Ted Stevens

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I have some comments on issues raised by the conference report to the Interior appropriations bill. On the matter of contract support costs for Bureau of Indian Affairs and Indian Health Service programs operated by Native organizations under the provisions of P.L. 93-638, I am pleased that we have been able to add $10 million to BIA funding and $25 million to IHS funding over fiscal year 1999 levels to support additional payments of contract support costs for these programs. This new funding will allow BIA and IHS to bring existing programs' contract support cost payments closer to the full amount of negotiated support and will allow a limited number of new and expanded programs in both agencies to go forward. However, I am concerned that the Tribes have been operating, in the distribution of contract support costs, under the assumption that contract support costs are an entitlement under the law. The House and Senate Committees on Appropriations have taken exception to that interpretation and have tried to persuade the IHS to change its allocation methodology and to set reasonable limits on the number and size of new and expanded contracts it executes consonant with resources made available by Congress for the payment of contract support costs. The Federal Circuits Court of Appeals in its October 27, 1999 decision in Babbitt v. Oglala Sioux Tribal Public Safety Department (1999 WL 974155 (Fed. Cir.)) has now affirmed that contract support costs are not an entitlement, but rather are subject to appropriations. Contract support cases raising similar legal issues are pending in the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals and in various Federal district courts around the country. The Federal circuit's decision was correct both in its holding and in its reasoning and should serve as precedent for other pending cases. To assume that Congress would create a system in which Tribes receive the majority of their contract support costs through funds appropriated to the Indian Health Service or Bureau of Indian Affairs and which requires Tribes to seek the balance in court through the claims and judgment fund turns logic on its ear. ``Subject to appropriations'' means what it says. The Indian Health Service has made improvements to its distribution methodology in fiscal year 1999 but continues to distribute funds at varying rates for different contracts, compacts and annual funding agreements. More disturbing, the current IHS system pays contractors with high overhead costs (relative to program costs) at the same percentage rate as it pays contractors with low overhead rates, rewarding inefficient operators and creating an incentive to maximize overhead costs. The bill allows the funding in fiscal year 2000 of a limited number of new and expanded contracts through the Indian Self Determination (ISD) fund of $10 million. It is expected that, once the contract support cost total (paid at an average rate not to fall above or below the average rate of payment of contract support costs to existing contractors in fiscal year 2000) for new and expanded programs has reached $10 million, IHS will not execute any further new or expanded contracts until Congress has provided funds specifically earmarked for that purpose. Existing IHS policy does not permit reduction of existing service providers' funding in order to fund new entrants into the system. This bill does not modify that policy. If funds remain in the ISD fund after all new entrants have been accommodated, those funds should be distributed equitably across existing programs, with particular emphasis on the most underfunded. The Indian Health Service should include as part of its fiscal year 2001 budget request a detailed cost estimate for new and expanded contracts so that Congress will be aware of anticipated need when it establishes a funding level for an ISD account in fiscal year 2001. Congress and the courts have made it plain that IHS can no longer enter into new and expanded contracts without regard to the level of funding provided for that purpose by Congress. Congress will be aided in its efforts to establish a reasonable level of support for new and expanded contracts if the IHS provides accurate estimates of anticipated need as part of the budget process. The authorizing committees in the Senate and House are encouraged, in consultation with the Indian Health Service, the Bureau of Indian Affairs and Tribal organizations, to develop timely proposals to address the longer term issues surrounding contract support costs, including the apparent contradiction between the self-determination principles laid out in P.L. 93-638 and the legal requirement that contract support costs are subject to appropriations. Our committees encourage the transition of employees from Federal to Tribal employment as part of self-determination contracts and self- governance compacts and strongly believe that the IHS should not provide disincentives for such transfers. We have noted that each year start-up costs from new and expanded contracts for the previous year are returned to the base for distribution to other contracts. These funds, currently estimated at $4.5 million, will be available in fiscal year 2000. With my support, the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations will soon be sending a letter to the IHS requesting that it set aside a portion of base contract support funds associated with prior year start up costs for use as a transition fund for costs associated with employees who elect to transfer from Federal employment to Tribal employment during the period after which contract support costs for individual contracts have been determined for that year. To the extent set aside funds are not needed for employee transition, they should be distributed equitably among existing contractors, with emphasis on the most underfunded contracts. In the last fiscal year and the one we are funding now, we will have added a total of $60 million in new contract support cost funding to the IHS budget. We know that these funds are critical to the success of Indian-operated health programs and that shortfalls still remain. However, in the current environment of caps on discretionary spending, we must develop policies that support the self-determination principles embodied in P.L. 93-638 while taking into account the fiscal realities of limits on funding for these programs. I look forward to receiving recommendations from the authorizing committees, the IHS and BIA, and tribal organizations which will address these issues in time for the committees' consideration during the fiscal year 2001 appropriations cycle. Mr. President, the conference report also includes a provision to authorize the investment of Exxon Valdez oil spill--or EVOS--settlement funds outside of the Treasury. This section is the exact language of legislation, S. 711, reported by the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee earlier this year, and represents an accord struck among many interests. The details of this accord are discussed more fully in the committee report (Senate Rpt. 106-124) accompanying S. 711. These interests include Koniag, a native regional corporation with a great interest in seeing that their native lands are valued at the level they feel appropriate given their prominence in the oil spill zone. The continuing availability of EVOS funds for habitat conservation raises another important issue I hope can be resolved in the coming months. It regards revenue sharing payments arising from oil spill area acquisitions. New additions to refuge lands, such as those from EVOS settlement land acquisitions, qualify adjacent communities to increased Federal payments in lieu of taxes under the Revenue Sharing Act of 1935. In 1995, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service agreed to purchase from Old Harbor, Akiok-Kaguyak and Koniag Native corporations over 160,000 acres of land within the Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge. These lands were acquired using funds derived from the consent decree in settling the United States' and State of Alaska's civil claims against Exxon, Inc. for damages caused by the Exxon Valdez oil spill in 1989. The Exxon Valdez Trustee Council, which was formed to implement the consent decree, adopted its restoration plan in 1994 with habitat protection as a key component of the plan to recover the damages caused by the oil spill. The trustee council subsequently solicited interest from land owners throughout the spill zone and ranked the habitat based on its restoration value for the species and services injured by the spill. The council, working through State and Federal land managing agencies, commissioned land appraisals and authorized negotiations with land owners. Negotiated agreements with land owners, resulting in significant habitat acquisitions, exceeded the appraisals approved by Federal and State appraisers. The trustee council in its resolutions authorizing these acquisitions with settlement funds made several findings, I'm advised that