[Pages S1439-S1450]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOULTIONS

By Mr. BROWNBACK (for himself, Mr. Grams, Mr. Smith of New
Hampshire, Mr. Ashcroft, Mr. Inhofe, Mr. Kyl, Mr. Allard, Mr.
Helms, Mr. Sessions, Mr. Abraham, Mr. Nickles, Mr. Santorum,
and Mr. Hagel):
S. 410. A bill to provide for offsetting tax cuts whenever there is
an elimination of a discretionary spending program; to the Committee on
the Budget and the Committee on Governmental Affairs, jointly, pursuant
to order of August 4, 1977, with instructions that if one Committee
reports, the other Committee have thirty days to report or be
discharged.

paygo reform

<bullet> Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, today I am introducing a bill,
cosponsored by several of my colleagues that would reform the current
pay-as-you-go financing mechanism of our federal government.
As a critical step to help reform the federal government, I believe
that we need to change Congressional Budget Rules that make it illegal
to use cuts in inefficient government spending to pay for tax cuts.
Over the past century, our budget rules have been written in a way that
favors spending over savings. We must fundamentally reform Pay-as-you-
go (PAYGO) financing this year beyond the current law understanding
which effectively turns PAYGO off during periods of an on-budget
surplus.
Currently, according to PAYGO, Congress cannot make cuts in wasteful,
even harmful government discretionary spending programs in order to
finance tax cuts. For example, we can't cut the Advanced Technology
Program in the Department of Commerce to pay for a capital gains tax
cut. Rather, Congress has to make cuts in popular mandatory spending
programs like Social Security and Medicare in order to pay for its tax
cuts. I believe it is wrong to pit Social Security and Medicare against
tax cuts. We need to flip the table on this false trade off by pitting
tax cuts against wasteful big government spending.
Such a change would amount to a paradigm shift in how government
functions and would help limit the size of government while at the same
time providing additional resources for meaningful tax relief. The
machinery of government is constructed to spend. We need reengineering
of government so that the machinery produces savings.
My bill would change budget law in order to allow for tax cuts to be
implemented in the amount of program eliminations. In practice, if we
are able to eliminate a program during consideration of an
appropriations measure, that money would be credited to the PAYGO
scorecard and reserved for tax cuts.
Therefore, should my bill be enacted, we could eliminate programs
like the Advance Technology Program, the National Endowment for the
Arts, the Department of Commerce, and a whole host of other government
programs while at the same time giving the taxpayers the tax relief
they deserve--and we can do it without making draconian cuts to
mandatory spending programs that ultimately do little to save the
programs and much to simply prolong the crisis.
Mr. President, I look forward to the coming debate on budget process
reforms. I look forward to the bill that is being considered jointly by
the Governmental Affairs and Budget Committees, and I look forward to
working with the chairmen of each in order to accomplish the type of
budget reform that we truly need.<bullet>
______

By Mr. GRASSLEY (for himself, Mr. Jeffords, Mr. Conrad, Mr.
Leahy, Mr. Murkowski, Mr. Smith of Oregon, Mr. Wellstone, Mr.
Chafee, Mr. Breaux, Mr. Graham, Mr. Mack, Mr. Daschle, Mr.
Dorgan, and Mr. Burns).
S. 414. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide
a 5-year extension of the credit for producing electricity from wind,
and for other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.

wind energy tax credit

<bullet> Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce
important tax legislation for myself and Senators Jeffords, Conrad,
Murkowski, Leahy, Wellstone, Chafee, Smith of Oregon, Breaux, Graham,
Mack, Daschle, and Dorgan.
Our legislation extends the production tax credit for energy
generated by wind. This proposed bill resembles bi-partisan legislation
introduced in November of 1998 that, unfortunately, was not enacted.
As original author of the Wind Energy Incentives Act of 1993, I
strongly believe that the expansion and development of wind energy must
be facilitated by this production tax credit.
The Senate has previously supported wind energy production tax credit
legislation. I would therefore like to request that Senators again
consider this valuable initiative that would help secure this untapped
potential for clean power.
Wind, unlike most energy sources, is an efficient and environmentally
safe form of energy use. Wind is renewable and does not obligate the
United States to rely on unstable foreign states for sources of energy.
This legislation extends the production tax credit through the month
of June, 2004. We all know the damaging effects fossil fuels have on
our environment. Wind energy, by contrast, is clean, safe, and abundant
within the United States.
Every 10,000 megawatts of wind energy can reduce carbon monoxide
emissions by 33 million metric tons. Today, the United States produces
only 1,700

[[Page S1440]]

megawatts of wind energy. However, experts estimate that American wind
capacity can produce up to 30,000 megawatts by the year 2010--that is
enough energy to meet the demands of over 10 million homes, while
reducing pollution in every state.
The production tax credit has brought wind power generation costs
almost down to the same as coal and gas energy levels. In order to
continue this investment in America's energy future, we must extend the
production tax credit.
Currently, my own state of Iowa has 5 new wind power projects ready
to go online just this year. These 5 projects, with the megawatt
capacity of over 240, join the already existing 6 facilities in Iowa.
Even large petroleum producing states like Texas, ranked 2nd in the
nation in wind energy potential, recognize the growing significance of
wind power.
Renewing the wind tax credit would allow for greater expansion into
the wind energy field. These projects take a long time to develop and
assured tax breaks would help facilitate more wind power construction
contracts. Withhold the tax credit and investment will surely decline
for new wind projects. This is because it takes as much as 3 years to
obtain financing and permitting to build a new facility.
Wind is a domestic natural resource, found abundant in almost every
state. Wind is homegrown energy, that cannot be controlled by any
foreign state or power. American lives need not be put at risk to
protect overseas sources of wind energy.
Wind energy can be harnessed without the detrimental effects of
fossil fuel pollution. Wind is a stable and reliable form of power that
is renewable and inextinguishable. This legislation ensures that wind
energy does not fall by the wayside as a productive alternative energy
source. The Senate needs to extend this important legislation and I
encourage all my colleagues to join us in this effort.
Mr. President, I ask that the bill be printed in the Record.
The bill follows:

S. 414

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

SECTION 1. 5-YEAR EXTENSION OF CREDIT FOR PRODUCING
ELECTRICITY FROM WIND.

(a) In General.--Paragraph (3) of section 45(c) of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (defining qualified facility)
is amended to read as follows:
``(3) Qualified facility.--The term `qualified facility'
means any facility owned by the taxpayer which is originally
placed in service--
``(A) in the case of a facility using wind to produce
electricity, after December 31, 1993, and before July 1,
2004, and
``(B) in the case of a facility using closed-loop biomass
to produce electricity, after December 31, 1992, and before
July 1, 1999.''.
(b) Credit Not To Apply to Electricity Sold to Utilities
Under Certain Contracts.--Subsection (b) of section 45 of
such Code is amended by adding at the end the following new
paragraph:
``(4) Credit not to apply to electricity sold to utilities
under certain contracts.--
``(A) In general.--The credit determined under subsection
(a) shall not apply to electricity--
``(i) produced at a qualified facility placed in service by
the taxpayer after June 30, 1999, and
``(ii) sold to a utility pursuant to a contract originally
entered into before January 1, 1987 (whether or not amended
or restated after that date).
``(B) Exception.--Subparagraph (A) shall not apply if--
``(i) the prices for energy and capacity from such facility
are established pursuant to an amendment to the contract
referred to in subparagraph (A)(ii);
``(ii) such amendment provides that the prices set forth in
the contract which exceed avoided cost prices determined at
the time of delviery shall apply only to annual quantities of
electricity (prorated for partial years) which do not exceed
the greater of--
``(I) the average annual quantity of electricity sold to
the utility under the contract during calendar years 1994,
1995, 1996, 1997, and 1998, or
``(II) the estimate of the annual electricity production
set forth in the contract, or, if there is no such estimate,
the greatest annual quantity of electricity sold to the
utility under the contract in any of the calendar years 1996,
1997, or 1998; and
``(iii) such amendment provides that energy and capacity in
excess of the limitation in clause (ii) may be--
``(I) sold to the utility only at prices that do not exceed
avoided cost prices determined at the time of delivery, or
``(II) sold to a third party subject to a mutually agreed
upon advance notice to the utility.

For purposes of this subparagraph, avoided cost prices shall
be determined as provided for in 18 CFR 292.304(d)(1) or any
successor regulation.''.<bullet>

<bullet> Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I stand today with my colleague from
Iowa, Senator Grassley and others, as an original co-sponsor of a bill,
S. 414, that would provide alternative energy tax credits that will
help our nation become a leader in environmentally sound energy usages.
As a nation, we consume more energy per capita than any other country
in the world. However, because of available technology and efficient
use of our resources, we are also a leader in the use of
environmentally-friendly practices.
Last year, President Clinton and Vice-President Gore expressed their
interest in ratification of the Kyoto Treaty. I am concerned about the
implications of applying the Kyoto Treaty to the U.S. economy.
The treaty, negotiated by 160 countries in December 1997, would
require the United States to reduce its energy-related emissions 30-40
percent below levels otherwise projected for the years 2008-2012.
To enter into force, at least 55 nations representing 55 percent of
the industrial world's 1990 emissions must ratify the agreement. The
U.S. plays a pivotal role. If the U.S. does not ratify, neither Japan
nor the European Union will do so.
In July 1997, the Senate passed, 95-0, a resolution opposing any
agreement that exempts developing countries from emission limits. The
Treaty does so exempt such countries. Key developing countries such as
China, India, Brazil, Mexico and South Korea have refused to limit
their emissions. These countries create a proportionately larger share
of emissions than developed countries.
Therefore it would be unfair for the Congress to subject the Treaty
on the American taxpayer. I am further concerned that the Clinton
Administration led by Vice-President Gore signed the Kyoto Protocol
announcing plans to launch new Kyoto-friendly federal energy
procurement and transportation initiatives.
If implemented, Kyoto could: Increase gasoline prices up to 53% (up
to $1.91/gallon); Increase electricity prices up to 86%; Eliminate up
to 16 million U.S. jobs over the next six years.
The Department of Energy's Energy Information Administration
concludes that natural gas market share will increase from 14% to 33%
by 2020 and coal market share will decrease dramatically.
Mr. President, I am very committed to reducing global emissions but I
am also convinced that such actions must not be at the expense of U.S.
energy consumers. We have not given proper attention to a largely
untapped and unlimited resource--that resource being wind generated
power and other alternative energy sources.
If you drive through our State, you will feel the power of our
unharnessed wind. Our Northerly wind can at times present a danger
along the Rocky Mountain front, and certainly makes it's presence felt
just about any time of the year.
The vast majority of wind development has been in California.
However, many states have a much greater wind potential than
California. Montana has an annual wind energy potential of 1,020
billion kilo Watt hours and little has been done to harness that
energy. Such potential deserves exploration and that exploration needs
to be fostered.
Congress is also responsible to help foster such growths in other
alternative energy sources. Last year, I was very active in efforts to
provide for an extension of the ``placed-in-service'' date of the
Section 29 tax credit. Although this tax credit does not expire until
2008, it is important for Congress to allow new entrants to develop
their technologies and build their facilities.
I look forward to pursuing this issue again this year. It will be a
great addition to current legislation supporting energy tax credits for
oil and gas development. I would like to request the attached colloquy
from last year regarding Section 29 tax credits between me and twelve
of my colleagues be entered into the Record.
The colloquy follows:

