwise has to regulate
activities on the Federal surface estate or any rights
Meridian otherwise has to develop the oil and gas interest
conveyed.
The provisions of this MOU shall apply to the successors
and assigns of Meridian.
The MOU may be amended by written agreement of the parties.
Section A. View Corridor--Little Missouri River
Includes the following land (Subject Lands) in Township
137N., Range 102W.:
Section 3: Lots 6, 7, 9-12, 14-17 (+) River Bottom 54.7
acres
Section 10: Kits 1-4, N\1/2\, N\1/2\SE\1/4\, SE\1/4\SE\1/4\
(+) River Bottom 7.3 acres
Section 14: Lots 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, NW\1/4\NE\1/4\., NW\1/
4\SW\1/4\, S\1/2\S\1/2\ (+) River Bottom 41.4 acres
Section 24: Lots 1-9, NE\1/4\, S\1/2\NW\1/4\, NE\1/4\NW\1/
4\ (+) River Bottom 75.84 acres
1. The purpose of this Section is to set forth the
agreements that Meridian and the Forest Service have made
concerning reasonable protection of the view from the Little
Missouri River which has been identified as potentially
suitable for classification as a Wild and Scenic River under
the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. This section of the MOU shall
remain in effect as long as the Forest Service maintains a
corridor for this purpose.
2. The Forest Service has designated a \1/4\ mile corridor
on either side of the River for protection of the view from
the River, and this Section applies to the location of
permanent improvements within said corridor and not to
temporary activities such as seismic operations within said
corridor.
3. Meridian agrees to use its best efforts to locate
permanent production facilities, well sites, roads and other
installations outside the \1/4\ mile corridor on the Subject
Lands. However, such facilities may be located within the \1/
4\ mile corridor if mutually agreed to by the parties in
writing.
4. The Forest Service agrees that Meridian may access its
minerals within or without the \1/4\ mile corridor of the
subject lands from a well or wells whose surface location is
on adjoining lands in which Meridian owns the severed mineral
estate.
Section B. Development of T.138N., R102W., Section 12: S\1/
2\
1. The purpose of this section is to set forth the
agreement that Meridian and the Forest Service have made
concerning the option to develop the mineral resources in the
S\1/2\ Section 12 from specified locations in 'Section 13,
T.138N., R.102W.
2. If, at any time, Meridian, at its sole discretion,
decides that the development potential of the S\1/2\ Section
12 justifies additional directional drilling the following
options are hereby made available to them by the Forest
Service:
A. Directional drilling from an expanded pad on the Duncan
MP#1 location in Section 13, T.138N., R.102W. or
B. Directional drilling from a location in Section 13
adjacent to the county road and screened from the bighorn
sheep lambing area located in Section 12.
If Meridian elects to develop the S\1/2\ Section 12 from
one of the specified locations in Section 13, surface
disturbing activities related to development and production
will only be allowed from June 16 through October 14,
annually.
3. This section of the MOU shall remain in effect as long
as the S\1/2\ of Section 12 is subject to the present, or a
future, oil and gas lease.

Steven L. Reinert,

Attroney-in-Fact,
Meridian Oil, Inc.

Nancy Curriden,

Forest Supervisor,
Custer National Forest.
______

By Mr. SHELBY (for himself, Mr. Murkowski, Mr. Craig, and Mr.
Burns):
S. 751. A bill to protect and enhance sportsmen's opportunities and
conservation of wildlife, and for other purposes; to the Committee on
Environment and Public Works.

Sportsmen's Bill of Rights Act of 1997

Mr. SHELBY. Mr President, today, I am pleased to join my colleagues
and fellow Congressional Sportsmen's Caucus cochairs Senators Burns,
Craig and Murkowski in introducing the Sportsmen' Bill of Rights Act of
1997.
Hunting and fishing are traditions that have been an integral part of
our history since the inception of our Nation and are among the most
basic of our heritage. Through the ages, sportsmen have shown a deep
respect and appreciation for the land and have made a concerted effort
to wisely use our Nation's renewable natural resources. All across this
country, very successful alliances have been formed between hunting and
fishing enthusiasts and conservationists. Both are very concerned about
protecting natural habitats, and when working together their force
includes some 70 percent of the U.S. population.
Today, millions of Americans participate in these venerable pastimes.
Over 60 million Americans enthusiastically participate in fishing
activities and 14 million citizens are licensed hunters. These
recreational activities are a significant boost to many local and State
economies, as well as the Nation. Sportsmen spent more than $67.9
billion last year on goods and services

[[Page S4600]]

supporting an industry that employs more than a million people across
the country. When discussing the contributions sportsmen have made to
our Nation, often overlooked is the fact that sportsmen have carried
the burden of financing fish and wildlife management and preservation
through the years.
America owes our sportsmen a debt of gratitude for their pioneering
achievements on behalf of wildlife and habitat conservation. The
Sportsmen's Bill of Rights recognizes the important role fishing and
hunting play in our society by providing anglers and hunters with
explicit access to public lands; opening the process of wildlife
management and protecting the integrity of the sportsmen's trust funds.
This bill ensures that hunting and fishing opportunities are considered
in Federal land management decisions, and provides a clear procedure
for Federal agencies to follow in their management of our Federal
public lands.
For too long, sportsmen have been unduly penalized from equitably
sharing public land. This bill mandates that Federal agencies analyze
the effects of potential hunting and fishing limitations prior to
enacting new land use policies. Hunters and anglers should be granted
the right to intervene in any civil action where law would limit the
use of land for hunting and fishing. The provisions in the sportsmen's
bill of rights assure that Federal agencies support, encourage and
enhance the opportunities for fishing and hunting.
While this bill promotes access to public lands, it recognizes the
need for exceptions and exclusions due to national security concerns,
public safety matters, emergency situations and policy reasons that are
incompatible with hunting or fishing. This act cannot be used to force
the opening of National Parks or monuments administered by the National
Park Service to fishing or hunting and this legislation is not intended
to place fishing and hunting above other land management priorities.
The sportsmen's bill of rights is aimed at setting forth tangible
management guidelines.
Additionally, this year marks the 60th anniversary of one of our
Nation's most successful Federal restoration programs, the Pittman
Robertson Act. P-R, as it is often referred to, is a partnership
created by the State fish and wildlife agencies and the funds provided
by the anglers and hunters. Sportsman across the land have sponsored,
supported and maintained the integrity of P-R throughout the last 60
years. The funds are raised through an excise tax on sportsman's goods
and subsequently, placed in a fund to be allocated to the States yearly
in accordance with statutory formulas. Today $357 million is raised for
wildlife restoration through P-R funds in conjunction with the Dingell-
Johnson Act and the Wallop-Breaux Act.