these findings included the following: Biologists, scientists and other resource specialists agree that, in their best professional judgment, protection of habitat in the spill area to levels above and beyond that provided by existing laws and regulations will likely have a beneficial effect on recovery of injured resources and lost or diminished services provided by these resources. There has been widespread public support for the acquisition of these lands, locally, within the spill zone and nationally. It is ordinarily the Federal Government's practice to pay fair market value for the lands it acquires. However, due to the unique circumstances of this proposed acquisition, including the land's exceptional habitat for purposes of promoting recovery of natural resources injured by EVOS and the need to acquire it promptly to prevent degradation of the habitat, the trustee council believes it is appropriate in this case to pay more than fair market value for these particular parcels. This offer is a reasonable price given the significant natural resource and service values protected; the scope and pervasiveness of the EVOS environmental disaster and the need for protection of ecosystems . . . The trustee council-commissioned appraisals--which were performed in accordance with Federal regulations--for the three large parcels acquired within Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge are estimates of fair market value. However, they varied substantially from the landowners' appraisals and what they believe to be their fair market value. The land owners rejected the initial offers made by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to purchase the lands based on the trustee council's commissioned appraisals. The estimates of fair market value based on the Federal appraisals are below the prices actually paid for the various parcels of land, and they do not consider the purchase price paid in these and other governmental acquisitions in Alaska. The trustee council, through its public process, difficult negotiations and subsequent findings determined that the price paid for the lands was ``a reasonable price'' for a variety of reasons including past Federal large-scale acquisitions. The acquisition in fee of these three large parcels within Kodiak NWR now requires the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to make payments in lieu of taxes to the Kodiak Island borough in accordance with the Revenue Sharing Act of 1935. The act directs the agency to make such payments based on the fair market value of acquired lands. The service is currently using the federally approved appraisals estimating fair market value of these three large parcels as the basis for computing the revenue sharing payment to the borough. The borough has rightly challenged the Service's determination of fair market value based on the unique circumstances of these acquisitions and the findings made by the trustee council in approving funds for these acquisitions. A plain reading of the Revenue Sharing Act (which authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to make refuge revenue sharing payments) requires that the determinations of fair market value be made in a manner that ``The Secretary considers to be equitable and in the public interest.'' Clearly, the public interest associated with these unique acquisitions has been well documented in the findings of the trustee council. The Revenue Sharing Act imposes no legal impediment for the Secretary to make a determination of fair market value that incorporates the unique circumstances of these acquisitions and the specific findings and actions taken by the trustee council. Thus, I urge the Secretary to review the Kodiak Island Borough's appeal to the Service's determinations for making revenue sharing payments and do what is fair and equitable as called for by the act. These are unique circumstances that exist nowhere else in the United States and are limited to Alaska to lands acquired in the Exxon Valdez spill zone with settlement funds. Thus, there should be no consequences for how revenue sharing payments are computed for service acquired lands in other parts of Alaska or throughout the rest of the country. At this opportunity, upon the passage of another year's funding for the Federal and Indian land management agencies, I must call to the attention of my colleagues and to the attention of the President of the United States, an issue that troubles me deeply. Over the years, our Government has made commitments to Native Americans which it has not kept. Many Americans thought that practice ended with the new, more enlightened self-determination approach to Indian policy. But as one of Alaska's Representatives in the Senate, members of the President's staff made personal promises to me just last fall on behalf of the Native people of the Chugach region which have not been kept. In 1971 Congress passed the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA). The act cleared the way for Alaska Native people, including the Chugach Natives, to receive title to a small portion of their traditional lands as settlement of their aboriginal land claims. The act also cleared the way for the addition of millions of acres to our national parks, wildlife refuges forests, and wilderness areas. Allowing Native people to develop their lands freed them from economic bondage to the Federal Government. No longer would they have to depend exclusively on the benevolence of the Federal Government for hand-outs. They could create their own jobs, generate their own income, and determine their own destiny. But only if they had access to their lands. Both the administration and the Congress recognized the lands would be virtually valueless if there was no way to get to them. The Claims Act recognized that Native lands were to be used for both traditional and economic development purposes. Alaska Natives were guaranteed a right of access, under law, to their lands across the vast new parks, refuges, and forests that would be created. In 1971 and again in 1982, under the terms of the Chugach Native Inc. settlement agreement, the Federal Government made a solemn vow to ensure the Chugach people had access to their aboriginal lands. Now a quarter of a century later, that commitment has not been fulfilled. Many of the Native leaders who worked with me to achieve the landmark Native Land Claims Settlement Act have died after waiting for decades without seeing that promise honored. Last year, Congressman Don Young, Chairman of the House Resources Committee, added a provision to the House Interior Appropriations bill that required, by a date certain, the Federal Government to live up to the access promises it made to the Chugach Natives decades ago. In the conference last fall on the Omnibus appropriations bill, the administration spoke passionately and repeatedly against the provision. Why? They fully admitted the obligation to grant an access easement exists. They acknowledged further that access delayed is access denied and that further delays were harmful to the Chugach people. They opposed the provision on the grounds that it was not necessary since they were going to move with all due haste to finalize the easement before the end of 1998. Katie McGinty, then head of the President's Council on Environmental Quality sat across from me, looked me in the eye, and promised me they would fulfill this long overdue promise before the end of the year. She even offered to issue a ``Presidential Proclamation'' promising once again to do what had already been promised and promised and promised. My staff worked with OMB on the content of such a proclamation, but I told them it would not be necessary. I would take her at her word and believed the administration would live up to the personal commitment she made to me. Here we are a year later, Chugach still has not received its easement. Ms. McGinty is gone, but her commitment on behalf of this administration remains. It is now the responsibility of others to ensure the promises she made to me and to Alaska's Native people are kept. Congressman Young's House Resources Committee has reported a bill, H.R. 2547, to address this issue legislatively, in the hope of forcing the administration to do what it has promised to do. Senator Murkowski has been tireless in his efforts to get the Federal Government to live up to the promises made to Alaskans concerning access to our State and Native lands. I support those efforts. But I take the time today to say clearly to this administration that the promises made by our Government to the Chugach people for access to their lands--and to me personally as their Representative--must be honored. Make no mistake, if the promises made to me by officials in this administration last fall are not lived up to soon, if they oppose the efforts of Congressman Young and Senator Murkowski on this issue, if they continue to obfuscate and ``slow roll'' this commitment, it will be clear to all that this administration does not perceive the true meaning of Robert Service's memorable phrase: ``A promise made is a debt unpaid''!