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I would like to clarify the
intent of Congress regarding tax

[[Page S1441]]

incentives for alternative fuels. These incentives are
important tools for our nation's long-term energy policy.
Starting with the energy crisis in the 1970s, Congress has
acted on numerous occasions to provide tax credits intended
to develop alternative fuels. Prior Congresses took these
steps in recognition of the need to encourage the development
and use of alternative fuels which promise that we as a
nation will never be dependent on others for our energy
resources. For example, Section 29, which expired earlier
this year, and Section 45, which is due to expire next June,
were both intended to encourage the development of
nonconventional fuels.
Today, our nation not only needs to continue its efforts to
develop alternative fuel resources, but given our ever
growing energy requirements, we must consider the
environmental impact that conventional and nonconventional
fuels have on our environment, particularly in light of the
Clean Air Act.
In order to maximize the most efficient use of our nation's
resources, Congress needs to commit to the development of
clean alternative fuels. We need also to use our nation's
technologies to develop environmentally clean alternative
liquid fuels from coal.
In Montana, we have vast coal reserves. There are
technologies that can upgrade the coal from these reserves
and reduce current difficulties associated with the
development of these fields. However, these technologies are
not likely to be developed, and therefore these vast natural
resources are not likely to be used, unless Congress provides
incentives to develop clean alternative fuels.
I am concerned that we have not been able to fully discuss
the merits of such incentives in our budget debate this past
month. For example, an extension of Section 29 was included
in the Senate version of the tax extenders, but that
provision was not included in the final package.
I would urge my colleagues to bring this debate to the
floor in the 106th Congress to ensure that the issue of
encouraging the development of clean alternative fuels is a
priority in our nation's energy policy.
Mr. LOTT. I agree with my colleague from Montana. As our
nation continues to seek ways to improve environmental
quality and to reduce the need for imported energy, several
new technologies run the risk of not being developed if
Congress does not act to provide incentives to develop clean
alternative fuels.
These technologies provide two significant benefits to our
nation. First, the use of alternative fuels reduces our
reliance on foreign energy sources. Second, the technologies
provide cleaner results for our environment.
For these reasons, I want to assure my colleague from
Montana that I will make a priority of addressing the need
for tax incentives to produce clean alternative fuels.
Mr. GRASSLEY. I agree with my colleagues from Montana and
Mississippi about this very important issue. The development
and use of alternative fuels are important to this nation,
and we must encourage their use and development.
Wind energy has long been recognized as an abundant
potential source of electric power. A detailed analysis by
the Department of Energy's Pacific Northwest Laboratory in
1991 estimated the energy potential of the U.S. wind resource
at 10.8 trillion kilowatt hours annually, or more than three
times total current U.S. electricity consumption. Wind energy
is a clean resource that produces electricity with virtually
no carbon dioxide emissions. There is nothing limited or
controversial about this source of energy. Americans need
only to make the necessary investments in order to capture it
for power.
The Production Tax Credit, section 45 of the Internal
Revenue Code was enacted as part of the Energy Policy Act of
1992. This tax credit is a sound low-cost investment in an
emerging sector of the energy industry. I introduced the
first bill that contained this tax credit, so you can be sure
that I am sincere in my belief in the need to develop this
resource. This tax credit currently provides a 1.5 cent per
kilowatt hour credit for energy produced from a new facility
brought on-line after December 31, 1993 and before July 1,
1999 for the first ten years of the facility's existence.
Last Fall, I introduced a bill to extend this tax credit for
five years. My legislation, S. 1459, currently has 22
cosponsors, including half of the Finance Committee. The
House companion legislation, introduced by Congressman
Thomas, currently has 90 cosponsors, including over half of
the Ways and Means Committee. These numbers are a strong
testament to the importance of the section 45, and renewable
fuels in general.
In addition, I plan to work to expand this tax credit to
allow use of the closed-loop biomass portion of this tax
credit. Switchgrass from my state and other Midwestern
states, eucalyptus from the South, and other biomass, can be
grown for the exclusive purpose of producting energy. This is
a productive use of our land, and will be an important step
in our use and development of alternative and renewable
fuels.
I was very pleased to see that Congress expressed its
understanding of the importance of alternative and renewable
fuels by extending the ethanol tax credit in this year's T-2
legislation. These tax credits are a successful way of
promoting alternative sources of energy. These tax credits
are a cheap investment with high returns for ourselves, our
children, our grandchildren and even their grandchildren.
Congress needs to again pass this important legislation to
ensure that these energy tax credits are extended into the
century.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. I concur with my colleagues. Implementation
of the 1990 Clean Air Act amendments is creating a real need
to develop clean alternative fuels.
For example, of the 64 remaining U.S. coke batteries, 58
are subject to closure as a result of the Clean Air Act. The
steel industry can either use limited capital to build new
clean coking facilities or they can choose to import coke
from China, which uses 50 year old highly pollutant
technologies. Restoring the section 29 credit to encourage
cleaner coker technologies will greatly reduce emissions
and will slow our increasing dependence on foreign coke,
at the same time creating jobs in the United States in
both the steel and coal mining industries.
In addition, the United States has rich deposits of lignite
and sub-bituminous coals. There are new technologies that can
upgrade these coals to make them burn efficiently and
economically, while at the same time significantly reducing
air pollution.
This is proven technology, but to make the development of
this technology throughout the nation feasible, the Congress
needs to provide tax incentives.
Mr. ENZI. The people of Wyoming have always had very strong
ties to our land. That is why the words ``Livestock, Oil,
Grain and Mines'' appear on our state seal. Those words
clearly reflect the importance of our natural resources to
the people of my state, and our commitment to using our
abundant natural resources wisely and for the benefit of
current and future generations of Wyomingites and the people
of this country.
Congress has determined the need to find newer and cleaner
technologies. Wyoming is blessed with an abundance of clean
burning coal reserves. It would seem to be a perfect match.
We are eager to provide what is needed for our country's
present and future fuel needs. But those reserves aren't
likely to be developed unless we provide the incentives
necessary to make it possible for the coal to be harvested in
a safe and environmentally friendly manner.
Mr. ABRAHAM. I concur with my colleagues. The development
and production of alternative fuels provides a real
opportunity for the country to improve the environment while
ensuring a constant, reasonably priced fuel supply. But
recent efforts to provide such assurances have been hampered.
For example, in the Small Business Job Protection Act of
1996, Congress extended the placed-in-service date for
facilities producing synthetic fuels from coal, and gas from
biomass for eighteen months.
However, progress in bringing certain facilities up to full
production has been hampered by the Administration's 1997
proposal to shorten the placed-in-service date and because,
in many cases, the technology used to produce the fuels is
new. Such delays have created uncertainty regarding the
facilities eligibility under the placed-in-service
requirement of section 29.
While it is important that the Congress consider again this
issue in the 106th Congress, I would also urge the Secretary
to consider the facilities I mentioned qualified under
Section 29 if they met the Service's criteria for placed-in-
service by June 30, 1998 whether or not such facilities were
consistently producing commercial quantities of marketable
products on a daily basis.
Mr. CONRAD. I agree with my colleagues. Through the section
29 tax credit for nonconventional fuels, Congress has
supported the development of environmentally friendly
fuels from domestic biomass and coal resources. There are
lignite resources in my state that could compete in the
energy marketplace if we can find a reasonable incentive
for the investment in the necessary technology. As soon as
possible in the 106th Congress, I hope we will give this
crucial subject the attention it deserves.
Mr. HATCH. I concur with my colleagues. This is a very
important tax credit for alternative fuels. It is an issue of
fairness, not one of corporate welfare.
Earlier this year I, along with 18 of my colleagues,
introduced a bill that would extend for eight months the
placed-in-service date for coal and biomass facilities. The
need still exists to extend this date and I am very
disappointed that this was not included.
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I want to join my colleagues in
supporting tax incentives for alternative fuels. Our country
has assumed a leadership role in the reduction of greenhouse
gases because of the global importance of pollution
reduction. As my colleagues have also pointed out, promotion
of alternative fuels is not just an environmental issue, but
an issue important to our domestic economy and independence
as well. We cannot afford to slip back toward policies which
will leave us dependent upon foreign sources of oil for our
economic growth.
With the huge reserves of coal and lignite in the United
States and around the world, as well as the tremendous
potential for use of biomass, wind energy, and other
alternatives, it is particularly important to our economy and
the world's environment that new, more environmentally
friendly fuels are brought to market here and in developing
nations.
But bringing new technologies to market is financially
risky. In particular, finding investors to take a new
technology from the laboratory to the market is difficult
because so many technical problems need full-scale testing
and operations to resolve. Few investors are prepared to take
on the risks associated with bringing a first-of-a-kind,
full-

[[Page S1442]]

sized alternative energy production facility on-line without
some level of security provided by a partnership with the
federal government.
Tax incentives represent our government's willingness to
work with the private sector as a partner to bring new, clean
energy technologies to the market. These incentives
demonstrate our country's commitment to the future.
Mr. GRAHAM. There are two principal reasons I support
extension of sections 29 and 45. First, in a period where
America is continuing to increase its dependence on foreign
oil, we need to develop alternative fuel technologies to
prepare for the day when foreign supply of oil is reduced.
These tax credits have spurred the production of fuel from
sources as diverse as biomass, coal, and wind. America will
desperately need fuel from these domestic sources when
foreign producers reduce imports. Second, the alternative
fuels that earn these tax credits are clean fuels. For
example, the capture and reuse of landfill methane
prevents the methane from escaping into the atmosphere. I
will support my colleagues in an effort next year to
extend these provisions.
Mr. THURMOND. I join my colleagues in support of extending
the tax credit for Fuel Production from Nonconventional
Sources. Through this credit, Congress has emphasized the
importance of establishing alternative energy sources,
furthering economic development, and protecting the
environment. The alternative fuels credit strikes a proper
balance between each of these objectives. I support efforts
to bring this issue to a satisfactory conclusion, early in
the next Congress.
Mr. THOMAS. I strongly agree with my colleagues regarding
the importance of the Section 29 tax credit. Wyoming has some
of the nation's largest coal reserves and this tax credit
gives producers an incentive to develop new and innovative
technologies for the use of coal. I am disappointed that an
extension of the Section 29 tax credit was not included in
the Omnibus Appropriations package and urge my colleagues to
make this matter a top priority during the 106th Congress.
Mr. ROTH. I understand my colleagues' concerns. For some
time now I have been studying how to provide targeted
incentives to develop clean alternative fuels. It is
essential for Congress to develop sound tax policy for
alternative energy to help protect our environment. Several
weeks ago, I introduced legislation to provide such
incentives for facilities that produce energy from poultry
waste. I look forward to working with my colleagues on these
issues early in the 106th Congress.<bullet>
______

By Mr. KYL (for himself and Mr. McCain):
S. 415. A bill to protect the permanent trust funds of the State of
Arizona from erosion due to inflation and modify the basis on which
distributions are made from those funds; to the Committee on Energy and
Natural Resources.