Due to the congenial partnership of our Nation's hunters and anglers
with Federal-State agencies, America's wildlife is thriving. For every
taxpayer dollar invested in wildlife conservation, sportsmen and women
contribute $9 dollars. At the turn of the century, only 41,000 elk were
counted across our Nation. While the Nation's population soared and
massive development occurred, sportsmen's conservation initiatives have
enable the elk population in just 10 western States to increase to
approximately 810,000. Similar stories can be applied to numerous
species including the white-tailed deer, the Canada goose, and the wild
turkey. Hunters and anglers have been and will continue to be the
champions of wildlife and habitat conservation. These examples just
begin to demonstrate the value of anglers and hunters to our society.
The sportsmen's bill of rights will protect and enhance sportsmen's
opportunities and enhance the conservation of wildlife. I urge my
colleagues to join me by cosponsoring this important legislation.
______

By Mr. THURMOND (for himself, Mr. Coats, Mr. Hollings, Mr. Helms,
Mr. Faircloth, and Mr. Hutchinson):
S. 752. A bill to amend title 23, United States Code, to modify the
minimum allocation formula under the Federal-aid highway program, and
for other purposes; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.

highway trust fund legislation

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to
revise the formula by which the highway trust fund is apportioned and
distributed to the States under the Federal Aid to Highways Program.
This measure is cosponsored by Senators Coats, Hollings, Helms,
Faircloth, and Hutchinson from Arkansas.
The current formula was established in 1956 to support the building
of a nationwide, interstate highway system. At that time, it was
necessary to redistribute the tax revenues from some States to those
with large land areas and low population. As it exists now, the present
formula is inefficient and unfair. It is inefficient because it is
based upon population statistics that were current in 1980. There is no
allowance for population shifts in the future and, as a result, high
growth areas of the country are left on their own to provide the
infrastructure to support growing populations. It is unfair because the
disparity in the rates of return creates a policy that, in effect,
values a mile of road in one State three times as much as a similar
mile of road in another State.
Mr. President, the interstate highway program has been an enormous
success and is now virtually complete. However, the circumstances which
gave rise to the present formula have changed and it is now time for a
new one. Our legislation corrects both the inefficiency and unfairness
of the current formula. It amends the law to provide that the minimum
annual allocation to each State from the highway trust fund be equal to
that State's share of contributions to the fund. This formula will
allocate funds where they are most needed. The General Accounting
Office, in a November 1995 study, noted that highway trust fund
contributions bear a high correlation to the need for highway funding
in a given area. Moreover, under this new formula, as population grows
and economic activity increases, additional infrustructure funding will
be available.
Mr. President, this bill presents a fair and workable formula for
distributing funds under the next highway bill. I urge my colleagues to
join us in support of this legislation.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the legislation
be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:

S. 752

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

SECTION 1. MINIMUM ALLOCATION.

(a) Fiscal Year 1998 and Thereafter.--Section 157(a) of
title 23, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end
the following:
``(5) Fiscal year 1998 and thereafter.--In fiscal year 1998
and each fiscal year thereafter, on October 1, or as soon as
possible thereafter, the Secretary shall allocate among the
States amounts sufficient to ensure that a State's percentage
of the total apportionments in each fiscal year and
allocations for the prior fiscal year from funds made
available out of the Highway Trust Fund is not less than 100
percent of the percentage of estimated tax payments
attributable to highway users in the State paid into the
Highway Trust Fund in the latest fiscal year for which data
are available.''.
(b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 157(a)(4) of title 23,
United States Code, is amended by striking the paragraph
designation and all that follows before ``on October 1'' and
inserting the following:
``(4) Fiscal years 1992-1997.--In each of fiscal years 1992
through 1997,''.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, today I am proud to join Senator
Thurmond in introducing legislation to bring fairness to Federal
transportation funding. This legislation would guarantee that the
Federal Government would return to each State the same share of gas tax
funds that it had paid into the transportation trust fund.
In 1991, I voted against the current transportation law, known as
``ISTEA.'' Supporters advocated the legislation as a forward-looking
consolidation of Federal highway programs, but the heart of the bill--
the way it distributed money--looked backward in every sense. It
tightly tied each State's future funding to past funding levels. It
used old census data. It used old formula factors which do not even
pass the ``straight face'' test. As the GAO reported, ``the Congress
elected not to change the basic formula structure'' and thus the key
factors in

[[Page S4601]]

the formula are ``irrelevant'' and ``divorced from current
conditions.'' In other words, we are currently targeting more than $20
billion of taxpayer funds to the wrong places for the wrong reasons.
South Carolina bears the brunt of this inequity. In 1995, South
Carolina received only 52 cents back for each dollar it paid to the
highway trust fund. Over the period of ISTEA, South Carolina received
only 70 cents back on the dollar. Let me add that I am not unaware of
the overall Federal funding situation in South Carolina. South Carolina
gets back more Federal tax money than its citizens contribute. Mr.
President, that is as it should be. We are one Nation, and some parts
of the Nation have lower average incomes. That is no excuse for
targeting highway funds in a way that an objective study found to be
``irrelevant'' and ``divorced from current conditions.''
It is rare that a $20 billion problem has a simple solution. I refer
again to the independent assessment of the GAO, which said that basing
Federal payments to States on the amounts States paid in would, would
meet two major, commonsense objectives of any highway program:
First, it would be a ``relatively simple and direct method of fund
distribution.''
Second, it would ``tend to correlate highly with highway needs,
particularly for major highways.''
Furthermore, the GAO found that basing funding on gas tax paid in
would effectively kill two birds with one stone by accounting for
highway needs and for equity between States with one formula factor.
Mr. President, a program that does not target funds to today's needs,
and which mires States and the Congress in arcane complexity, cries out
for revision. The legislation we introduce here today is a good
starting point to better address our Nation's highway needs. I urge my
colleagues to join us in supporting this bill.
______