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, as Chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee, I would like to explain the provisions relating to Pacific salmon and the Pacific Salmon Treaty included in the conference report for the fiscal year 2000 Commerce, State, Justice Appropriations bill. The conference report provides funding to implement the 1999 Pacific Salmon Treaty Agreement between the United States and Canada and for Pacific coastal salmon recovery efforts in Alaska, Washington, Oregon, and California. Section 623 of the conference report authorizes this funding and addresses other issues which are critical to the success of the 1999 Pacific Salmon Treaty Agreement. Section 623(a) establishes the Northern Boundary and Transboundary Rivers Restoration and Enhancement Fund and the Southern Boundary Restoration and Enhancement Fund. The 1999 Agreement requires the United States to capitalize these two funds at $75,000,000 and $65,000,000, respectively, over the next 4 years. Interest earned from these funds will be spent each year to develop better information to support resource management, to rehabilitate and restore marine and freshwater habitat, and to enhance wild stock production. This investment will complement a C$400,000,000 Canadian investment in habitat restoration and license buyback programs. Each fund will be managed by a bilateral committee of three United States and three Canadian representatives. Appropriately, the three United States representatives on the Northern Fund Committee are Alaskans: Alaska's Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner to the Pacific Salmon Commission and the Regional Administrator of the Alaska Region of the National Marine Fisheries Service. Likewise, the three United States representatives on the Southern Fund Committee are from the Lower 48: one representative of the States of Washington and Oregon; one representative of the treaty Indian tribes; and the Regional Administrator of the Northwest Region of the National Marine Fisheries Service. I expect that the Northern Fund Committee will consult with the Northern Panel of the Pacific Salmon Commission on funding proposals prior to making its decisions. Likewise, the Southern Fund Committee should consult with the Southern Panel. Section 623(b) implements the 1999 Agreement by addressing several conditions to that agreement. First, it provides that the $20,000,000 appropriated to capitalize the Northern Fund and the Southern Fund will not be made available until two events occur. First, the parties to the Boldt-related litigation must be sign and file stipulations staying that litigation for the duration of the 1999 Agreement. Second, the Secretary of Commerce must determine that the conduct of Alaska's fisheries under the 1999 Agreement, without further clarification or modification of the management regimes contained in the 1999 Agreement, do not cause jeopardy to salmon species listed under the Endangered Species Act. If the Secretary of Commerce requires alterations, modifications, or any other changes to the fishery management regimes contained in the Treaty, this condition is not satisfied. The 1999 Agreement is expressly conditioned on both of these requirements being met. The document titled ``Understanding of United States Negotiators,'' signed June 22, 1999, by eight United States negotiators, describes the stipulations to be filed, extended, or otherwise addressed for the duration of the 1999 Agreement. Similarly, the transmittal letter which accompanied the 1999 Agreement, signed June 23, 1999 by the Chief Negotiators for the United States and Canada, states that the 1999 agreement is conditioned on whether the conduct of Alaska's fisheries under the Treaty violates the Endangered Species Act. It is important to note that Congress has every reason to believe Alaska's fisheries do not cause jeopardy to listed salmon stocks. Alaska's fisheries operated under a ``no jeopardy'' finding before our fishermen gave up 25 percent of their Chinook catch in order to get a deal on the 1999 Agreement. To address process concerns, this subsection requires the parties to request that the court enter the stipulations before the end of the year, and that the court enter the stipulations by March 1, 2000. Sections 623(b)(3) and 623(b)(4) specify conditions under which the Secretary of Commerce may ``initiate or reinitiate'' consultation on Alaska Fisheries under the Endangered Species Act. Subsections (b)(3) and (b)(4) address any consultation on Alaska fisheries which is commenced after the initial consultation required in subsection (b)(1). By using the words ``initiate or reinitiate,'' Congress has addressed both those species which are currently listed under the Endangered Species Act as well as any species listed under ESA in the future. Therefore, before the Secretary of Commerce may initiate consultation on any listed species, including any species listed after this Act has passed, and before the Secretary may reinitiate a previously conducted consultation, the conditions in subsections (b)(3) and (b)(4) of section 623 must be met. Section 623(b)(3) requires the Secretary of Commerce to issue a jeopardy determination on Southern United States fisheries before he may initiate or reinitiate consultation on Alaska fisheries. Section 623(b) defines Southern United States fisheries as the directed Pacific salmon fisheries in Washington, Oregon, and the Snake River basin of Idaho that are subject to the Pacific Salmon Treaty. Subsection (b)(3) will also require the Secretary to develop the maximum sustainable yield (MSY) data or other escapement data necessary to make such a determination. The Secretary should work with the Pacific Salmon Commission to develop this information. Section 623(b)(4) requires the Secretary of Commerce to provide the Pacific Salmon Commission a reasonable opportunity to implement the 1999 Agreement including, if necessary, the weak stock provisions in the 1999 Agreement, and to make a determination that the 1999 Agreement will not meet MSY goals before he may initiate or reinitiate consultation on Alaska fisheries under ESA. The phrase ``reasonable opportunity'' is intended to provide sufficient time for the 1999 Agreement to work. If the Pacific Salmon Commission implements the weak stock provisions, the phrase ``reasonable opportunity'' is intended to provide sufficient time for the weak stock provisions to work as well. A reasonable opportunity will encompass several life cycles of the salmon under consideration. Subsection (b)(4) purposefully adopts the recovery standard contained in the Pacific Salmon Treaty. This standard requires that the weak stock provisions return escapements as expeditiously as possible to maximum sustainable yield or other biologically-based escapement objectives agreed to by the Pacific Salmon Commission. This subsection recognizes that conservation is the foremost tenet of the Pacific Salmon Treaty. The Treaty also recognizes the importance of the salmon fisheries to the social, cultural, and economic well-being of the West Coast. Therefore, the Treaty seeks to satisfy its conservation objective with minimum disruption to the commercial, tribal, and sport fisheries. Recognizing these, objectives, the determination of whether escapement objectives have been met as expeditiously as possible must be made over a reasonable period of time, likely encompassing several life cycles of the salmon species under consideration. The most important feature of this law is that it requires the Secretary to delay the enforcement of the Endangered Species Act until the Pacific Salmon Commission has an opportunity to implement the Treaty and, if necessary, the weak stock provisions of the Treaty. This later-enacted law relieves the Secretary of his duty to apply the Endangered Species Act during the time the Commission is implementing the Treaty and the weak stock provisions. This is important because the Commission is better able to recover weak stocks using the Treaty than is the Secretary using the Endangered Species Act. The Commission can require harvest restrictions in Canada, where up to half of the coastwide Chinook harvest is caught. Unlike the Pacific Salmon Treaty, the Endangered Species Act does not apply in Canada. Subsection (b)(4) recognizes the important role the Pacific Salmon Commission should play in the recovery of weak stocks by ensuring that the Commission has the opportunity to fully implement the weak stock provisions of the Pacific Salmon Treaty. Section 623(c) makes needed changes to the voting structure of the Pacific Salmon Commission. The Pacific Salmon Treaty Act of 1985 required the three voting United States Commissioners to reach unanimous agreement before making a decision on behalf of the United States. This requirement was put in place without knowing how disruptive it would prove to subsequent negotiations. In practice, it has allowed Canadian negotiators to leverage northern and southern U.S. interest against each other. Subsection (c) prevents this unintended consequence by providing that the southern U.S. interests represent the United States on southern fisheries and Alaska represents the United States on northern fisheries. In fact, the 1999 Agreement itself did not take shape until Alaska and Canada were able to negotiate northern fisheries issues without interference from southern interests. Chinook salmon, which can migrate through northern and southern jurisdictions, are exempt from this provision. Section 623(d) authorizes $20,000,000 total to capitalize the Northern Fund and the Southern Fund. To meet a condition of the 1999 Agreement, these amounts will not be released until stipulations have been signed and court orders requested in certain litigation involving the application of tribal fishing rights. Subsection (d) also authorizes $58,000,000 for salmon recovery efforts in Alaska, Washington, Oregon, and California. Amounts appropriated to the four States are subject to a 25 percent non-federal match requirement. States may meet this requirement with cash or other in-kind contributions supported by existing state funding. I understand Washington State and Oregon will use their shares of this funding to address the significant habitat issues they face in those States. Alaska has neither enjoyed the benefits nor suffered the consequence of extensive development inside its borders, although some would say that we have suffered the consequences of development elsewhere through the harvest restrictions our fishermen have endured over the years. I expect that in addition to habitat restoration, Alaska will participate in other programs consistent with Treaty implementation, such as marketing initiatives. Alaska also has the authority to participate in salmon initiatives in other States and on tribal, lands. Many of the tribes will likely use their funding to participate in demonstration projects on supplementation including the use of Mitchell Act hatcheries to increase production of wild stocks. A close analysis of NMFS's artificial propagation policy may lead to different policies which help meet the recovery goals outlined in the Pacific Salmon Treaty. I look forward to the results of the States and tribal efforts.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, during the last month of negotiations on the FY00 Commerce, Justice, State Appropriations conference report, there has been much discussion between the Alaska delegation and Commerce Department officials regarding where to homeport the Rainier. The Rainier is one of four hydrographic survey vessels currently homeported in Seattle. However, the Rainier spends nearly all of its time performing hydrographic surveys in Southeast Alaska, where the need for hydrographic surveys is great. Substantial amounts of time and money are wasted every time the Rainier transits the 650 miles between Seattle and Southeast Alaska. Alaska has more than half of the United States' coastline, and no State is more dependent on marine transportation. Nonetheless, most of southeast Alaska lacks adequate hydrographic surveys. In fact, more than half of NOAA's critical backlog of survey areas is in Alaska. Much of that backlog is in southeast Alaska, where three cruise ships ran aground this summer. These ships ran aground in critical backlog areas and other areas that are literally not on the map. New coastline opens up every time a receding glacier creates a new inlet, giving vessels access to totally uncharted waters. Chairman Young of the House Resources Committee met personally with Commerce Secretary Daley on this issue recently. The Secretary agreed that Alaska was an appropriate home for the Rainier. The city of Ketchikan has offered to make space available for the Rainier and to provide $300,000 cash to offset the one-time cost of the move. Moving this vessel to Ketchikan makes good fiscal sense and good policy sense. I urge the Secretary to relocate the Rainier to Ketchikan at once. pacific salmon treaty