ARIZONA STATEHOOD AND ENABLING ACT AMENDMENTS

<bullet> Mr. KYL. Mr. President, this Sunday, February 14, 1999, marks
the eighty-seventh anniversary of the granting of statehood to the
great state of Arizona. On this historic occasion, I propose to amend,
with the attached bill, the act of Congress which in 1910 set in motion
Arizona's entry into the Union. The proposed amendment makes two small
but important modifications to the Arizona Enabling Act relating to the
administration of state trust funds. These changes have been requested
by Governor Hull, the state legislature, and the citizens of Arizona.
Mr. President, the Arizona Enabling Act required the state to
establish a permanent fund collecting the proceeds of the sale of trust
land and the land's mineral and other natural products. The principal
of the fund is not expendable for any purpose. Instead, it is invested
in interest-bearing securities, and the interest is used to support the
financial needs of the beneficiaries.
Mr. President, Arizona is currently prevented from maximizing the
benefits of the permanent fund. The state could improve management, and
generate more revenues for the beneficiaries, by gaining authorization
to invest part of the fund in stocks, and to reinvest some earnings to
offset inflation. This amendment would allow the state treasurer to
preserve the real value of the fund by reinvesting an amount equal to
the rate of inflation, thereby providing higher payments to
beneficiaries over time. This amendment is similar to the change that
was granted to New Mexico in 1997. It was approved by Arizona voters on
November 3, 1998.
Mr. President, the second modification to the Arizona Enabling Act
contained in this bill would allow the state to expend monies from the
Miners' Hospital Endowment Fund to benefit the Arizona Pioneers' Home.
Current law prohibits the commingling of funds associated with state-
trust lands. Insufficient funds exist in the Miners' Hospital Endowment
Fund to build and operate a separate hospital for disabled miners, but
disabled miners have been cared for at the Arizona Pioneers' Home since
1929. Miners who meet the statutory admission requirements for the
Hospital for Disabled Miners will continue to be admitted to the
Arizona Pioneers' Home on a priority basis.
Mr. President, I ask that the bill be printed in the Record.
The bill follows:

S. 415

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 ``Arizona Statehood and
Enabling Act Amendments of 1999''.

SEC. 2. PROTECTION OF TRUST FUNDS OF STATE OF ARIZONA.

(a) In General.--Section 28 of the Act of June 20, 1910 (36
Stat. 574, chapter 310) (as amended by section 2 of Public
Law 85-180 (71 Stat. 457)) is amended in the first paragraph
by adding at the end the following: ``The trust funds
(including all interest, dividends, other income, and
appreciation in the market value of assets of the funds)
shall be prudently invested on a total rate of return basis.
Distributions from the trust funds shall be made as provided
in Article 10, Section 7 of the Constitution of the State of
Arizona.''.
(b) Conforming Amendments.--
(1) Section 25 of the Act of June 20, 1910 (36 Stat. 573,
chapter 310), is amended in the proviso of the second
paragraph by striking ``the income therefrom only to be
used'' and inserting ``distributions from which shall be made
in accordance with the first paragraph of section 28 and
shall be used''.
(2) Section 27 of the Act of June 20, 1910 (36 Stat. 574,
chapter 310), is amended by striking ``the interest of which
only shall be expended'' and inserting ``distributions from
which shall be made in accordance with the first paragraph of
section 28 and shall be expended''.

SEC. 3. USE OF MINERS' HOSPITAL ENDOWMENT FUND FOR ARIZONA
PIONEERS' HOME.

(a) In General.--Section 28 of the Act of June 20, 1910 (36
Stat. 574, chapter 310) (as amended by section 2 of Public
Law 85-180 (71 Stat. 457)) is amended in the second paragraph
by inserting before the period at the end the following: ``,
except that amounts in the Miners' Hospital Endowment Fund
may be used for the benefit of the Arizona Pioneers' Home''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a)
takes effect on June 20, 1910.

SEC. 4. CONSENT OF CONGRESS TO AMENDMENTS TO CONSTITUTION OF
STATE OF ARIZONA.

Congress consents to the amendments to the Constitution of
the State of Arizona proposed by Senate Concurrent Resolution
1007 of the 43rd Legislature of the State of Arizona, Second
Regular Session, 1998, entitled ``Senate Concurrent
Resolution requesting the Secretary of State to return Senate
Concurrent Resolution 1018, Forty-Third Legislature, First
Regular Session, to the Legislature and submit the
Proposition contained in Sections 3, 4, and 5 of this
Resolution of the proposed amendments to Article IX, Section
7, Article X, Section 7, and Article XI, Section 8,
Constitution of Arizona, to the voters; relating to
investment of State monies'', approved by the voters of the
State of Arizona on November 3, 1998.<bullet>
______

By Mr. SMITH of Oregon (for himself and Mr. Wyden):
S. 416. A bill to direct the Secretary of Agriculture to convey the
city of Sisters, Oregon, a certain parcel of land for use in connection
with a sewage treatment facility; to the Committee on Energy and
Natural Resources.

a solution for sisters

<bullet> Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, today I am proud to
introduce legislation that will enable the city of Sisters, Oregon, to
obtain Federal lands for the purpose of constructing a sewage treatment
facility. The federal government will benefit directly from this
facility, and we have the opportunity to show that we can be good
neighbors and help solve local problems. This legislation, and the
approach I have taken to provide a funding mechanism to benefit natural
resources in the area, has broad support in the local community and the
surrounding region.
The city of Sisters, Oregon, is facing both environmental and public
health problems due to the lack of a sewer system. Currently, all of
the homes and businesses inside the city limits must use septic
systems. In the summer, in order to accommodate tourists who often
recreate in the surrounding federal lands, the city must place
approximately sixty portable toilets throughout the town. Deschutes
County has

[[Page S1443]]

had to develop alternatives to established regulations for septic
systems in order to continue use of some properties.
There are ongoing concerns about a possible outbreak of infectious
diseases from failed and leaking septic systems, and of groundwater
contamination. Obviously, this is a situation that cannot continue.
Fortunately, the city has risen to the challenge. In 1998, the 775
residents of Sisters voted to issue up to seven million dollars in
bonds to construct a sewer system and a wastewater treatment facility
to service their municipality. This vote was noteworthy because Sisters
is the fourth most economically depressed city in Oregon. Sixty-one
percent of the town's residents are considered low to moderate income
and the average annual income is $17,188.
While the city has put together a financing package of approximately
twelve million dollars, this financing package does not include funds
for land acquisition. Additional funds to acquire the land for the
treatment facility and for the disposition of the treated wastewater
are beyond the resident's ability to pay, and pose a huge financial
burden. There is a long-standing recognition in federal law, both in
the Townsite Act and in the Recreation and Public Purposes Act, that in
some instances the transfer of land out of federal ownership to serve
community objectives outweighs the goals of maintaining such a tract in
federal ownership.
This is definitely one of those cases. The city of Sisters is
literally surrounded by land managed by the Forest Service. After
examining numerous other non-federal sites in or near the city, it was
determined that this parcel is large enough, and has the proper soil
conditions for disposing of the treated wastewater.
I am proud to sponsor legislation that will not only resolve the
city's public health threat, but will benefit all the parties involved.
My bill calls for the Forest Service to convey land for the facilities
at no cost to the city of Sisters. The legislation also stipulates
that, at the option of the United States, the land would revert to the
Forest Service upon termination of the specified uses.
In return, the Forest Service will benefit from the treatment
facilities themselves, as well as from improved environmental
conditions. The Forest Service currently maintains eleven separate
septic systems in the city to serve existing administrative buildings.
Since the Forest Service administers seventy-seven acres of land within
the city limits, the federal government will benefit from the expected
increase in land values directly attributable to the sewer system.
In order to capture some of this enhanced value for the benefit of
the environment, the Forest Service will also be required to sell no
less than six acres of the unimproved administrative lands within the
city limits. The bill stipulates that the sale be at fair market value
within three years of the enactment of the Act.
Most of the revenue from this sale will be used for activities which
are directly related to improving the long-term conditions in the
watershed of Squaw Creek, a tributary of the Deschutes River. The
remainder, not to exceed twenty-five percent, may be used for
administrative improvements by the Sisters Ranger District.
My legislation makes sense. It is a win-win solution that helps both
the community of Sisters and the environment. I urge my colleagues to
support its early consideration by the Senate.
Mr. President, I ask that the text of the bill be included in the
Record.
The bill follows:

S. 416

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

SECTION 1. FINDINGS.

Congress finds that--
(1) the city of Sisters, Oregon, faces a public health
threat from a major outbreak of infectious diseases due to
the lack of a sewer system;
(2) the lack of a sewer system also threatens groundwater
and surface water resources in the area;
(3) the city is surrounded by Forest Service land and has
no reasonable access to non-Federal parcels of land large
enough, and with the proper soil conditions, for the
development of a sewage treatment facility;
(4) the Forest Service currently must operate, maintain,
and replace 11 separate septic systems to serve existing
Forest Service facilities in the city of Sisters; and
(5) the Forest Service currently administers 77 acres of
land within the city limits that would increase in value as a
result of construction of a sewer system.

SEC. 2. CONVEYANCE.