By Mr. MACK (for himself, Mr. Lieberman, and Mr. Brownback):
S. 753. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide
for individuals who are residents of the District of Columbia a maximum
rate of tax of 15 percent on income from sources within the District of
Columbia, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.

the district of columbia economic recovery act

Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce along with my
colleague Senator Lieberman the District of Columbia Economic Recovery
Act. The social, administrative, and fiscal problems of our Nation's
capital are well documented. The District of Columbia is facing its
greatest economic crisis since its establishment in 1790. Congress has
taken major steps, including the creation of a financial control board,
to assist the city during this current financial crisis. Despite
efforts by the District's Government and Congress to manage these
problems, the city has a long way to go to achieve economic self-
sufficiency.
Mr. President, at the root of the District's problems is an
evereroding middle class. Since 1950, Washington's population has
declined by nearly 250,000 residents; 68,000 left between 1988 and 1993
alone. The vast majority of these people were middle-class families
whose taxes funded the city's operations. Historically, the District of
Columbia has tried to offset this decline by raising taxes, leading to
even more residents leaving the city in search of lower tax rates,
better schools and safer streets.
We believe that the best way to help the District is to promote
economic growth, and the best way to promote economic growth is to
significantly reduce the tax burden on its residents. Economic growth
will mean more jobs, more opportunity, greater private sector
investment and ultimately a better quality of life in the Nation's
capital.
The DCERA is an important step in luring taxpayers back to the
District of Columbia. It provides tax incentives, including a 15-
percent flat income tax rate for all District resident and deductions
of: $15,000 for individual filers; $25,000 for head of household
filers; and $30,000 for married filers.
Many critics of the flat rate argue that it is a bonanza for the rich
and the poor, but does little to address the needs of the middle class.
We have added several incentives designed specifically to assist the
middle class. First, the bill includes a $5,000 first time home buyers'
provision designed to assist middle-class families in purchasing homes
within the District of Columbia. Second, the bill maintains the current
home mortgage and charitable deductions. Finally, we have included a
zero capital gains tax rate to help spur investment by District and
non-District residents. Middle class residents should benefit
significantly from this provision because it encourages them to invest
their earnings and it offers a generous reward if and when a middle-
class resident sells their homes. Besides these incentives we have
included a brownfields provision that encourages companies to clean up
environmentally damaged land that is sure to improve the quality of
life for District residents and their families.
This bill also provides an opportunity for all Americans to
participate in the economic stability of the District of Columbia by
allowing them to have a zero capital gains rate for investments made
within the District. We believe that Americans everywhere have great
pride in this city and truly want it to represent all the best aspects
of this Nation, including a vibrant economy. For too long the city's
economy has been linked with the growth and declines of the Federal
Government. I believe that the capital gains provisions will encourage
nongovernmental economic investment in the District of Columbia.
Washington, DC is not only home to the people who live here, it is
truly the Nation's city.
We believe that these incentives, along with responsible and sensible
financial management, are just what this great city needs to regain its
past glory.
Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I am delighted to join with Senators
Mack, Lott, and Brownback as an original cosponsor of this important
legislation, the District of Columbia Economic Recovery Act of 1997
(DCERA).
The District of Columbia belongs to each and every one of us. As
citizens of the United States, we have a stake in the successes, and a
stake in the failures, of Washington, DC. It is America's city. But,
for a variety of reasons, not all of them easily explained, Washington
is in desperate financial straits. The here and now financial prospects
are grim for the city, and the future gets grimmer. This is largely
because middle-class families, the backbone of any successful
community, are fleeing the District in alarming numbers.
The legislation we are introducing today would instantly transform
our Nation's capital, making it a more appealing place to live, to
invest, to build, to buy, and to work. This bill is designed to reverse
the flow of businesses and the middle-class residents who currently are
fleeing the city for the suburbs. Those still in the District would
have new incentives to stay. And many others now living elsewhere would
have a very strong incentive to move into the District with their
families and with their businesses.
We cannot make the schools better in the District overnight. We
cannot promise crime-free streets overnight. We cannot promise a
revitalized economy overnight. What we can do is provide middle-class
tax relief in the District, and as a way to lure these middle-class
taxpayers to the District as a way to reestablish a tax base in the
District. And once we bring these people back, safer streets and better
schools can follow.
This legislation is modeled on legislation that has been introduced
in the House with broad, bipartisan support, by Representative Eleanor
Holmes Norton. Both the House and the Senate version of the DCERA
establish a maximum Federal tax rate of 15 percent. Both bills double
the personal exemption, which would eliminate Federal income taxes for
single residents who make up to $15,000 a year and married couples
filing jointly who make up to $30,000 a year. At the same time, the
bill retains the mortgage and charitable deductions and would allow a
taxpayer to file under the old system, if that is what they prefer to
do. In contrast to Representative Norton's bill, which provides capital
gains tax relief only to D.C. residents, our legislation

[[Page S4602]]

establishes a zero capital gains rate for D.C. investments held by D.C.
or non-D.C. residents for 3 years. We believe that the broader
exemption is necessary to spur as much investment in the District as
possible. Also in contrast to the House DCERA, our bill includes a
$5,000 credit for first time District home purchases and includes a
provision to clean up abandoned brownfields within the District.
Members of Congress not representing the District could not take
advantage of the tax incentives in the bill, and the District already
has enacted legislation ensuring that it would not take advantage of
the Federal tax incentives in this bill by raising local taxes.