Mr. STEVENS. Thank you.

Mr. STEVENS. Why is the BDS technology better suited to small refineries?

Mr. STEVENS. It is my understanding that the Chairman intends for this grant to be made available only to a refinery owned by a small business in Alaska. Is that correct?

Mr. STEVENS. The FY 2000 Interior Appropriations conference report provides a grant to a refinery in Alaska for a pilot project to demonstrate the effectiveness of diesel biocatalytic desulfurization technology, or BDS for short. This technology holds great promise for helping our petroleum refining industry reduce the sulfur content of diesel fuel in order to meet new EPA regulations. Would the Chairman of the Subcommittee clarify a couple of points about this grant?

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I agree with my colleague, the Chairman of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The Senator from Alaska and the Senator from Washington will remember that I asked that the language in the conference report be inserted last year. I, too, am concerned that no action has taken place. It is my intent, as chairman of this committee, that the training called for in last year's conference report take place, and that the program led by Alaska Pacific University, in conjunction with two of the closest law schools in Washington and Oregon, take place. There are sufficient funds in the training budgets of the several Interior agencies to make this happen, and I believe it should happen in conjunction with the outside resources who are developing this curriculum. While I participated in the program held in Washington, DC, on this issue, I would hope that a greater effort is put forth in the future.

Mr. STEVENS. I thank the Senator.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I would like to engage the Senator from Utah, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, in a colloquy. As the Senator knows, the C-Band industry is declining and the conferees correctly exempted existing C-Band consumers from numerous provisions in this bill at my request. It is my understanding the conferees sought to exempt the C-Band industry from the program exclusivity rules that we are applying in the satellite bill. Complying with the program exclusivity rules would be technically and economically unreasonable for the C-Band industry and would only deprive C-Band consumers with some of their favorite programming.

Mr. STEVENS. I assure my colleague that it was never our intent to shut down existing operations under any circumstances. Applying the opinion to these existing operations through the back door of a plan amendment would undermine the entire provision and make it meaningless. Anybody who knows the mining industry knows that plan amendments are routine. We want operators to be able to amend their plans when necessary to make them better. The provision covers such amendments, and protects them from the legal interpretation contained in the Solicitor's opinion.