(a) In General.--Not later than 1 year after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Agriculture shall
convey to the city of Sisters, Oregon, at no cost to the city
except the cost of preparation of any documents required by
any environmental law in connection with the conveyance, the
parcel of land described in subsection (b).
(b) Land Description.--The land described in this
subsection is the parcel of land located in--
(1) the SE quarter of section 09, township 15 south, range
10 west, W.M., Deschutes, Oregon, and the portion of the SW
quarter of section 09, township 15 south, range 10 west,
W.M., Deschutes, Oregon, that lies east of Three Creeks Lake
Road, but not including the westernmost 500 feet of that
portion; and
(2) the portion of the SW quarter of section 09, township
15 south, range 10 west, W.M., Deschutes County, Oregon,
lying easterly of Three Creeks Lake Road.
(c) Condition.--The conveyance under subsection (a) shall
be made on the condition that the city agree to conduct a
public process before the final determination is made
regarding land use for the disposition of treated effluent.
(d) Special Use Permit.--Not later than 120 days after the
date of enactment of this Act, in compliance with applicable
environmental laws (including regulations), the Secretary
shall issue a special use permit for the land conveyed under
subsection (a) that allows the city access to the land for
the purpose of commencing construction of the sewage
treatment plant.
(e) Use of Land.--
(1) In general.--The land conveyed under subsection (a)
shall be used by the city for a sewage treatment facility and
for the disposal of treated effluent.
(2) Optional reverter.--If at any time the land conveyed
under subsection (a) ceases to be used for a purpose
described in paragraph (1), at the option of the United
States, title to the land shall revert to the United States.

SEC. 3. SALE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAND.

(a) In General.--Not later than 3 years after the date of
enactment of the Act, and notwithstanding any other provision
of law, the Secretary shall sell, at fair market value, not
less than a total of 6 acres of unimproved land in the city
that is currently designated for administrative use. There
are authorized to be appropriated such sums as are necessary
to prepare the sale.
(b) Deposit of Proceeds.--The Secretary shall deposit the
proceeds of a sale under subsection (a) in the fund
established by Public Law 90-171 (commonly known as the
``Sisk Act'') (16 U.S.C. 484a).
(c) Use of Proceeds.--
(1) In general.--Funds deposited under subsection (b) shall
be available for expenditure, without further Act of
appropriation, as follows:
(A) Not more than 25 percent shall be available for
administrative improvements at the Sisters Ranger District.
(B) The remainder shall be available for purposes that are
directly related to improving the long-term condition of the
watershed of Squaw Creek, a tributary of the Deschutes River,
Oregon.
(2) Method of expenditure.--The supervisor of the Deschutes
National Forest may expend funds deposited under subsection
(b) directly or may provide the funds in the form of grants
to local watershed councils, including the Working Group (as
defined in section 1025(a) of division I of the Omnibus Parks
and Public Lands Management Act of 1996 (110 Stat.
4226)).<bullet>
______

By Mr. MOYNIHAN:
S. 417. A bill to amend title 28 of the United States Code to bar any
civil trial involving the President until after the President vacates
office, but to allow for sealed discovery during the time the President
is in office; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

LEGISLATION TO LIMIT FUTURE PRESIDENTS' EXPOSURE TO CIVIL LAWSUITS
WHILE HOLDING OFFICE

<bullet> Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce a bill
that is aimed at averting much of what has happened over nearly two
months of this year and all of the last by amending Title 28 of the
United States Code. Modeled on our existing Soldiers and Sailors Civil
Relief Act of 1940 that forbids civil lawsuits being filed by or
against our men and women while they are in uniform, my bill seeks to
protect future sitting Presidents from the ravages of civil litigation
arising from acts taken or deeds done before they assumed office.
I do not do this to insulate our current President but to accept an
invitation Justice Stevens and his colleagues extended to us nearly two
years ago in the case of Jones versus Clinton when the Supreme Court
held that a sitting President could be sued civilly for acts he
allegedly committed before assuming office. In that opinion, Justice
Stevens wrote that it was up to Congress,

[[Page S1444]]

not the Supreme Court, to afford a sitting President more protection
from civil lawsuits.
But this bill is not about President Clinton. For as Edmund Burke
observed when analyzing the causes of the political discontents of the
1760s in England ``this system has not arisen soley from the ambitions
of Lord Butte . . . we should have been tried with it if the Earl of
Butte had never existed.''
As Justice Robert Jackson pointed out over forty years ago, the
Presidency concentrates this nation's Executive authority in a single
person whose choice the entire nation has a part, making him the force
of public hope and expectations and whose decisions so far overshadow
any other that ``almost alone he fills the public eye and ear.'' The
Founders fashioned this kind of Presidency because they wanted to
focus, not spread, executive responsibility in the hands of a single,
constitutionally indispensable, individual. They realized that any
interference with a President's ability to carry out his public
responsibilities is constitutionally equal to interfering with the
ability of the entire Congress or the whole Judiciary to carry out
their public obligations.
Moreover, the Presidency is the only office that the Constitution
requires to be always functioning. It knows no recesses or terms.
Because of this and the singular import of a President's duties, the
diversion of his energies by litigation raises unique risks to the
effective functioning of our government.
As Thomas Jefferson warned in a June 20, 1807, letter to George Hay
in the midst of Aaron Burr's trial in Richmond, unfettered litigation
can pull a sitting President from pillar to post and keep him
constantly trudging from north to south and east to west, withdrawing
him from his constitutional duties.
On the other hand, I do not believe in the ancient prerogatives of
the monarchs who asserted ``the King can do no wrong.'' We rejected
this when we formed our republic over 200 years ago. Under my bill, a
litigant can still file his or her claim and exercise his or her
discovery rights. This will preserve the litigant's claims and evidence
but stay his or her ability to conduct a full-blown trial. This can be
done after a sitting President leaves office. Then, like any other
citizen, he will be subject to the full sway of our courts and their
processes.
I do not want to truncate anyone's legal rights or privileges, and my
bill does not do so. Rather, it aims to balance these rights with our
country's vital need for a focused Chief Executive not being dragged
from pillar to post.<bullet>
______

By Ms. SNOWE (for herself and Ms. Collins):
S. 418. A bill for the relief of Nancy B. Wilson; to the Committee on
Finance.

private relief bill

<bullet> Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I am pleased to join the
distinguished senior Senator from the State of Maine, Senator Snowe, in
introducing private relief legislation for Nancy B. Wilson.
By way of background, Al Wilson worked for Liberty Mutual Insurance
Company, and he and his wife Edna had two children. In 1945, tragedy
stuck the family when Edna suffered a severe mental breakdown and was
permanently placed in a mental institution, leaving Al to care for the
children.
Five years later, Al met Nancy Butler, who immediately began caring
for Al's two young children, as well as her son. Nancy took residence
with Al and soon began to raise the children as her own. The eldest
child has written that Nancy ``is the person who brought me up in place
of my biological mother, who was institutionalized. I think of Nancy as
my real mother.''
Al and Nancy wanted to get married, but Al was prohibited from
divorcing Edna by a Massachusetts state law. The law barred a divorce
for reasons of insanity or institutionalization for insanity. The
Congressional Research Service confirmed that a ``divorce could not
have been granted under Massachusetts law during the 1960's and 1970's
solely because one spouse was insane.''
On April 12, 1969, Edna Wilson died. Twenty days later, on May 2,
1969, Nancy and Al were married. Al died of cancer seven months later
on December 5, 1969. Nancy had lived with Al for 19 years.
Upon turning sixty-four years old on March 21, 1991, Nancy applied to
the Social Security Administration for survivor insurance benefits from
Al's wage earnings. She was refused benefits based upon the limited
term of her legal marriage. According to Social Security regulations, a
couple must be married for at least nine months for a spouse to collect
survivor benefits.
Nancy has exhausted the available legal remedies, taking full
advantage of the administrative appeals process. Nancy filed a request
for reconsideration and appeared at a hearing before an administrative
law judge. On January 28, 1992, the Social Security Administration
issued its final decision denying her claim for benefits.
The private relief bill we are introducing would allow Nancy to
receive widow's benefits from her husband's earnings. Nancy Wilson was,
for all practical purposes, married to Al Wilson. She cohabited with
him for nineteen years prior to their marriage. She raised his
children, allowing him to work and accumulate a Social Security
benefit. Nancy and Al were legally prevented from marrying by
Massachusetts state law, even though his marriage with his first wife
had essentially ended.
Mr. President, the unique circumstances of Mrs. Wilson epitomize why
Congress has the power to enact private relief legislation. Her
situation fulfills the intent of the Social Security Act. Al and Nancy
were prohibited from marrying; clearly they would have if the law
allowed them to do so. This unique situation is an exception that will
not be repeated. Since their marriage, a no-fault divorce statute has
been enacted in Massachusetts, which prevents this situation from
occurring again. Mrs. Wilson's case is a compelling one which we
believe the Senate should alleviate.<bullet>
______

By Ms. SNOWE:
S. 420. A bill to provide a mandatory minimum sentence for State
crimes involving the use of a firearm, impose work requirements for
prisoners, and prohibit the provision of luxury items to prisoners; to
the Committee on the Judiciary.

Legislation to establish mandatory minimum sentences for State crimes
involving the use of a firearm.

<bullet> Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill
which will establish a mandatory minimum sentence for State crimes
involving the use of a firearm. This bill also imposes work
requirements for prisoners and prohibits the government from providing
such amenities as televisions, stereos, or other amenities in the cell
of any inmate.
As a staunch supporter of the 2nd Amendment, I believe laws are
needed to punish criminals, without imposing on a law-abiding person's
right to own a firearm. This legislation would not apply to individuals
who use a firearm in self-defense. It applies only to criminals who are
convicted of committing a crime of violence which is punishable for a
year in jail. Because it is not illegal to defend oneself, individuals
who use firearms in self-defense are not subject to the provisions of
this bill, nor would they be incarcerated for a year or more for
properly defending themselves. This bill states clearly that the
sentences apply only after a criminal is convicted of a crime. As such,
this bill poses absolutely no threat to individuals who use firearms
legally, including as a means to defend themselves.
The most important domestic function of the Federal government is the
protection of the personal security of individual Americans through the
enactment and enforcement of laws against criminal behavior. Tough
Federal laws, such as mandatory minimum prison sentences for violent
crimes committed with a firearm and truth-in-sentencing, would serve as
deterrents to persons who might be disposed to commit violent crimes.
It is also important to keep in mind, the penalties of this bill
apply only after a criminal has been convicted, they are not available
to a prosecutor until after the state investigation has been completed
and the case is closed. Therefore, federal law enforcement agencies are
given no role in the state's investigation and no authority in state
jurisdictions. This prevents Federal

[[Page S1445]]

Agencies from imposing itself on the jurisdictions of the states. In
addition, my bill clearly states that the bill is not intended to
supplant the efforts of states to curtail violent crime and that the
Attorney General must given ``due deference'' to state and local
prosecutors in their work.
This legislation is also needed to ensure prisons remain punitive and
do not digress further into vacation locations. With passage of this
legislation, the Attorney General will implement and enforce
regulations mandating prison work for all able-bodied inmates in
Federal correctional institutions. These regulations will also prohibit
the Federal Government from providing televisions, radios, stereos, and
other similar amenities in the cell of any inmate.
I would encourage my colleagues, who are serious about combating
crime, to join me as a co-sponsor of this important
legislation.<bullet>
______

By Mr. KYL (by request):
S. 421. A bill to approve a mutual settlement of the Water Rights of
the Gila River Indian Community and the United States, on behalf of the
Community and the Allottees, and Phelps Dodge Corporation, and for
other purposes; to the Committee on Indian Affairs.