I very much see this bill as a first step. Some of the urban problems
Washington faces are unique to Washington because Washington has no
State, no broader tax base, to draw on. At the same time, many of
Washington's problems are problems that are faced by cities all across
this country. If this approach works in Washington, I hope we can try
it in Bridgeport, New Haven, and Hartford as well.
I should note that, unlike some proponents of this legislation, I am
at best an agnostic on a flat tax. I believe progressivity in our tax
rates is inherently fair and am pleased that the legislation we are
introducing today has elements of that progressivity by providing such
a generous personal exemption. At the same time, a good number of our
cities are facing the loss of their middle-class population and the
only way to rebuild that base may be through bold measures like a flat
tax which has clear and compelling benefits for the middle class. The
people we are really anxious to bring back to our cities are the 28
percenters. Under the current Tax Code a typical family in the 28-
percent bracket would be a couple with two children who make roughly
between $39,000 and $95,000 after deductions. Our bill would create a
very favorable tax incentive for these people to stay in, or move to,
the District.
Mr. President, the most important thing there is to say about urban
policy in this country is that we really do not have an urban policy.
We know what has not worked; today we are introducing legislation that
we believe will work and there is no better place to start than in
Washington, DC, a city that belongs to all Americans. I urge my
colleagues to join us in cosponsoring this important legislation.
Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with my
distinguished colleagues today to introduce the District of Columbia
Economic Recovery Act, a bill which would jumpstart the District's
economy and set in motion a commercial, social, and cultural
renaissance that will once again make all Americans proud of their
Capital.
I am delighted to find that the District's City Council shares my
belief that the enactment of this legislation will be very good for the
city. On May 9, 1997, in a resolution to accompany its qualified
endorsement of the administration's bailout plan, the Council stated
that ``. . . the District of Columbia Economic Recovery Act . . . would
provide the jolt that is desperately needed to expand the District's
revenue base by reversing the hemorrhaging of residents and jobs from
the District.''
Although this legislation represents a good start toward the
resolution of the city's problems, much more needs to be done. As
chairman of the Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management,
Restructuring and the District of Columbia, I have just concluded 2
months of oversight hearings on the District's many problems, including
the poor performance of the schools, the high crime rate, and the
city's reputation for low quality services. While each of these
problems are being addressed in some fashion by the Control Board, they
are far from being solved, and the city remains desperately in need of
a renewal of its spirit.
In the coming weeks I will be exploring with my colleagues, with city
officials, and with the administration a series of additional reform
options that will help lead to this renewal, and to the recreation of a
Capital City worthy of a great Nation.
______

By Mr. CAMPBELL (for himself, Mr. Inouye, and Mr. Domenici):

S. 754. A bill to amend the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency
Prevention Act of 1974 to provide for direct assistance to Indian
tribes for juvenile justice and delinquency prevention programs, and
for other purposes; to the Committee on Indian Affairs.

THE INDIAN JUVENILE JUSTICE AND DELINQUENCY PREVENTION ACT

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, today I, along with Senators Inouye and
Domenici, introduce legislation which will reform the existing Native
American Pass-Through Program administered by the Office of Juvenile
Justice and Delinquency Prevention [OJJDP], within the Department of
Justice, and will create a grant program that will provide direct
funding to eligible tribes for the purpose of addressing juvenile
justice needs in Indian country.
Juvenile delinquency is an enormous problem faced by both State and
tribal governments. A February 1997 report, issued by OJJDP, indicated
that law enforcement agencies around the country made an estimated 2.7
million arrests in 1995 of persons under age 18. This accounted for 18
percent of all arrests made during that year. OJJDP also reported that
while the total number of juvenile arrests for violent crimes decreased
in 1995, the total number of arrests is considerably higher than they
were in 1992 and 67 percent higher than the 1986 level.
Unfortunately, there are no complete and accurate sets of statistics
available on the rate of juvenile delinquency among the American Indian
and Alaskan Native population as a whole. In spite of this, I think it
is fair and accurate to say that the threat of an increased rate of
juvenile delinquency is great in Indian country due to the large and
growing population of Indian youth under the age of 18.
In fact, in a hearing conducted by the Senate Committee on Indian
Affairs on April 8, a representative of the Department of Justice
stated that ``while violent crime is falling in American cities, it is
rising on American Indian reservations.'' Despite this, there are still
about half as many police officers in Indian country on a per capita
basis.
Currently, tribal governments which perform law enforcement functions
are eligible to receive grants through the Native American Pass-Through
Program, established through the 1988 amendments to the Juvenile
Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974. Under this program,
States must make available to tribes a minimum amount of funding based,
in part, upon the ratio of the number of Indian juveniles within a
State's boundaries compared to the total number of juveniles within
that State. This funding may go toward a variety of juvenile
delinquency prevention, control, or reduction efforts.
Based upon the comments of representatives of tribal governments,
State advisory groups, the National Coalition for Juvenile Justice, and
State governments, it has become clear to me that the Pass-Through
Program is simply not meeting the needs of tribes. First, the minimum
amount of funding each State must make available to tribes is, on
average, so minimal that it fails to appropriately address the needs of
the tribes. While many States do award grants in excess of the
requirement, the amounts tribes receive are often too small to initiate
a program of any magnitude. In addition, many tribes do not even apply
for these grants, because the cost of preparing a grant application
would exceed the amount of funds awarded. More importantly, the Pass-
Through Program exists in conflict with the Federal-tribal government-
to-government relationship, by requiring tribal governments to depend
upon the States. If a State chooses not to participate in the program
or does not meet certain requirements, tribes located within that
State's boundaries will not receive funds under the act. Because of
these and other concerns raised by tribes and juvenile justice
officials, I am introducing the Indian Juvenile Justice and Delinquency
Prevention Improvement Act. This proposal seeks to eliminate the Native
American Pass-Through Program and replace it with a discretionary grant
program that will provide direct Federal grants to Indian tribes.
Consistent with the Pass-Through Program, these funds will be used to
plan and develop programs to prevent and reduce juvenile crime as well
as to improve the tribal government's juvenile justice system.

[[Page S4603]]

More specifically, this legislation will require tribes to submit
program plans as part of their grant application to the Administrator
of OJJDP. Tribes must comply with certain core requirements in order to
demonstrate an ability to administer and account for the quality of the
juvenile justice programs. Finally, this legislation includes a
reporting requirement similar to the one mandated in the Indian Self-
Determination Act.
On the administrative side, the legislation directs OJJDP to take
into account certain important factors when awarding grants such as a
tribe's available resources and the population of Indian youth who
reside within the tribe's jurisdiction. It is also important to note
that this legislation in no way prevents tribes from entering into
cooperative agreements with States or units of local government. Tribes
are still able to enter into these agreements and apply for State
funding should they desire to do so.
The prevention, control, and reduction of juvenile delinquency should
be one of the top priorities of this Nation. With this legislation, we
have the opportunity to provide a better mechanism to deliver funds to
tribes for the purpose of addressing juvenile justice needs, a much
better mechanism than we currently have.
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. 754

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ``Indian Juvenile Justice and
Delinquency Prevention Improvement Act''.

SEC. 2. AMENDMENTS TO THE JUVENILE JUSTICE AND DELINQUENCY
PREVENTION ACT OF 1974.