Mr. STEVENS. My friend is right. In compromising the House and Senate versions, our intention was to avoid the retroactive application of the Solicitor's opinion of November 7, 1997 and the resulting destruction of existing jobs and investments.

Mr. STEVENS. I can say unequivocally that your understanding is correct. We all know that plans and operations are often revised by the applicant before being finally approved. Indeed, some revisions are required by the BLM or Forest Service during the plan review process. It is the clear intent of the language to protect revisions made prior to the plan's final approval. It is the operation, not a specific property position (whether mining claims or mill sites), that is protected. Anything less would be grossly inequitable and directly contrary to the clear intent of the conference.

Mr. STEVENS. The Majority Leader is correct. In providing for the first of these ships to be built, we understood that the public will benefit from free and unrestricted competition on this vessel. The demands placed on our fishery management system dictate that we procure the most technically sophisticated ship possible from our U.S. shipbuilding industry. The only way to guarantee this result is to conduct a free and open competition among all U.S. shipbuilders and meet with Dr. Baker, the Director of NOAA, who has agreed to homeport this vessel in Kodiak. By locating it mid way between the Gulf of Alaska and the Bering Sea, it will have ready access to the Nation's two largest fisheries.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I have some comments on issues raised by the conference report to the Interior appropriations bill. On the matter of contract support costs for Bureau of Indian Affairs and Indian Health Service programs operated by native organizations under the provisions of P.L. 93-638, I am pleased that we have been able to add $10 million to BIA funding and $25 million to IHS funding over fiscal year 1999 levels to support additional payments of contract support costs for these programs. This new funding will allow BIA and IHS to bring existing programs' contract support cost payments closer to the full amount of negotiated support and will allow a limited number of new and expanded programs in both agencies to go forward. However, I am concerned that the tribes have been operating, in the distribution of contract support costs, under the assumption that contract support costs are an entitlement under the law. The House and Senate committees on appropriations have taken exception to that interpretation and have tried to persuade the IHS to change its allocation methodology and to set reasonable limits on the number and size of new and expanded contracts it executes consonant with resources made available by Congress for the payment of contract support costs. The Federal circuit's court of appeals in its October 27, 1999 decision in Babbitt v. Oglala Sioux Tribal Public Safety Department (1999 WL 974155 (Fed. Cir.)) has now affirmed that contract support costs are not an entitlement, but rather are subject to appropriations. Contract support cases raising similar legal issues are pending in the 10th circuit court of appeals and in various Federal district courts around the country. The Federal circuit's decision was correct both in its holding and in its reasoning and should serve as precedent for other pending cases. To assume that Congress would create a system in which tribes receive the majority of their contract support costs through funds appropriated to the Indian Health Service or Bureau of Indian Affairs and which requires tribes to seek the balance in court through the claims and judgment fund turns logic on its ear. ``Subject to appropriations'' means what it says. The Indian Health Service has made improvements to its distribution methodology in fiscal year 1999 but continues to distribute funds at varying rates for different contracts, compacts and annual funding agreements. More disturbing, the current IHS system pays contractors with high overhead costs (relative to program costs) at the same percentage rate as it pays contractors with low overhead rates, rewarding inefficient operators and creating an incentive to maximize overhead costs. The bill allows the funding in FY 2000 of a limited number of new and expanded contracts through the Indian Self Determination (ISD) Fund of $10 million. It is expected that, once the contract support cost total (paid at an average rate not to fall above or below the average rate of payment of contract support costs to existing contractors in FY 2000) for new and expanded programs has reached $10 million, IHS will not execute any further new or expanded contracts until Congress has provided funds specifically earmarked for that purpose. Existing IHS policy does not permit reduction of existing service providers' funding in order to fund new entrants into the system. This bill does not modify that policy. If funds remain in the ISD fund after all new entrants have been accommodated, those funds should be distributed equitably across existing programs, with particular emphasis on the most underfunded. The Indian Health Service should include as part of its FY 2001 budget request a detailed cost estimate for new and expanded contracts so that Congress will be aware of anticipated need when it establishes a funding level for an ISD account in FY 2001. Congress and the courts have made it plain that IHS can no longer enter into new and expanded contracts without regard to the level of funding provided for that purpose by Congress. Congress will be aided in its efforts to establish a reasonable level of support for new and expanded contracts if the IHS provides accurate estimates of anticipated need as part of the budget process. The authorizing committees in the Senate and House are encouraged, in consultation with the Indian Health Service, the Bureau of Indian Affairs and tribal organizations, to develop timely proposals to address the longer term issues surrounding contract support costs, including the apparent contradiction between the self-determination principles laid out in P.L. 93-638 and the legal requirement that contract support costs are ``subject to appropriations.'' Our committees encourage the transition of employees from Federal to tribal employment as part of self-determination contracts and self- governance compacts and strongly believe that the IHS should not provide disincentives for such transfers. We have noted that each year start-up costs from new and expanded contracts for the previous year are returned to the base for distribution to other contracts. These funds, currently estimated at $4.5 million, will be available in FY 2000. With my support, the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations will soon be sending a letter to the IHS requesting that it set aside a portion of base contract support funds associated with prior year start up costs for use as a transition fund for costs associated with employees who elect to transfer from Federal employment to tribal employment during the period after which contract support costs for individual contracts have been determined for that year. To the extent set aside funds are not needed for employee transition, they should be distributed equitably among existing contractors, with emphasis on the most underfunded contracts. In the last fiscal year and the one we are funding now, we will have added a total of $60 million in new contract support cost funding to the IHS budget. We know that these funds are critical to the success of Indian-operated health programs and that shortfalls still remain. However, in the current environment of caps on discretionary spending, we must develop policies that support the self-determination principles embodied in P.L. 93-638 while taking into account the fiscal realities of limits on funding for these programs. I look forward to receiving recommendations from the authorizing committees, the IHS and BIA, and tribal organizations which will address these issues in time for the committees' consideration during the FY 2001 appropriations cycle. The conference report also includes a provision to authorize the investment of Exxon Valdez oil spill--or EVOS--settlement funds outside of the Treasury. This section is the exact language of legislation, S. 711, reported by the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee earlier this year, and represents an accord struck among many interests. The details of this accord are discussed more fully in the committee report (Senate Rpt. 106-124) accompanying S. 711. These interests include Koniag, a native regional corporation with a great interests in seeing that their native lands are valued at the level they feel appropriate given their prominence in the oil spill zone. The continuing availability of EVOS funds for habitat conservation raises another important issue I hope can be resolved in the coming months. It regards revenue sharing payments arising from oil spill area acquisitions. New additions to refuge lands, such as those from EVOS settlement land acquisitions, qualify adjacent communities to increased federal payments in lieu of taxes under the Revenue Sharing Act of 1935. In 1995, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service agreed to purchase from Old Harbor, Akiok-Kaguyak and Koniag Native Corporations over 160,000 acres of land within the Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge. These lands were acquired using funds derived from the consent decree in settling the United States' and State of Alaska's civil claims against Exxon, Inc. for damages caused by the Exxon Valdez oil spill in 1989. The Exxon Valdez Trustee Council, which was formed to implement the consent decree, adopted its restoration plan in 1994 with habitat protection