The Gila River Indian Community--Phelps Dodge Corporation Water Rights
Settlement Act of 1999

<bullet> Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill to
authorize an Indian water rights settlement agreement that was entered
into on May 4, 1998 by the Gila River Indian Community of Arizona and
the Phelps Dodge Corporation.
This bill is identical to the legislation I introduced in the last
session of Congress. As I said upon introduction last year, this
particular settlement is part of a much larger, comprehensive
settlement process that will eventually settle all claims of the Gila
River Indian Community. I strongly endorse the settlement process and
want to encourage all parties to continue their negotiations. Although
I am introducing this measure today as free-standing legislation, it is
inextricably linked to the outcome of the rest of the negotiations. So
while I am encouraged by the settlement process, I am not yet
comfortable with pieces of it moving independently.
As I did last session, I put this bill on the table so that all
interested parties may have a document around which to gather and
continue their conversations. While this particular piece of the
settlement may be further along than others, I do not want to see
pieces move separately. My preference is that the parties arrive at a
comprehensive settlement that fully and finally addresses all aspects
of the Gila River Indian Community's claim.
Mr. President, I ask that the text of the bill be printed in the
Record.
The bill follows:

S. 421

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This title may be cited as the ``Gila River Indian
Community-Phelps Dodge Corporation Water Rights Settlement
Act of 1999'' and is herein referred to as ``this Act.''

SEC. 2. PURPOSE.

It is the purpose of this Act--
(a) to ratify, approve and confirm the Settlement Agreement
among the Gila River Indian Community, Phelps Dodge
Corporation, and the United States of America;
(b) to authorize and direct the Secretary of the Interior
to execute and perform his duties under the Settlement
Agreement and this Act; and
(c) to authorize and direct the Secretary to perform
certain actions which will assist in achieving a settlement
of the water rights claims of certain Indian tribes in the
Little Colorado River Basin in Arizona.

SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

As used in this Act, the following terms have the following
meaning--
(a) ``Allottees'' shall mean the owners of beneficial
interests in allotted land within the Gila River Indian
Reservation.
(b) ``Blue Ridge Reservoir'' means that Reservoir in Navajo
County, Arizona, owned by Phelps Dodge, as more fully
described in the Settlement Agreement.
(c) ``CAP'' shall mean the Central Arizona Project, a
reclamation project constructed by the United States pursuant
to the Colorado River Basin Project Act of September 30,
1968, 82 Stat. 885, as amended.
(d) ``CAWCD'' shall mean the Central Arizona Water
Conservation District, a political subdivision of the State
of Arizona, which has executed a contract to repay to the
United States the reimbursable costs of the CAP.
(e) ``Community'' shall mean the Gila River Indian
Community, an Indian community organized under Section 6 of
the Indian Reorganization Act of June 18, 1934, 48 Stat. 987,
duly recognized by the Secretary, and its members.
(f) ``Community's CAP Contract'' shall mean that contract
between the Gila River Indian Community as the United States,
dated October 22, 1992, providing for the delivery to the
Gila River Indian Community of up to 173,100 acre-feet per
annum of CAP water.
(g) ``Globe Equity No. 59'' shall mean the decree entered
June 29, 1935, in that action styled as The United States of
America v. Gila Valley Irrigation District, et al., Globe
Equity No. 59 in the District Court of the United States in
and for the District of Arizona, as amended and supplemented.
(h) ``Hopi Tribe'' shall mean the federally recognized
Indian tribe of that name.
(i) ``Navajo Nation'' shall mean the federally recognized
Indian tribe of that name.
(j) ``Phelps Dodge'' shall mean Phelps Dodge Corporation, a
New York corporation, its subsidiaries, affiliates,
predecessors, successors and assigns.
(k) ``Pueblo of Zuni'' shall mean the federally recognized
Indian tribe of that name.
(l) ``Reservation'' shall mean the Gila River Indian
Reservation, as it existed on the Initial Effective Date of
the Settlement Agreement, as shown on the map attached to the
Settlement Agreement as Exhibit ``B'' thereto.
(m) ``San Juan Southern Paiute Tribe'' shall mean the
federally recognized Indian tribe of that name.
(n) ``Secretary'' shall mean the Secretary of the Interior
or his lawful designee.
(o) ``Settlement Agreement'' shall mean that agreement
dated as of May 4, 1998, among Phelps Dodge, the Community
and the United States.
(p) ``SRP'' shall mean the Salt River Project Agricultural
Improvement and Power District, a political subdivision of
the State of Arizona, and the Salt River Valley Water Users'
Association, an Arizona corporation.
(q) ``United States'' shall mean the United States of
America, in its capacity as trustee for the Community and of
the Reservation; as trustee for the Allottees and of allotted
lands on the Reservation; and, with respect to Section 5.2 of
the Settlement Agreement, in all other capacities required in
order to execute the agreements and other instruments and to
take the actions referred to in Section 5.2 of the Settlement
Agreement, including acting for the part of Defense Plant
Corporation.

SEC. 4. APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT.

The Settlement Agreement is ratified, approved and
confirmed. The Secretary shall execute the Settlement
Agreement within sixty days of the enactment of this Act and
shall perform all of the Secretary's duties thereunder as
provided herein and in the Settlement Agreement.

SEC. 5. TRANSFER OF RESERVOIRS.

The Secretary shall take all actions specified in Section
5.0 of the Settlement Agreement necessary on the Secretary's
part to obtain title to Blue Ridge Reservoir from Phelps
Dodge. The title to Blue Ridge Reservoir, once acquired by
the Secretary, shall be held by the Secretary in trust for
the benefit of the Navajo Nation. In connection with the
Secretary's performance of his obligations under Section 5.0
of the Settlement Agreement, the Navajo Nation, the Hopi
Tribe, the San Juan Southern Paiute Tribe, the Pueblo of
Zuni, and the United States, on behalf of each of them, are
authorized to execute waivers of claims against Phelps Dodge
and agreements not to object to certain uses of water by
Phelps Dodge in substantially the form of Exhibits ``E'' and
``J'' to the Settlement Agreement, which waivers and
agreements are hereby ratified, approved and confirmed. The
Navajo Nation, and the United States on behalf of the Navajo
Nation, is further authorized to enter into an agreement with
the Arizona Game & Fish Department confirming a minimum pool
of water in Blue Ridge Reservoir and for other purposes in
substantially the form of Exhibits ``G'' and ``I'' to the
Settlement Agreement, which agreements are hereby ratified,
approved and confirmed.

SEC. 6. REALLOCATION OF CAP WATER.

Simultaneously with the transfer of Blue Ridge Reservoir to
the United States as provided for in Section 5 of this Act,
the Secretary shall: (i) reallocate to the Community 12,000
acre-feet of the CAP water available to the Secretary
pursuant to Section 406(b) of Title IV of Public Law 101-628,
104 Stat. 4483; (ii) amend the Community's CAP Contract to
include the CAP water reallocated to the Community pursuant
to this Section 6; and, (iii) amend the Community's CAP
Contract to extend the term thereof to 100 years, plus such
additional term as may result from the exercise of the option
provided for in, or other extension of, the Lease referred to
in Section 7 of this Act.
(a) All water service capital charges and other capital
charges of any nature associated with the CAP water
reallocated to the Community pursuant to this Section 6 shall
be non-reimbursable to the United States by the Community.
(b) All water service capital charges and other capital
charges of any nature associated with 10,000 acre-feet of
that CAP water currently available to the Community under the
Community's CAP Contract which shares

[[Page S1446]]

a priority with 510,000 acre-feet of non-Indian municipal and
industrial CAP water shall be non-reimbursable to the United
States by the Community.
(c) For purposes of determining the allocation and
repayment of costs of the CAP as provided in Article 9.3 of
Contract Number 14-0906-09W-09245, Amendment No. 1, between
the United States and CAWCD dated December 1, 1988, and any
amendment or revision thereof, all of the water service
capital charges and other capital charges of any nature
associated with the water described in Subsections 6(a) and
5(b) hereof shall be non-reimbursable and shall be excluded
from CAWCD's repayment obligation.
(d) The United States shall either:
(1) not charge operation, maintenance, and replacement
(OM&R) charges to the Community on the first 8,000 acre-feet
of CAP water made available to the Community pursuant to this
Act, and shall itself pay any such charges as are associated
with such 8,000 acre-feet of CAP water; or
(2) charge the Community only that portion of the OM&R
charges associated with electrical energy pumping for the
entire 12,000 acre-feet of CAP water made available to the
Community pursuant to this Section 6, and shall itself pay
all other OM&R charges associated with such 12,000 acre-feet
of CAP water.
(e) In the event the CAP water made available to the
Community pursuant to this Act is leased to Phelps Dodge as
provided for in Section 7 hereof, the charges by the United
States to Phelps Dodge for such water when delivered under
the Lease shall be as provided in subsections (d)(1) or
(d)(2) of this Section 6.
(f) In the event the exchange provided for in Section 8 of
this Act is not approved, the Secretary shall reallocate to
Phelps Dodge 8,000 acre-feet of the CAP water referred to in
subsection 6(b) hereof, shall amend the Community's CAP
contract to reflect such reallocation, and shall enter
into a contract with Phelps Dodge for permanent service
for the delivery of such water to Phelps Dodge through the
works of the CAP. The CAP water shall be free of all
capital charges as provided in subsections 6(b) and 6(c)
of this Act. The United States shall charge Phelps Dodge
OM&R charges for such water only as provided in either
subsections 6(d)(1) or 6(d)(2) hereof and shall itself pay
such portions of the OM&R charges as are not paid by
Phelps Dodge.
(g) the provisions of Section 226 of Public Law 97-293, 96
Stat. 1273, 43 U.S.C. Sec. 485h(f) shall not apply to actions
taken by the Secretary pursuant to Sections 6, 7 or 8 of this
Act.

SEC. 7. CAP WATER LEASE.