(a) Definitions.--Section 103 of the Juvenile Justice and
Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 5603) is
amended--
(1) in paragraph (8), by striking ``an Indian tribe which
performs law enforcement functions as determined by the
Secretary of the Interior,'';
(2) in paragraph (9)--
(A) by striking ``States or units of general local
government'' and inserting ``States, units of general local
government, or Indian tribes''; and
(B) by striking ``States or units'' and inserting ``States,
units, or Indian tribes'';
(3) in paragraph (11), by striking ``any State, unit of
local government, combination of such States or units'' and
inserting ``any State, unit of general local government,
Indian tribe, combination of 1 or more States, units of
general local government, or Indian tribes'';
(4) by striking paragraph (18) and inserting the following:
``(18) the term `Indian tribe' means any Indian tribe,
band, nation, or other organized group or community,
including any Alaska Native village or regional or village
corporation as defined in or established pursuant to the
Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (43 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.),
that is recognized as eligible for the special programs and
services provided by the United States to Indians because of
their status as Indians;''; and
(5) in paragraph (22), by inserting ``Indian tribe,'' after
``unit of local government,''.
(b) Technical Amendment.--Part B of title II of the
Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974 (42
U.S.C. 5611 et seq.) is amended by striking the heading and
inserting the following:

``Part B--Federal Assistance for State and Local Programs and Programs
for Indian Tribes

``Subpart I--Federal Assistance for State and Local Programs''.

(c) Elimination of Pass-Through for Indian Tribes.--Section
223(a) of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act
of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 5633(a)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (4), by inserting ``and Indian tribes''
after ``units of general local government'';
(2) in paragraph (5)--
(A) in subparagraph (A), by striking the semicolon at the
end and inserting ``, except that with respect to any
cooperative program conducted with an Indian tribe, the
participation of the Indian tribe shall be funded from the
amounts made available under subpart II of this part; and'';
(B) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``and'' at the end;
and
(C) by striking subparagraph (C);
(3) in paragraph (6)--
(A) by inserting ``(A)'' before ``provide that'';
(B) by striking ``programs funded under this part'' and
inserting ``programs funded under this subpart'';
(C) by striking the semicolon at the end and inserting ``;
and''; and
(D) by adding at the end the following:
``(B) with respect to any case in which an Indian tribe
participates in a cooperative program under paragraph (5)(A),
provide that the appropriate official of the governing body
of an Indian tribe assign responsibility for the preparation
and administration of the Indian tribe's part of the
applicable State plan, or for the supervision of the
preparation and administration of the Indian tribe's part of
the State plan;'';
(4) in paragraph (24), by striking ``and'' at the end;
(5) in paragraph (25), by striking the period at the end
and inserting a semicolon; and
(6) by adding at the end the following:
``(26) provide assurance that, in carrying out the plan
under this section, the State will take appropriate action to
improve--
``(A) communication between the State and units of general
local government and Indian tribes;
``(B) cooperation between the State and units of general
local government and Indian tribes; and
``(C) intergovernmental relationships between the State and
units of general local government and Indian tribes; and
``(27) provide, as appropriate, a description and analysis
of any disproportionate representation in the juvenile
justice system of Native Americans (as that term is defined
in section 16(10) of the National Museum of the American
Indian Act (20 U.S.C. 80q-14(10))) including, if appropriate,
any disproportionate representation of Alaska Natives (within
the meaning of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (43
U.S.C. 1601 et seq.) from--
``(A) urban populations; and
``(B) populations that are not, as of the date of
development of the plan, recognized as eligible for the
special programs and services provided by the United States
to Indians because of their status as Indians.''.
(d) Federal Assistance for Programs for Indian Tribes.--
Part B of title II of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency
Prevention Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 5611 et seq.) is amended by
adding at the end the following:

``Subpart II--Federal Assistance for Programs for Indian Tribes

``SEC. 221. ESTABLISHMENT OF PROGRAM.

``(a) In General.--The Administrator shall, by regulation,
establish a program to provide direct grants to Indian tribes
in accordance with this section. Each grant made under this
section to an Indian tribe shall be used by the governing
body of the Indian tribe--
``(1) for planning, establishing, operating, coordinating,
and evaluating projects for achieving compliance with the
requirements specified in paragraphs (12)(A), (13), and (14)
of section 223, and otherwise meeting any applicable
requirements of this Act; and
``(2) for otherwise conducting activities to promote the
improvement of the juvenile justice system of that Indian
tribe.
``(b) Plans.--As part of an application for a grant under
this section, an Indian tribe shall submit a plan for
conducting activities described in subsection (a). The plan
shall--
``(1) provide evidence that the Indian tribe performs law
enforcement functions (as determined by the Secretary of the
Interior);
``(2) identify the juvenile justice and delinquency
problems and juvenile delinquency prevention needs to be
addressed by activities conducted by the Indian tribe in the
area under the jurisdiction of the Indian tribe with
assistance provided by the grant;
``(3) provide for fiscal control and accounting procedures
that--
``(A) are necessary to ensure the prudent use, proper
disbursement, and accounting of funds received under this
subchapter; and
``(B) are consistent with the requirements of section 232;
and
``(4) contain such other information, and be subject to
such additional requirements, as the Administrator may
reasonably prescribe to ensure the effectiveness of the grant
program under this subpart.
``(c) Factors for Consideration.--In awarding grants under
this section, the Administrator shall consider--
``(1) the resources that are available to each applicant
that will assist, and be coordinated with, the overall
juvenile justice system of the Indian tribe; and
``(2) for each Indian tribe that receives assistance under
such a grant--
``(A) the relative population of individuals under the age
of 18; and
``(B) who will be served by the assistance provided by the
grant.
``(d) Grant Awards.--
``(1) In general.--
``(A) Competitive awards.--Except as provided in paragraph
(2), the Administrator shall annually award grants under this
section on a competitive basis. The Administrator shall enter
into a grant agreement with each grant recipient under this
section that specifies the terms and conditions of the grant.
``(B) Period of grant.--The period of a grant awarded under
this section shall be 1 year.
``(2) Exception.--In any case in which the Administrator
determines that a grant recipient under this section has
performed satisfactorily during the preceding year in
accordance with an applicable grant agreement, the
Administrator may--
``(A) waive the requirement that the recipient be subject
to the competitive award process described in paragraph (1);
and
``(B) renew the grant for an additional grant period (as
specified in paragraph (1)(B)).
``(3) Modifications of processes.--The Administrator may
prescribe requirements to

[[Page S4604]]

provide for appropriate modifications to the plan preparation
and application process specified in this section for an
application for a renewal grant under this subsection.