as a key component of the plan to recover the damages caused by the oil spill. The trustee council subsequently solicited interest from land owners throughout the spill zone and ranked the habitat based on its restoration value for the species and services injured by the spill. The council, working through State and Federal land managing agencies, commissioned land appraisals and authorized negotiations with land owners. Negotiated agreements with land owners, resulting in significant habitat acquisitions, exceeded the appraisals approved by Federal and State appraisers. The trustee council in its resolutions authorizing these acquisitions with settlement funds made several findings, I'm advised that these findings included the following: ``Biologists, scientists and other resource specialists agree that, in their best professional judgment, protection of habitat in the spill area to levels above and beyond that provided by existing laws and regulations will likely have a beneficial effect on recovery of injured resources and lost or diminished services provided by these resources.'' ``There has been widespread public support for the acquisition of these lands, locally, within the spill zone and nationally.'' ``It is ordinarily the Federal Government's practice to pay fair market value for the lands it acquires. However, due to the unique circumstances of this proposed acquisition, including the land's exceptional habitat for purposes of promoting recovery of natural resources injured by EVOS and the need to acquire it promptly to prevent degradation of the habitat, the trustee council believes it is appropriate in this case to pay more than fair market value for these particular parcels.'' ``This offer is a reasonable price given the significant natural resource and service values protected; the scope and pervasiveness of the EVOS environmental disaster and the need for protection of ecosystems . . .'' The trustee council-commissioned appraisals--which were performed in accordance with Federal regulations--for the three large parcels acquired within Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge are estimates of fair market value. However, they varied substantially from the landowners' appraisals and what they believed to be their fair market value. The landowners rejected the initial offers made by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to purchase the lands based on the trustee council's commissioned appraisals. The estimates of fair market value based on the Federal appraisals are below the prices actually paid for the various parcels of land, and they do not consider the purchase price paid in these and other governmental acquisitions in Alaska. The trustee council, through its public process, difficult negotiations and subsequent findings determined that the price paid for the lands was a ``reasonable price'' for a variety of reasons including past Federal large scale acquisitions. The acquisition in fee of these three large parcels within Kodiak NWR now requires the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to make payments in lieu of taxes to the Kodiak Island borough in accordance with the Revenue Sharing Act of 1935. The act directs the agency to make such payments based on the fair market value of acquired lands. The service is currently using the federally approved appraisals estimating fair market value of these three large parcels as the basis for computing the revenue sharing payment to the borough. The borough has rightly challenged the service's determination of fair market value based on the unique circumstances of these acquisitions and the findings made by the trustee council in approving funds for these acquisitions. A plain reading of the Revenue Sharing Act (which authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to make refuge revenue sharing payments) requires that the determinations of fair market value be made in a manner that ``the Secretary considers to be equitable and in the public interest.'' Clearly, the public interest associated with these unique acquisitions has been well documented in the findings of the trustee council. The Revenue Sharing Act imposes no legal impediment for the Secretary to make a determination of fair market value that incorporates the unique circumstances of these acquisitions and the specific findings and actions taken by the trustee council. Thus, I urge the Secretary to review the Kodiak Island borough's appeal to the service's determinations for making revenue sharing payments and do what is fair and equitable as called for by the act. These are unique circumstances that exist nowhere else in the United States and are limited in Alaska to lands acquired in the Exxon Valdez spill zone with settlement funds. Thus, there should be no consequences for how revenue sharing payments are computed for service acquired lands in other parts of Alaska or throughout the rest of the country. At this opportunity, upon the passage of another year's funding for the Federal and Indian lands management agencies, I must call to the attention of my colleagues and to the attention of the President of the United States, an issue that troubles me deeply. Over the years, our Government has made commitments to native Americans which it has not kept. Many Americans thought that practice ended with the new, more enlightened self-determination approach to Indian policy. But as one of Alaska's representatives in the Senate, members of the President's staff made personal promises to me just last fall on behalf of the native people of the Chugach region which have not been kept. In 1971 Congress passed the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA). The act cleared the way for Alaska native people, including the Chugach natives, to receive title to a small portion of their traditional lands as settlement of their aboriginal land claims. The act also cleared the way for the additional millions of acres to our national parks, wildlife refuges, forests, and wilderness areas. Allowing native people to develop their lands freed them from economic bondage to the Federal Government. No longer would they have to depend exclusively on the benevolence of the Federal Government for hand-outs. They could create their own jobs, generate their own income, and determine their own destiny. But only if they had access to their lands. Both the administration and the Congress recognized the lands would be virtually valueless if there was no way to get to them. The Claims Act recognized that native lands were to be used for both traditional and economic development purposes. Alaska natives were guaranteed a right of access, under law, to their lands across the vast new parks, refuges, and forests that would be created. In 1971 and again in 1982, under the terms of the Chugach Native Inc. settlement agreement, the Federal Government made a solemn vow to ensure the Chugach people had access to their aboriginal lands. Now, a quarter of a century later, that commitment has not been fulfilled. Many of the native leaders who worked with me to achieve the landmark Native Land Claims Settlement Act have died after waiting for decades without seeing that promise honored. Last year, Congressman Don Young, chairman of the House Resources Committee, added a provision to the House Interior appropriations bill that required, by a date certain, the Federal Government to live up to the access promises it made to the Chugach natives decades ago. In the conference last fall on the omnibus appropriations bill, the administration spoke passionately and repeatedly against the provision. Why? They fully admitted the obligation to grant an access easement exists. They acknowledged further that access delayed is access denied and that further delays were harmful to the Chugach people. They opposed the provision on the grounds that it was not necessary since they were going to move with all due haste to finalize the easement before the end of 1998. Katie McGinty, then head of the President's Council on Environmental Quality sat across from me, looked me in the eye, and promised me they would fulfill this long overdue promise before the end of the year. She even offered to issue a ``Presidential proclamation'' promising once again to do what had already been promised and promised and promised. My staff worked with OMB on the content of such a proclamation, but I told them it would not be necessary. I would take her at her word and believed the administration would live up to the personal commitment she made to me. Here we are a year later. Chugach still has not received its easement. Ms. McGinty is gone, but her commitment on behalf of this administration remains. It is now the responsibility of others to ensure the promises she made to me and to Alaska's native people are kept. Congressman Young's House resources Committee has reported a bill, H.R. 2547, to address this issue legislatively, in the hope of forcing the administration to do what it has promised to do. Senator Murkowski has been tireless in his efforts to get the Federal Government to live up to the promises made to Alaskans concerning access to our State and native lands. I support those efforts. But I take the time today to say clearly to this administration that the promises made by our Government to the Chugach people for access to their lands--and to me personally as their representative--must be honored. Make no mistake, if the promises made to me by officials in this administration last fall are not lived up to soon, if they oppose the efforts of Congressman Young and Senator Murkowski on this issue, if they continue to obfuscate and ``slow roll'' this commitment, it will be clear to all that his administration does not perceive the true meaning of Robert Service's memorable phrase: ``A promise made is a debt unpaid!''