The Lease referred to in Section 7.0 of the Settlement
Agreement and attached thereto as Exhibit ``M'' is hereby
ratified, approved and confirmed. Notwithstanding the
preceding sentence, the Lease shall not be effective as to
the United States, and the Secretary shall not execute the
Lease, until all environmental compliance associated with the
Secretary's execution of the Lease has been completed and the
exchange referred to in section 8 of this Act has been
approved as provided in that Section. In the event the Lease
becomes effective, the Secretary and the Community may renew
or extend the Lease at the end of the initial term, or any
extended term of the Lease provided for in the initial Lease,
upon such terms as the Community, the Secretary and Phelps
Dodge may agree, provided that any such renewal or extension
shall not exceed 100 years in term. Subject to the completion
of environmental compliance, CAP water made available
pursuant to the Lease may be used in the manner and at the
locations provided for therein, including exchange for use in
any county in Arizona outside the CAWCD service area.

SEC. 8. EXCHANGE AGREEMENT.

The Secretary and the Community are authorized to enter
into an exchange agreement with Phelps Dodge pursuant to
which the CAP water leased to Phelps Dodge by the Community
under the Lease authorized under Section 7 hereof is
delivered by Phelps Dodge to the Community in return for the
right to divert water from the Gila River upstream of the
Reservation. The term of any such exchange agreement, if
approved as required by this Section 8, shall be for 100
years, plus any additional term occasioned by the exercise of
the option contained in the Lease or other extension
authorized in the Lease or this Act. The Secretary shall
commence negotiations with respect to the exchange agreement
forthwith upon the enactment of this Act and shall process
all environmental compliance associated with the exchange
agreement and the Lease in an expeditious manner. The
Secretary shall not executive the exchange agreement until
all such environmental compliance has been finally concluded
as provided in the Settlement Agreement and any necessary
order approving the exchange, or any aspect of the exchange,
has been obtained from the United States District Court in
Globe Equity No. 59 and the order is final and subject to no
further appeal.

SEC. 9. APPROVAL OF WAIVERS.

The waivers set forth in Section 9.0 of the Settlement
Agreement shall be effective, and shall be binding upon, the
Community, and the United States, on behalf of the Community
and the Allottees, from and after the date either of the
conditions set forth in Section 4(c) of the Settlement
Agreement occurs. The United States is authorized and
directed to execute the Settlement Agreement on behalf of the
Allottees in its capacity as trustee for the Allottees and
of allotted lands on the Reservation, and the Settlement
Agreement shall be binding upon the Allottees.

SEC. 10. MISCELLANEOUS.

(a) Execution of the Settlement Agreement by the Secretary
as required by this Act, and the Secretary's performance of
the actions necessary to acquire title to Blue Ridge
Reservoir for the benefit of the Navajo Nation pursuant to
Section 5.0 of the Settlement Agreement shall not constitute
major federal actions under the National Environmental Policy
Act (42 U.S.C. Sec. 4321 et seq.). The Secretary shall carry
out all environmental compliance required by Sections 7 and 8
of this Act. Nothing in this Act shall be construed as
exempting the United States from carrying out environmental
compliance associated with the use of water from Blue Ridge
Reservoir by the United States for the benefit of the Navajo
Nation in the Little Colorado River Basin in Arizona.
(b) The Navajo Nation, and the United States on behalf of
the Navajo Nation, are authorized to enter into an agreement
with the Town of Payson, Arizona, and the unincorporated
communities of Pine and Strawberry, Arizona (``the Towns'')
or any one of them, to subordinate water rights held in Blue
Ridge Reservoir by the United States for the benefit of the
Navajo Nation to rights to the use of not of exceed a
cumulative total of 3,000 acre-feet per annum of water in
Blue Ridge Reservoir acquired by the Towns pursuant to the
law of the State of Arizona.
(c) The Navajo Nation, and the United States on behalf of
the Navajo Nation, are authorized to enter into an agreement
with Phelps Dodge to subordinate water rights held in Blue
Ridge Reservoir by the United States on behalf of the Navajo
Nation to water rights acquired by Phelps Dodge in Blue Ridge
Reservoir subsequent to the date of the enactment of this Act
pursuant to the law of the State of Arizona for use on land
owned by Phelps Dodge around Blue Ridge Reservoir identified
in the Settlement Agreement. The term of any such agreement
and the consideration to be paid therefor shall be as agreed
to among the Navajo Nation and Phelps Dodge.
(d) With regard to the environmental compliance required
for the actions contemplated in Sections 7 and 8 of this Act,
the Bureau of Reclamation shall be designated as the lead
agency, and shall coordinate and cooperate with the other
affected federal agencies as required under applicable
federal environmental laws.
(e) The Secretary and the Community are authorized to
execute any amendments of the Settlement Agreement and to
perform any action required by any amendments to the
Settlement Agreement which may be mutually agreed upon by the
parties.
(f) Except for the waivers authorized by Section 5 of this
Act, nothing in this Act or the Settlement Agreement shall be
construed to quantify or otherwise affect the water rights,
claims or entitlement to water of any Arizona tribe, band or
community or of any claimant in the Gila River Adjudication,
other than the Community, the United States on behalf of the
Community and the Allottees, and Phelps Dodge.
(g) Any party to the Settlement Agreement, and to the Lease
and the exchange agreement referred to in Sections 7 and 8
hereof, respectively, if the same are approved, may bring an
action or actions exclusively in the United States District
Court for the District of Arizona for the interpretation and
enforcement of this Act, the Settlement Agreement, the Lease
and the exchange agreement, naming the United States and the
Community as parties, and in any such action or actions, any
claim by the United States or the Community to sovereign
immunity from suit is hereby waived.<bullet>
______

By Mr. MURKOWSKI:
S. 422. A bill to provide for Alaska state jurisdiction over small
hydroelectric projects; to the Committee on Energy and Natural
Resources.

Energy Legislation

<bullet> Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I am today introducing
legislation to allow the State of Alaska to take responsibility for
regulating small (5 megawatts or less) hydroelectric projects located
in Alaska. This legislation is identical to section 1 of S. 439 in the
105th Congress, which was reported unanimously by the Committee on
Energy and Natural Resources and was passed unanimously by the Senate.
Unfortunately, because the Senate passed the legislation late in the
session, the House did not have time to act before Congress adjourned.
Let me describe why this legislation is needed. Simply put, FERC's
licensing process is too expensive and too cumbersome for many small
hydroelectric projects in Alaska. For a large project costing tens or
hundreds of millions of dollars the burden of obtaining a FERC license
is large, but relatively small as compared to the total cost. However,
for a small project located in a remote region of Alaska, FERC's
licensing process is a major problem. All

[[Page S1447]]

too often, the burden of the licensing process alone dooms an otherwise
economically viable and environmentally beneficial project. And those
small hydro projects it does not doom, FERC's process increases
significantly their cost--which is just passed on to consumers in terms
of higher electricity rates.
For other States this may not be very significant, but it is for
Alaska. Alaska already has the most expensive electricity in the United
States. Alaska's average residential price of electricity is 36 percent
higher than the U.S. average, and in some parts of Alaska the
residential price reaches a stunning 43 cents per kilowatt hour--5
times the U.S. average. Why so expensive? Primarily because it is
produced by diesel generators, which are both relatively inefficient
and use expensive fuel. Compared to diesel generators, hydroelectric
power is much less expensive.
It is important to note that hydroelectric power is much more
environmentally benign as compared to diesel-fired generation:
Hydroelectric generation produces no air emissions as does diesel-fired
generation. Thus, anything we can do to promote the construction of
hydroelectric projects will also help the environment of Alaska.
In this connection, it is also important to note that this
legislation does not exempt Alaska's small hydro projects from
regulation. Instead, it allows the State of Alaska to regulate in lieu
of FERC. I ask: Who is more interested in the environment of Alaska--
Alaskans or a distant FERC? Moreover, the legislation allows Alaska to
regulate only after FERC has determined that the State has in place a
regulatory program which ``protects the public interest . . . and the
environment to the same extent provided by . . . [the FERC].'' Finally,
the legislation specifically requires the full application of all
``Federal environmental, natural resources, or cultural resources
protection laws. . . . '' Thus, enactment of this legislation will
fully protect the environment and the public interest.
In summary, if enacted this legislation will benefit both Alaska's
environment and its economy.<bullet>
______

By Mr. McCAIN:
S. 423. A bill to prohibit certain Federal payments for certain
methadone maintenance programs, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on finance.

addiction free treatment act

<bullet> Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, today I am introducing the
Addiction Free Treatment Act which reforms our nation's drug policy
regarding the treatment of heroin addiction.
This bill would restrict Medicaid reimbursements and funding through
the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration for
methadone and LAM maintenance programs. Maintenance programs would be
limited to six months. The bill requires that such programs conduct
regular drug testing, report all results, and terminate methadone
treatment to any patient testing positive for any illegal drugs. The
legislation directs the National Institute of Drug Abuse to study the
methods and effectiveness of nonpharmacological, and methadone-to-
abstinence heroin rehabilitation programs, and requires the Center for
Substance Abuse Treatment to provide an annual report to Congress on
the relative effectiveness of heroin treatment programs in achieving
freedom from chemical dependency.
Mr. President, few crises represent a more fundamental threat to the
basic institutions of our society then substance abuse and addiction,
and there are few drugs that do more harm than heroin. Heroin use in
the United States continues to rise. Drug use among teenagers is
increasing and the number of teenagers using heroin for the first time
is higher than at any other point in our history. Between 1992 and
1996, heroin use among college-age students increased an estimated 10
percent. Currently, there are an estimated 810,000 chronic heroin
addicts living in the United States with over 115,000 heroin addicts
participating in methadone programs.
Drug addiction undermines family, work, friendships, and communities.
The drug trade, which feeds the addict, undermines the security and
stability of our neighborhoods through violence and other crime-related
phenomena.
At its core, drug addiction does violence to the basic humanity of
the addict, robbing him or her of the most fundamental element of their
existence--their freedom. The addict is enslaved by the need to get a
fix; all other needs become secondary to the physical and psychological
drive to feed the hunger of addiction. This enslavement goes to the
core of the debate surrounding the use of methadone maintenance as a
solution to heroin addiction: What have we done to restore the human
condition if we have not freed the addict of chemical dependency?