``SEC. 232. REPORTING REQUIREMENT.

``Each Indian tribe that receives a grant under section 231
is subject to the fiscal accountability provisions of section
5(f)(1) of the Indian Self-Determination and Education
Assistance Act (25 U.S.C. 450c(f)(1)), relating to the
submission of a single-agency audit report required by
chapter 75 of title 31, United States Code.

``SEC. 233. TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE.

``The Administrator shall establish a program to provide
technical assistance to assist Indian tribes in carrying out
the activities described in section 231(a).

``SEC. 234. COORDINATION WITH STATE ADVISORY GROUPS.

``In carrying out the programs under this subpart, the
Administrator shall, not later than 180 days after the end of
the fiscal year during which the Indian Juvenile Justice and
Delinquency Prevention Improvement Act is enacted, and
annually thereafter, issue a report to each advisory group
established under a State plan under section 223(a)(3) that
includes information relating to each grant awarded under
section 231, including the amount of the grant.

``SEC. 235. RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.

``Nothing in this subpart may be construed to affect in any
manner the jurisdiction of an Indian tribe with respect to
land or persons in Alaska.

``SEC. 236. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

``There are authorized to be appropriated to the Department
of Justice to carry out this subpart, $10,000,000 for each of
fiscal years 1998 through 2001.''.
______

By Mr. CAMPBELL (for himself and Mr. Ford):
S. 755. A bill to amend title 10, United States Code, to restore the
provisions of chapter 76 of that title (relating to missing persons) as
in effect before the amendments made by the National Defense
Authorization Act for fiscal year 1997 and to make other improvements
to that chapter; to the Committee on Armed Services.

THE MISSING PERSONS AUTHORITIES IMPROVEMENT ACT

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, with the approach of Memorial Day, we
are reminded of the millions of American men and women who have
dedicated and sacrificed their lives in service to the U.S. Armed
Forces. And for far too many, it is a day to remember those service
members who have yet to return home from the wars they valiantly fought
many years ago.
During the last Congress, we passed the Missing Service Personnel
Act. Specifically, this bill created a framework of accountability
within the Department of Defense to establish the status and location
of our missing Armed Forces personnel. Until this legislation was
introduced in 1995, the procedures for handling missing service
personnel had remained unchanged for more than 50 years. This
legislation improved procedures for reviewing POW/MIA cases and
protected the missing service member from being declared dead solely
based on the passage of time. Gathering 47 cosponsors in the Senate and
achieving unanimous passage in the House, the bill became law in
February 1996. However, an amendment to the 1997 Defense Authorization
Conference Report repealed its strongest provisions.
Today, I am introducing The Missing Persons Authorities Improvement
Act of 1997 in an effort to restore not only those lost provisions but
to also offer a sense of accountability for our missing service
personnel and their loved ones. A companion bill has already been
introduced in the House of Representatives by Congressman Ben Gilman of
New York.
One major provision to be restored requires that military unit
commanders report and initiate a search within 48 hours from the time a
person has been deemed missing. Right now, a soldier can be missing for
up to ten days before a report and search must be made.
Another restored provision protects civilian defense employees and
contractors who become missing as a result of hostile action. These
civilians who serve with, or accompany the Armed Forces in the field
under orders and place their lives in danger, should be entitled to the
same protection that is given to uniformed soldiers.
This bill also includes a provision which requires that if remains
are recovered and are not identifiable through visual means,
certification must be made by a forensic scientist that the remains
recovered are, in fact, the missing person. In the past, hasty and
speculative conclusions have often lead to misidentification and
ultimately, undue emotional hardship for MIA families. It is our
obligation to take full advantage of our current technological
capabilities and provide the families of missing service personnel with
certain, respectful closure in every case possible.
As a veteran who served in Korea, I am especially proud to also
include an additional provision that calls for the establishment of
personnel files for Korean conflict cases. Under this provision, if any
new information is discovered that indicates that the soldier may not
have been killed during the Korean War, a new case must be opened or an
existing one must be reviewed. There are currently some 8,000 of my
Korean war colleagues who have never been accounted for. The recent
efforts by the many families of Korean War MIA's to learn the fate of
their loved ones only reinforce the necessity for this provision. These
families deserve our respect and attention.
This legislation is supported by numerous veterans' service
organizations such as the American Legion, the Disabled American
Veterans, the Korean and Cold War Families Association, and the
National League of POW/MIA Families.
This bill asks the Department of Defense only to make the best
possible effort to recover and return our missing personnel. It is the
least we owe our soldiers, past and present, who endanger their lives
in defense of our country. It is the very least we owe the families who
have and will endure the pain and uncertainty of a loved one left
unaccounted for at a time of war.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in
the Record. I also ask unanimous consent that Senator Ford be included
as an original cosponsor to this legislation.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:

S. 755

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ``Missing Persons Authorities
Improvement Act of 1997''.

SEC. 2. IMPROVEMENT OF MISSING PERSONS AUTHORITIES APPLICABLE
TO DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE.