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I checked with my office. TEA 21, the highway bill, had a loan guarantee program. It took 16 months for the regulations to be drawn before there was one guarantee made. We have the process to be started on the Satellite Home Viewer Act to create regulations for a new loan guarantee program, and I said it could be done in 6 months. My staff tells me I was very conservative; it will take much longer than that. We will have the law for authorizing the loan guarantee done by the end of April. I do not believe that those who agree with me that there should be a loan guarantee program should be worried about the deletion of that authorization now. The problem on the loan guarantee program is to commence the drafting and, really, the presentation of the new program. It will be entirely new. It is not similar to any conduct of a loan guarantee program in history. So it will take a considerable amount of time. I want the Record to note there is no reason to oppose this bill and particularly to oppose this continuing resolution on the basis of the deletion of the loan guarantee program from the Satellite Home Bureau Act.

Mr. STEVENS. I certainly won't make a long statement. I still am very committed to the loan guarantee provisions that were in the Satellite Home Viewer Act. But I am also convinced that we would have a period of time to get the regulations ready to proceed with that guarantee program. It would take roughly 6, 7 months. I am going to ask the FCC to start preparing those regulations now. We have the commitment that we will have a loan guarantee bill before us, and we will be voting on it sometime in April. We will not delay the loan guarantee program for rural America by what we have done. I was assured of that, and I am assured in my own mind that it will work. We will be right on time by the time we get this bill. We have a commitment coming that we will either have an improved authorization for a loan guarantee or we will vote what was in the bill we took out last night. I urge my friend to understand that we have not abandoned the loan guarantee program. Coming from where I do, I would never abandon it. When I came to the Senate, the Army ran the communications system of Alaska; the U.S. Government owned all of the telephones in Alaska. Now, when you look at the distance we have come in a relatively short time of my service in the Senate, we are going to do the same thing with satellite communications in a very short period of time, in a new way, consistent with private enterprise, on a guarantee program rather than a Government loan program. We need to have certainty to what we are doing. I know it will take a long time to get the regulations ready. We did not agree to delaying the loan guarantee program last night; we delayed the authorization for it, and we will have that authorization by April of next year.