Methadone maintenance programs simply transfer addiction from one
narcotic to another. The methadone patient is every bit as dependent on
methadone as he or she was with heroin. Patients who attempt to free
themselves from their addiction to methadone experience withdrawal
symptoms that are as violent, if not more than, those they would
experience coming off of heroin. What is more, even the promise of
freedom from illegal drug use is an illusion. For many methadone
patients regularly test positive for other illegal drugs. And yet, for
some 30 years, the only hope that U.S. policy has offered to our
citizens addicted to heroin is an Orwellian addiction swap.
In the 105th Congress, I, along with Senator Coats and Senator
Coverdell, introduced a Senate Resolution addressing the topic of
methadone treatment. The resolution was a response to an emerging
Clinton Administration policy designed to dramatically increase the
federal government's activities in the area of methadone treatment.
Barry McCaffrey, the so-called Drug Czar, proposed that ONDCP would
double the number of heroin addicts in methadone treatment. Mr.
President, this sounds less like the policy of a Drug Czar, and more
like the policy of a drug bazaar--a bazaar where the federal government
trades places with the street dealer, swapping heroin for methadone and
feeding the addiction with taxpayer dollars.
This is disgusting and it is immoral. It does serious harm to the
humanity of those people who have mustered the courage to walk into a
clinic seeking help to free themselves from addiction. It is the
ultimate in cruel irony that our government's first response should be
to trade the shackles of heroin for the shackles of methadone.
The fundamental flaw of methadone treatment as a national anti-drug
policy is that it is not an anti-drug policy at all. As I have said,
methadone simply transfers addiction from one drug to another. To say
that this is effective, because the symptoms of methadone addiction are
more tolerable to society and less dramatic for the addict, is to miss
the most fundamental point--that is that addiction enslaves the
individual. That slavery is no less onerous to the basic humanity, to
the dignity of the addict simply because the drug has been endorsed by
the FDA, prescribed by a physician and paid for with taxpayer dollars.
After 30 years of methadone, is there nothing better to offer to the
heroin addict? The answer is an emphatic yes. Drug addiction is a
complicated condition. It has behavioral, social/environmental, and
physical characteristics. If we are to free individuals from heroin
addiction, we must adopt policies supporting programs that address, in
an intensive and comprehensive way, each of these areas of concern.
Throughout society, in our homes, neighborhoods, communities, and in
public policy fora, there has been much debate surrounding the decay of
our civil society. A certain consensus has emerged regarding how best
to address this crisis. That consensus centers around the need to
rebuild the mediating structures of our society--family, neighborhood,
church, and volunteer associations.
If we are to free the addict from the slavery of drug addiction--be
it heroin or methadone--rebuilding or, in many cases, introducing for
the first time these same mediating structures into the life of the
addict must play a central role.
There are models for success. Just ask Rev. Sam McPherson. Rev.
McPherson has spent his life tending to the needs of drug addicts. He
now runs a Ready, Willing, and Able rehabilitation center on Florida
Avenue here in Washington. It is an extraordinary and inspiring place.

[[Page S1448]]

Founded on a drug-free principle, Ready, Willing, and Able embraces
the addict, first demanding detoxification, and then dealing in a
sustained and comprehensive way with the bundle of needs that
contributed to the participant's drug use and addiction, and that
result in recidivism if left unresolved.

Dr. Robert Woodson, in his recent book ``The Triumphs of Joseph'',
describes the many examples of community-based organizations that have
succeeded in healing the scourge of drug addiction, lifting people up
from the slavery of dependency--people like Freddie and Nina Garcia,
who run the Victory Fellowship, based out of San Antonio.
Some thirty years ago, Freddie Garcia and his wife began their
operation in a tiny one-bedroom house, at one point moving all their
furniture under a make-shift awning outside the house to make room for
eleven recovering addicts who slept on their living room floor. Today,
the Victory Fellowship has freed more than 13,000 men and women from
their addictions and has spread to 65 satellite centers in California,
Texas, New Mexico, Peru, Puerto Rico, Columbia and Venezuela.
Dr. Woodson pus it this way: ``In contrast with psychiatric therapy
and treatment that relies on medication, the goal of grassroots
programs is not rehabilitation but transformation. Their end is not to
modify behavior but to engender a change in the values and vision of
the people they work with which will, in turn affect behavior . . .
they do not simply curb deviant behavior but offer something more--a
fulfilling life that eclipses the power of temptation.''
These community-based institutions possess certain common
characteristics that can serve as a model for all who seek to address
the challenges of addiction:
(1) Their programs are open to all comers. Often, these programs take
the worst cases, the long-term, homeless addicts that the ``system''
has abandoned as hopeless.
(2) They have the same zip code as the people they serve. They do
their work in the same neighborhoods, on the same streets as the
addicts they serve. Reverend McPherson points out one of the pleasant
benefits of Ready, Willing and Able: When they come into a
neighborhood, the drug dealers go away. They leave because there is an
unwritten code. If these guys are trying to get off of heroin, the
dealers go somewhere else, taking their trade out of sight of the very
addicts they have enslaved.

(3) Their approach is flexible to the needs of the individual. The
many behavioral, social/environmental, and physical challenges that
contribute to drug addiction are unique to each individual. These
organizations develop individualized programs for each individual.
(4) They contain a central element of reciprocity. As Dr. Woodson
says: ``They do not practice blind charity but require something in
return from the individuals they serve.''
(5) Clear behavioral guidelines and discipline are critical.
(6) These healers fulfill the role of parent, providing authority and
structure, but also love and support.
(7) They are committed for the long haul, not just for the duration
of funding.
(8) They are on-call 24 hours a day, 7 days a week for as long as the
participant needs them.
(9) The healing offers immersion in an environment of care and mutual
support with a community of individuals who are trying to accomplish
the same changes in their lives.
(10) They are united in their cause, providing mutual support in
their struggles, and celebration in their accomplishments.
These concepts are not new. But combined and sustained, they offer
hope and success in freeing the addict from a life of chemical
dependency. That freedom should be the policy of the United States
Government, and the relentlessly pursued goal of everyone concerned
with the scourge of heroin addiction.<bullet>
______

By Mr. COVERDELL (for himself, Mr. Thurmond, Mr. Smith of New
Hampshire, Mr. Grassley, and Mr. Helms):
S. 424. A bill to preserve and protect the free choice of individuals
and employees to form, join, or assist labor organizations, or to
refrain from such activities; to the Committee on Health, Education,
Labor, and Pensions.

THE NATIONAL RIGHT TO WORK ACT OF 1999

<bullet> Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce along
with my distinguished colleagues Senators Thurmond, Smith of New
Hampshire, Grassley, and Helms the National Right to Work Act of 1999.
This bill does not add a single word to Federal law. Rather, it
repeals those sections of the National Labor Relations Act and Railway
Labor Act that authorize the imposition of forced-dues contracts on
working Americans. I believe that every worker must have the right to
join or support a labor union. This bill protects that right. But no
worker should ever be forced to join a union.
I am happy to say that my own state of Georgia is among the 21 states
that is a ``Right to Work'' state and has been since 1947. According to
U.S. News and World Report, 7 of the strongest 10 state economies in
the nation have Right-to-Work laws. Workers who have the freedom to
choose whether or not to join a union have a higher standard of living
than their counterparts in non Right-to-Work states. According to Dr.
James Bennet, a prominent economist at George Mason University's highly
respected economic program, urban families in Right-to-Work states have
approximately $2,852 more annual purchasing power than urban families
in non-Right to Work states; particularly when the lower taxes, housing
and food costs are taken into consideration.
According to a poll by the respected Marketing Research Institute, 77
percent of Americans support Right to Work, and over 50 percent of
union households believe that workers should have the right to choose
whether or not to join or pay dues to a labor union. That should be no
surprise. This is about freedom. The Right to Work expands every
working American's personal freedom.
Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. It
expands the freedom of hard working Americans and ensures them the
choice of whether to accept or reject union representation and union
dues without coercion, violence or work-place harassment.<bullet>
______

By Mr. ASHCROFT (for himself, Mr. Brownback, Mr. Baucus, and Mr.
Kerrey):
S. 425. A bill to require the approval of Congress for the imposition
of any new unilateral agricultural sanction, or any new unilateral
sanction with respect to medicine, medical supplies, or medical
equipment, against a foreign country; to the Committee on Foreign
Relations.

Food and Medicine for the World Act of 1999

<bullet> Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, today, I am introducing, with
Senators Brownback, Baucus, and Kerrey, the Food and Medicine for the
World Act of 1999. It's a bill that will help America's farmers,
ranchers, and related industries, keep on selling their food and
medicine to the world.
For over 200 years, farmers and ranchers have been vital to the
growth and economic prosperity of the United States--always responding
to the challenges of our competitive free-market system with efficient
production methods. The agricultural industry is one of the nation's
largest employers. Missouri is the nation's second leading state in its
number of farms. Clearly, the agricultural industry is a backbone to
Missouri's economy, accounting for more than $4 billion annually.
The United States has the best farmers in the world--first class in
their production, storage, transportation, processing, and marketing.
We can produce more food than any other country, yet the United States
only accounts for five percent of the world's consuming population.
That leaves 95 percent of the world's consumers outside of our borders.
And because of our farmers' efficiency and ability to meet U.S.
domestic demand, they rely increasingly on their ability to sell
products in foreign markets.
Exports now account for 30 percent of gross cash receipts for
America's farmers, and nearly 40 percent of all U.S. agricultural
production is exported. Therefore, it is imperative that we ensure that
our farmers have ample export opportunities.
Our farmers and ranchers need our help in opening markets abroad and

[[Page S1449]]

keeping those markets open. Once farmers jump through all the hoops of
foreign trade barriers and red tape to establish trusted relationships
with foreign buyers, the U.S. government should be extremely cautious
about sanctioning their sales and forcing them to lose their markets.
Many farmers' livelihood depends on sales overseas. In 1997, more than
one-fourth of Missouri's farm marketing came from sales overseas.
We know that sanctions hurt America's farmers and ranchers. And we
know that sanctions against agriculture and medicine are detrimental to
the world's poor that have to live under the rule of tyrants. That is
why I am introducing the Food and Medicine for the World Act. This bill
tries to ensure that farmers don't get sanctioned for the bad acts of
foreign governments, and the health and welfare of the world's poor are
not damaged further by their leader's indiscretions.
Under the Food and Medicine for the World Act, whenever any new
unilateral sanction is announced by the President, the sanctions he
imposes will not affect agriculture or medicine unless he tells
Congress why it is necessary to sanction these products and unless
Congress approves the sanction. If the Food and Medicine for the World
Act is passed, there will not be any more sanctions against U.S.
agricultural exports without agreement between the Administration and
Congress and without serious deliberation about the effects on
America's farmers and ranchers. Our farms should not be sanctioned
without the consent of Congress.
The Food and Medicine for the World Act sends a message to customers
overseas that U.S. farmers and ranchers will be reliable. People around
the world depend on our farm products and on U.S. produced medical
supplies. When tyrants challenge U.S. foreign policy, we must not
respond by cutting off the supply of food and medicine to their poor.
The health and welfare needs of those abroad will be best served if we
ensure that our farmers and producers are a continuous source of food
and medical supplies.
The Food and Medicine for the World Act also sends a message to U.S.
farmers and ranchers that their livelihood will not be used as a
foreign policy tool without due deliberation and involvement of both
the President and Congress.
Farmers and ranchers are twice as reliant on foreign trade as the
U.S. economy as a whole. It is time for us to enact policy that
reflects our support for their efforts to reach their competitive
potential internationally.
Mr. President, I ask that the text of the bill be printed in the
Record.
The bill follows:

S. 425

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 ``Food and Medicine for the
World Act of 1999''.