(a) Applicability to Department of Defense Civilian
Employees and Contractor Employees.--(1) Section 1501 of
title 10, United States Code, is amended--
(A) by striking out subsection (c) and inserting in lieu
thereof the following:
``(c) Covered Persons.--Section 1502 of this title applies
in the case of the following persons:
``(1) Any member of the armed forces on active duty who
becomes involuntarily absent as a result of a hostile action,
or under circumstances suggesting that the involuntary
absence is a result of a hostile action, and whose status is
undetermined or who is unaccounted for.
``(2)(A) Any other person who is a citizen of the United
States and is described in subparagraph (B) who serves with
or accompanies the armed forces in the field under orders and
becomes involuntarily absent as a result of a hostile action,
or under circumstances suggesting that the involuntary
absence is a result of a hostile action, and whose status is
undetermined or who is unaccounted for.
``(B) A person described in this subparagraph is any of the
following:
``(i) A civilian officer or employee of the Department of
Defense.
``(ii) An employee of a contractor of the Department of
Defense.
``(iii) An employee of a United States firm licensed by the
United States under section 38 of the Arms Export Control Act
(22 U.S.C. 2778) to perform duties under contract with a
foreign government involving military training of the
military forces of that government in accordance with
policies of the Department of Defense.''; and
(B) by adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(f) Secretary Concerned.--In this chapter, the term
`Secretary concerned' includes--
``(1) in the case of a person covered by clause (i) of
subsection (c)(2)(B), the Secretary of the military
department or head of the element of the Department of
Defense employing the employee;
``(2) in the case of a person covered by clause (ii) of
subsection (c)(2)(B), the Secretary of the military
department or head of the element of the Department of
Defense contracting with the contractor; and
``(3) in the case of a person covered by clause (iii) of
subsection (c)(2)(B), the Secretary of Defense.''.
(2) Section 1503(c) of such title is amended--
(A) in paragraph (1), by striking out ``one military
officer'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``one individual
described in paragraph (2)'';

[[Page S4605]]

(B) by redesignating paragraphs (2) and (3) as paragraphs
(3) and (4), respectively; and
(C) by inserting after paragraph (1) the following new
paragraph (2):
``(2) An individual referred to in paragraph (1) is the
following:
``(A) A military officer, in the case of an inquiry with
respect to a member of the armed forces.
``(B) A civilian, in the case of an inquiry with respect to
a civilian employee of the Department of Defense or of a
contractor of the Department of Defense.''.
(3) Section 1504(d) of such title is amended--
(A) in paragraph (1), by striking out ``who are'' and all
that follows in that paragraph and inserting in lieu thereof
``as follows:
``(A) In the case of a board that will inquire into the
whereabouts and status of one or more members of the armed
forces (and no civilians described in subparagraph (B)), the
board shall be composed of officers having the grade of major
or lieutenant commander or above.
``(B) In the case of a board that will inquire into the
whereabouts and status of one or more civilian employees of
the Department of Defense or contractors of the Department of
Defense (and no members of the armed forces), the board shall
be composed of--
``(i) not less than three employees of the Department of
Defense whose rate of annual pay is equal to or greater than
the rate of annual pay payable for grade GS-13 of the General
Schedule under section 5332 of title 5; and
``(ii) such members of the armed forces as the Secretary
considers advisable.
``(C) In the case of a board that will inquire into the
whereabouts and status of both one or more members of the
armed forces and one or more civilians described in
subparagraph (B)--
``(i) the board shall include at least one officer
described in subparagraph (A) and at least one employee of
the Department of Defense described in subparagraph (B)(i);
and
``(ii) the ratio of such officers to such employees on the
board shall be roughly proportional to the ratio of the
number of members of the armed forces who are subjects of the
board's inquiry to the number of civilians who are subjects
of the board's inquiry.''; and
(B) in paragraph (4), by striking out ``section
1503(c)(3)'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``section
1503(c)(4)''.
(4) Paragraph (1) of section 1513 of such title is amended
to read as follows:
``(1) The term `missing person' means--
``(A) a member of the armed forces on active duty who is in
a missing status; or
``(B) a civilian employee of the Department of Defense or
an employee of a contractor of the Department of Defense who
serves with or accompanies the armed forces in the field
under orders and who is in a missing status.