SEC. 2. REQUIREMENT OF CONGRESSIONAL APPROVAL OF ANY NEW
UNILATERAL AGRICULTURAL SANCTION.

(a) Definitions.--
(1) Agricultural commodity.--The term ``agricultural
commodity'' has the meaning given the term in section 402 of
the Agricultural Trade Development and Assistance Act of 1954
(7 U.S.C. 1732).
(2) Agricultural program.--The term ``agricultural
program'' means--
(A) any program administered through the Agricultural Trade
Development and Assistance Act of 1954 (Public Law 480; 7
U.S.C. 1701 et. seq.);
(B) any program administered through section 416 of the
Agricultural Act of 1949 (7 U.S.C. 1431);
(C) any commercial sale of agricultural commodities or
agricultural products, including plant nutrient materials; or
(D) any export financing (including credits or credit
guarantees) for agricultural commodities or agricultural
products.
(3) New unilateral agricultural sanction.--The term ``new
unilateral agricultural sanction'' means any prohibition,
restriction, or condition on carrying out an agricultural
program with respect to a foreign country or foreign entity
that is imposed by the United States on or after the date of
enactment of this Act for reasons of foreign policy or
national security, except in a case in which the United
States imposes the measure pursuant to a multilateral regime
and the other member countries of that regime have agreed to
impose substantially equivalent measures.
(4) New unilateral sanction with respect to medicine,
medical supplies, or medical equipment.--The term ``new
unilateral sanction with respect to medicine, medical
supplies, or medical equipment'' means any prohibition,
restriction, or condition on trade in, or the provision of
assistance consisting of, medicine, medical supplies, or
medical equipment with respect to a foreign country or
foreign entity that is imposed by the United States on or
after the date of enactment of this Act for reasons of
foreign policy or national security, except in a case in
which the United States imposes the measure pursuant to a
multilateral regime and the other member countries of that
regime have agreed to impose substantially equivalent
measures.
(5) Session day of Congress.--The term ``session day of
Congress'' means any day on which a House of Congress is in
session.
(b) Restriction.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
law and subject to subsection (c), the President may not
impose a new unilateral agricultural sanction against a
foreign country, or a new unilateral sanction with respect to
medicine, medical supplies, or medical equipment against a
foreign country, unless--
(1) not less than 60 days before the sanction is proposed
to be imposed, the President submits a report to Congress
that--
(A) describes the activity proposed to be prohibited,
restricted, or conditioned; and
(B) describes the actions by the foreign country that
justify the sanction; and
(2) Congress enacts a joint resolution stating the approval
of Congress for the report submitted under paragraph (1).
(c) Exception.--Notwithstanding subsection (b), the
President may impose a sanction described in that
subsection--
(1) against a foreign country with respect to which--
(A) Congress has enacted a declaration of war; or
(B) the President has proclaimed a state of national
emergency; or
(2) to the extent that the sanction would prohibit,
restrict, or condition the provision or use of any commodity,
product, medicine, supply, or equipment that is controlled on
the United States Munitions List under section 38 of the Arms
Export Control Act or the Commerce Control List under the
Export Administration Act of 1979.
(d) Congressional Priority Procedures.--
(1) Joint resolution defined.--For the purpose of
subsection (b)(2), ``joint resolution'' means only a joint
resolution introduced within 10 session days of Congress
after the date on which the report of the President under
subsection (b)(1) is received by Congress, the matter after
the resolving clause of which is as follows: ``That Congress
approves the report of the President pursuant to section
2(b)(1) of the Food and Medicine for the World Act of 1999,
transmitted on ______________.'', with the blank completed
with the appropriate date.''.
(2) Referral of report.--The report described in subsection
(b)(1) shall be referred to the appropriate committee or
committees of the House of Representatives and to the
appropriate committee or committees of the Senate.
(3) Referral of joint resolution to committee.--A joint
resolution introduced in the House of Representatives shall
be referred to the Committee on International Relations of
the House of Representatives. A joint resolution introduced
in the Senate shall be referred to the Committee on Foreign
Relations of the Senate. Such a joint resolution may not be
reported before the eighth session day of Congress after its
introduction.
(4) Discharge from committee.--If the committee of either
House to which a joint resolution is referred has not
reported the joint resolution (or an identical joint
resolution) at the end of 30 session days of Congress after
its introduction, the committee shall be discharged from
further consideration of the joint resolution and the joint
resolution shall be placed on the appropriate calendar of the
House in which it was introduced.
(5) Floor consideration.--
(A) Motion to proceed.--When the committee to which a joint
resolution is referred has reported, or has been deemed to be
discharged (under paragraph (4)) from further consideration
of, a joint resolution, notwithstanding any rule or precedent
of the Senate, including Rule 22, it is at any time
thereafter in order (even though a previous motion to the
same effect has been disagreed to) for any Member of the
respective House to move to proceed to the consideration of
the joint resolution, and all points of order against the
joint resolution (and against consideration of the joint
resolution) are waived. The motion is highly privileged in
the House of Representatives and is privileged in the Senate
and is not debatable. The motion is not subject to amendment,
or to a motion to postpone, or to a motion to proceed to the
consideration of other business. A motion to reconsider the
vote by which the motion is agreed to or disagreed to shall
not be in order. If a motion to proceed to the consideration
of the joint resolution is agreed to, the joint resolution
shall remain the unfinished business of the respective House
until disposed of.
(B) Debate on the joint resolution.--Debate on the joint
resolution, and on all debatable motions and appeals in
connection therewith, shall be limited to not more than ten
hours, which shall be divided equally between those favoring
and those opposing the joint resolution. A motion further to
limit debate is in order and not debatable. An amendment to,
or a motion to postpone, or a motion to proceed to the
consideration of other business, or a motion to recommit the
joint resolution is not in order. A motion to

[[Page S1450]]

reconsider the vote by which the joint resolution is agreed
to or disagreed to is not in order.
(C) Vote on final passage.--Immediately following the
conclusion of the debate on a joint resolution, and a single
quorum call at the conclusion of the debate if requested in
accordance with the rules of the appropriate House, the vote
on final passage of the joint resolution shall occur.
(D) Appeals of rulings.--Appeals from the decisions of the
Chair relating to the application of the rules of the Senate
or the House of Representatives, as the case may be, to the
procedure relating to a joint resolution described in
paragraph (1) shall be decided without debate.
(6) Treatment of other house's joint resolution.--If,
before the passage by one House of Congress of a joint
resolution of that House, that House receives from the other
House a joint resolution, then the following procedures shall
apply:
(A) Referral of joint resolutions of sending house.--The
joint resolution of the sending House shall not be referred
to a committee in the receiving House.
(B) Procedures in receiving house.--With respect to a joint
resolution of the House receiving the joint resolution--
(i) the procedure in that House shall be the same as if no
joint resolution had been received from the sending House;
but
(ii) the vote on final passage shall be on the joint
resolution of the sending House.
(C) Disposition of joint resolutions of receiving house.--
Upon disposition of the joint resolution received from the
other House, it shall no longer be in order to consider the
joint resolution originated in the receiving House.
(7) Procedures after action by both the house and senate.--
If the House receiving a joint resolution from the other
House after the receiving House has disposed of a joint
resolution originated in that House, the action of the
receiving House with regard to the disposition of the joint
resolution originated in that House shall be deemed to be the
action of the receiving House with regard to the joint
resolution originated in the other House.
(8) Status of procedures.--This subsection is enacted by
Congress--
(A) as an exercise of the rulemaking power of the Senate
and House of Representatives, respectively, and as such it is
deemed a part of the rules of each House, respectively, but
applicable only with respect to the procedure to be followed
in that House in the case of a joint resolution described in
paragraph (1), and it supersedes other rules only to the
extent that it is inconsistent with such rules; and
(B) with full recognition of the constitutional right of
either House to change the rules (so far as relating to the
procedure of that House) at any time, in the same manner and
to the same extent as in the case of any other rule of that
House.<bullet>
<bullet> Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleagues
in introducing the Food and Medicine for the World Act.
For years the United States has enacted economic sanctions to punish
foreign governments, often without regard for the effects of those
sanctions back home. Under a bill that I am introducing jointly with
Senators Ashcroft, Brownback and Kerrey, we can make more sense of our
confusing sanctions policy. We can put an end to the practice of making
our agricultural producers shoulder most of the blame when we impose
sanctions.
The exchange of goods and ideas worldwide has never been freer; it is
now axiomatic to say that we live in a global economy. It follows that
as the rules governing economics have changed, so too should those
related to economic sanctions. Unilateral economic action is less
effective than it used to be, simply because it's rarely possible for
one country or company to corner the market on a good or service.
Moreover, we often hurt ourselves with unilateral actions that
disproportionately affect one sector of our economy over another. Our
agricultural producers, for example, have long borne the brunt of
American unilateral action. It is estimated that 10% of the world wheat
market is put out of reach of U.S. producers by economic sanctions.
That's why I became a member of the Senate Sanctions Task Force last
year, and it's why I am joining my colleagues in introducing the Food
and Medicine for the World Act. Under this legislation, when any new
unilateral sanction is announced by the President, the sanctions he
imposes will not affect agriculture or medicine unless: the President
submits a report to Congress asking that the sanction include
agriculture; and Congress approves of his request. The process must be
complete within 60 days before the sanctions against agriculture are
supposed to go into effect. This bill would not take effect in the
event that Congress has declared war or in the case of national
emergency.
Mr. President, while I believe sanctions can be a legitimate tool of
foreign policy, I don't think that American producers should be
punished for the actions of unscrupulous foreign governments. Nor do I
think it is fair to put an abrupt end to the supply of medicine based
on the behavior of a dictator. We must send a message to the world that
our producers are reliable and that those abroad who rely on U.S.
products will not be put at risk by a sanction on U.S. food and
medicine.
The Food and Medicine for the World Act sends that message, and I
urge my colleagues to lend their support to the bill.<bullet>

____________________