Such term includes an unaccounted for person described in
section 1509(b) of this title, under the circumstances
specified in the last sentence of section 1509(a) of this
title.''.
(b) Report on Preliminary Assessment of Status.--(1)
Section 1502 of such title is amended--
(A) in subsection (a)(2)--
(i) by striking out ``10 days'' and inserting in lieu
thereof ``48 hours''; and
(ii) by striking out ``Secretary concerned'' and inserting
in lieu thereof ``theater component commander with
jurisdiction over the missing person'';
(B) in subsection (a), as amended by subparagraph (A)--
(i) by redesignating paragraphs (1) and (2) as
subparagraphs (A) and (B), respectively;
(ii) by inserting ``(1)'' after ``Commander.--''; and
(iii) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(2) However, if the commander determines that operational
conditions resulting from hostile action or combat constitute
an emergency that prevents timely reporting under paragraph
(1)(B), the initial report should be made as soon as
possible, but in no case later than ten days after the date
on which the commander receives such information under
paragraph (1).'';
(C) by redesignating subsection (b) as subsection (c);
(D) by inserting after subsection (a), as amended by
subparagraphs (A) and (B), the following new subsection (b):
``(b) Transmission Through Theater Component Commander.--
Upon reviewing a report under subsection (a) recommending
that a person be placed in a missing status, the theater
component commander shall ensure that all necessary actions
are being taken, and all appropriate assets are being used,
to resolve the status of the missing person. Not later than
14 days after receiving the report, the theater component
commander shall forward the report to the Secretary of
Defense or the Secretary concerned in accordance with
procedures prescribed under section 1501(b) of this title.
The theater component commander shall include with such
report a certification that all necessary actions are being
taken, and all appropriate assets are being used, to resolve
the status of the missing person.''; and
(E) in subsection (c), as redesignated by subparagraph (C),
by adding at the end the following new sentence: ``The
theater component commander through whom the report with
respect to the missing person is transmitted under subsection
(b) shall ensure that all pertinent information relating to
the whereabouts and status of the missing person that results
from the preliminary assessment or from actions taken to
locate the person is properly safeguarded to avoid loss,
damage, or modification.''.
(2) Section 1503(a) of such title is amended by striking
out ``section 1502(a)'' and inserting in lieu thereof
``section 1502(b)''.
(3) Section 1504 of such title is amended by striking out
``section 1502(a)(2)'' in subsections (a), (b), and (e)(1)
and inserting in lieu thereof ``section 1502(a)''.
(4) Section 1513 of such title is amended by adding at the
end the following new paragraph:
``(8) The term `theater component commander' means, with
respect to any of the combatant commands, an officer of any
of the armed forces who (A) is commander of all forces of
that armed force assigned to that combatant command, and (B)
is directly subordinate to the commander of the combatant
command.''.
(c) Frequency of Subsequent Reviews.--Subsection (b) of
section 1505 of such title is amended to read as follows:
``(b) Frequency of Subsequent Reviews.--(1) In the case of
a missing person who was last known to be alive or who was
last suspected of being alive, the Secretary shall appoint a
board to conduct an inquiry with respect to a person under
this subsection--
``(A) on or about three years after the date of the initial
report of the disappearance of the person under section
1502(a) of this title; and
``(B) not later than every three years thereafter.
``(2) In addition to appointment of boards under paragraph
(1), the Secretary shall appoint a board to conduct an
inquiry with respect to a missing person under this
subsection upon receipt of information that could result in a
change of status of the missing person. When the Secretary
appoints a board under this paragraph, the time for
subsequent appointments of a board under paragraph (1)(B)
shall be determined from the date of the receipt of such
information.
``(3) The Secretary is not required to appoint a board
under paragraph (1) with respect to the disappearance of any
person--
``(A) more than 30 years after the initial report of the
disappearance of the missing person required by section
1502(a) of this title; or
``(B) if, before the end of such 30-year period, the
missing person is accounted for.''.
(d) Penalties for Wrongful Withholding of Information.--
Section 1506 of such title is amended by adding at the end
the following new subsection:
``(f) Wrongful Withholding.--Any person who (except as
provided in subsections (a) through (d)) willfully withholds,
or directs the withholding of, any information relating to
the disappearance or whereabouts and status of a missing
person from the personnel file of that missing person,
knowing that such information is required to be placed in the
personnel file of the missing person, shall be fined as
provided in title 18 or imprisoned not more than one year, or
both.''.
(e) Information To Accompany Recommendation of Status of
Death.--Section 1507(b) of such title is amended by adding at
the end the following new paragraphs:
``(3) A description of the location of the body, if
recovered.
``(4) If the body has been recovered and is not
identifiable through visual means, a certification by a
practitioner of an appropriate forensic science that the body
recovered is that of the missing person.''.
(f) Missing Person's Counsel.--(1) Sections 1503(f)(1) and
1504(f)(1) of such title are amended by adding at the end the
following: ``The identity of counsel appointed under this
paragraph for a missing person shall be made known to the
missing person's primary next of kin and any other previously
designated person of the person.''.
(2) Section 1503(f)(4) of such title is amended by adding
at the end the following: ``The primary next of kin of a
missing person and any other previously designated person of
the missing person shall have the right to submit information
to the missing person's counsel relative to the disappearance
or status of the missing person.''.
(3) Section 1505(c)(1) is amended by adding at the end the
following: ``The Secretary concerned shall appoint counsel to
represent any such missing person to whom such information
may be related. The appointment shall be in the same manner,
and subject to the same provisions, as an appointment under
section 1504(f)(1) of this title.''.
(g) Scope of Preenactment Review.--(1) Section 1509 of such
title is amended by striking out subsection (a) and inserting
in lieu thereof the following:
``(a) Review of Status.--(1) If new information is found or
received that may be related to one or more unaccounted for
persons described in subsection (b) (whether or not such
information specifically relates (or may specifically relate)
to any particular such unaccounted for person), that
information shall be provided to the Secretary of Defense.
Upon receipt of such information, the Secretary shall ensure
that the information is treated under paragraphs (2) and (3)
of section 1505(c) of this title and under section 1505(d) of
this title in the same manner as information received under
paragraph (1) of section 1505(c) of this title. For purposes
of the applicability of other provisions of this chapter in
such a case, each such unaccounted for person to whom the new
information may be related shall be considered to be a
missing person.
``(2) The Secretary concerned shall appoint counsel to
represent each such unaccounted

[[Page S4606]]

for person to whom the new information may be related. The
appointment shall be in the same manner, and subject to the
same provisions, as an appointment under section 1504(f)(1)
of this title.
``(3) For purposes of this subsection, new information is
information that--
``(A) is found or received after the date of the enactment
of the Missing Persons Improvement Act of 1997 by a United
States intelligence agency, by a Department of Defense
agency, or by a person specified in section 1504(g) of this
title; or
``(B) is identified after the date of the enactment of the
Missing Persons Improvement Act of 1997 in records of the
United States as information that could be relevant to the
case of one or more unaccounted for persons described in
subsection (b).''.
(2) Such section is further amended by adding at the end
the following new subsection:
``(d) Establishment of Personnel Files for Korean Conflict
Cases.--The Secretary of Defense shall ensure that a
personnel file is established for each unaccounted for person
who is described in subsection (b)(1). Each such file shall
be handled in accordance with, and subject to the provisions
of, section 1506 of this title in the same manner as applies
to the file of a missing person.''.
(h) Withholding of Classified Information.--Section 1506(b)
of such title is amended--
(1) by inserting ``(1)'' before ``The Secretary'';
(2) by redesignating paragraphs (1) and (2) as
subparagraphs (A) and (B), respectively; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(2) If classified information withheld under this
subsection refers to one or more unnamed missing persons, the
Secretary shall ensure that notice of that withheld
information, and notice of the date of the most recent review
of the classification of that withheld information, is made
reasonably accessible to family members of missing
persons.''.
(i) Withholding of Privileged Information.--Section 1506(d)
of such title is amended--
(1) in paragraph (2)--
(A) by striking out ``non-derogatory'' both places it
appears in the first sentence;
(B) by inserting ``or about unnamed missing persons'' in
the first sentence after ``the debriefing report'';
(C) by striking out ``the missing person'' in the second
sentence and inserting in lieu thereof ``each missing person
named in the debriefing report''; and
(D) by adding at the end the following new sentence: ``Any
information contained in the extract of the debriefing report
that pertains to unnamed missing persons shall be made
reasonably accessible to family members of missing
persons.''; and
(2) in paragraph (3)--
(A) by inserting ``, or part of a debriefing report,''
after ``a debriefing report''; and
(B) by adding at the end the following new sentence:
``Whenever the Secretary withholds a debriefing report, or
part of a debriefing report, containing information on
unnamed missing persons from accessibility to families of
missing persons under this section, the Secretary shall
ensure that notice that the withheld debriefing report exists
is made reasonably accessible to family members of missing
persons.''.
______

By Mr. KERRY (for himself, Mr. Rockefeller, Mrs. Murray, Mr.
Kennedy, Mr. Hollings, Mr. Wellstone, Ms. Moseley-Braun, and
Mr. Harkin):
S. 756. A bill to provide for the health, education, and welfare of
children under 6 years of age; to the Committee on Labor and Human
Resources.

____________________