Mr. STEVENS. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I am pleased to announce that Congress included $10 million in the Foreign Operations Appropriations bill to continue the Russian Leadership Program in Fiscal Year 2000. The Russian Leadership Program was created earlier this year in the FY 1999 supplemental appropriations bill in order to bring emerging Russian leaders to the United States to see first hand how democracy and the American free market economic system function. The program was successful in bringing over 2,100 emerging leaders from 83 of the 89 states and republics in the Russian Federation during July, August, and September of this year. Dr. Billington, the Librarian of Congress, and one of the world's leading historians of Russian culture was asked to administer this program. Our thanks go to Dr. Billington for doing an excellent job implementing this program in a short period of time. The program was modeled after the Marshall Plan which was implemented after World War II. Between 1946-1956, the U.S. Government brought over 10,000 Germans citizens to the United States to learn ways to rebuild their economy through technical assistance as well as cultural and political contacts. The Marshall Plan was one of the most successful foreign aid programs of the last century. Similar to the Marshall Plan, participants in the Russian Leadership Program visited more than 400 communities in 46 states and the District of Columbia observing democracy in action at all levels of government. They met and discussed the American system of government with current and former U.S. Presidents, Members of the U.S. Senate and U.S. House, Governors, state legislators, state supreme court justices, mayors, and members of city and town councils. Some of the participants also campaigned door-to-door with political candidates, visited police and fire stations, met with students in schools, visited hospitals, research facilities, businesses, soup kitchens, shelters and experienced firsthand the partnership among government, and the private sector. This program was unique because more than 800 American families hosted our Russian visitors, welcoming them into their homes and communities, and spending the time to answer questions about and show our guests the American way of life. Vadim Baikov, one of the six Russians who visited Alaska, the State I represent, wrote after the program that, ``In my opinion, the best cultural aspect is that we stayed with the families, because in this way one can actually gain insight of the genuine American lifestyle. I think that is what counts the most.'' Organizations such as Rotary International, the United Methodist Church, Freedom Force, and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints played a key role in organizing the participants in the program both in Russia and the United States. In addition to volunteering their time, these families and hosting communities generously supplemented the government's $10 million appropriations by providing approximately $1.5 million worth of meals, cultural activities, additional transportation and medical care. Beyond the strong ties of friendship that developed between guests and hosts, it is clear that the Russian Leadership Program fundamentally changed how these Russian guests see America. They constitute the largest single group ever to travel from Russia to the U.S. They return to Russia with clear ideas and strong commitment to positive change. A mayor from Tomsk spend time with the mayor of Cleveland and said: ``If we were to meet more often, there would be more peaceful relations.'' The Russian Leadership Program has had a tremendous impact in one year. It is a good program and I am pleased that we were able to provide the necessary funding to continue this program into the new millenium.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, as chairman of the Appropriations Committee, I regret this error. It was an error. We have put together several bills in one bill and it has been a rather difficult week in many ways. This error occurred because some of the Members of the House who are involved and should have been involved were not notified of the final decision that was made with regard to a request that came from the Senators of North Carolina. Senator Helms called me several times on the matter. I talked on the floor and on the phone with Senator Edwards before the final arrangement was reached. Frankly, they sought more money than is even in the amendment that was left out of the bill. However, we said we would have to take up the further money in the supplemental that comes before the Congress in the early part of the next year. Last evening when this bill was being read out, I did receive a call concerning the fact that some of the Members of the House were disturbed by the changes that were proposed. It was determined then that had not been properly conveyed to the Members, although some of the staff, I believe, were notified and were part of it. It is just one of those things that a staff member's interaction did not take place, and I personally did not go over and tell the House Members--I probably should have--but it was one of the final items on the discussions we had, including those that involved the White House representatives who were before our committee yesterday. As a consequence, I want to assure the Senators from North Carolina, I do believe that once we have reached a decision such as that, and we felt it had been cleared out, it is our responsibility now to make certain this commitment is made good, and we will do that. This bill will do it if the House will accept it and send it to the President. If that does not happen, we will, without any question, take the matter up in the first supplemental that comes before the Congress next year. We will have the supplemental bill for Kosovo coming. That was another request we received which was not fulfilled in this series of bills that are before the Senate now. I want to assure Senator Edwards and Senator Helms on this side--and both have been very diligent in seeking these moneys--that we will put this money in the next bill if this is not accepted by the House. I have every reason to believe it will be accepted by the House. I intend to get on the phone and talk to my friends and make sure they understand. If there was an error, it was one that was caused by the intensity of the work that was going on by the staffs of five different subcommittees trying to put a bill together, along with all the other bills that were being considered, many of which were rejected and are not in this bill that we all considered over this last week. I do hope the Senators from North Carolina will accept that assurance. I can assure them this is an $81 million item and it is, in my judgment, small compared to the amount of money that will be in the next supplemental for the people who were affected by Hurricane Floyd anyway, so we will make up for this problem. We will make up the money, and we certainly will see to it that it is there. I plead with the Members of the House to pass the bill tonight. In any event, we will take care of that error as quickly as we can. Second, with regard to my good friend from West Virginia and his amendment and that of Senator McConnell and the Western Senators, I think there is a clear, growing understanding of the provisions of this amendment. I have been saying, as Senator Byrd has been saying for some time, this does not change existing law. It is an amendment to try to preserve the status quo until Congress has a chance to review the changes that would take place if decisions of the Solicitor's Office and decisions of one Federal judge were followed, which would affect the mining industry of the whole Nation. I hope the House will certainly see fit to send that measure to the President, so we can see what the White House is going to do with that. But for now, I hope the Senators involved will let us get on with the major bill, which is going to take some time. I again express my regret to the Senators involved that this incident has taken place, and we will do our best to see it does not happen. But the distinguished minority leader reminded me, on an amendment that we had on a bill earlier this year, a similar thing happened when there were just too many things going into one bill. Our provision was left out, but it got back in the next bill, I assure you. Mr. President, I do hope the Senators involved will give us the courtesy now of permitting the Appropriations Committee to present, at last, the omnibus appropriations bill that will fulfill our commitment to pass 13 appropriations bills this year.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. I thank the Budget Committee chairman for asking about section 415's real impact. An example of section 415's impact illustrates how unfairly the current law treats working people in multiemployer plans. Take, for instance, a woman who held two jobs before retiring. Upon leaving her first job she had accrued a monthly retirement benefit of $474 per month. In her second job she was employed for 15 years by a local union and her highest annual salary was $15,600. When she retires she applies for pension benefits from the two plans by which she was covered. She had earned a monthly benefit of $1,000 from the one plan and combined this with the monthly benefit of $474 from the second plan for a total monthly income of $1,474 or $17,688 per year. She looked forward to receiving this full amount throughout her retirement. However, the benefits had to be reduced by $202 per month, or about $2,400 per year to match her highest annual salary of $15,600. The so-called ``compensation based limit'' of section 415 of the Tax Code did not to take into account disparate benefits, but intended only to address people with a single employer likely to receive steady increases in salary.

Mr. STEVENS. I thank the distinguished budget chairman and the assistant majority leader.

Mr. STEVENS. No. It is an issue I have been involved with since the mid-1980's. Since that time we have seen thousands of working people in multiemployer plans retire with benefits below what they actually earned. I cosponsored S. 1209 with Senator Murkoswki in this session to address the problems of section 415. The provisions of that bill were accepted by the Senate Finance Committee and were included in section 346 of the Taxpayer Refund Act of 1999 passed by the Senate. That provision would have: (1) Eliminated the application of the 100 percent of compensation defined benefit plan limit for multiemployer plans; (2) Not allowed multiemployer plans to be aggregated with other plans maintained by an employer contributing to the multiemployer plan in applying the limits on contributions and benefits except in applying the define benefit plan dollar limitation; (3) Applied the special rules for defined benefit plans of governmental employers to multiemployer plans, thus eliminating the high-three-year average limitation; and (4) Increased reductions of the dollar limit prior to age 62 for defined benefit plans of governmental employers and tax-exempt organizations, qualified Merchant Marine plans and multiemployer plans from $75,000 to 80 percent of the defined benefit dollar limit. In addition, measures to relieve the inequity of applying the three year high average had been passed three times prior to the passage of the Taxpayer Refund Act of 1999 by the Senate, most recently in the 1997 Taxpayer Relief Act. The provisions contained in the Domenici Amendment to the bankruptcy bill would: (1) Increase the limit for defined benefit plans from $90,000 to $160,000; (2) Increase the limit to be adjusted before the Social Security retirement age from $90,000 to $160,000; and (3) Increase contribution limits from $30,000 to $40,000. While these proposals are important to ensuring retirees get the benefits they deserve, they do not go far enough to create parity between retirees in multiemployer plans and retirees in public plans.

Mr. STEVENS. The Joint Committee on Taxation estimated last year that the changes adopted by the Senate on July 30th and included in my proposal would result in a tax expenditure of $4 million in the first year, $26 million over 5 years and $69 million over 10 years. It is a modest price to pay to ensure that people who have worked all their life can get the retirement benefits they are entitled to.

Mr. STEVENS. We do look for ways to encourage people to save for retirement and we try to educate people of the fact that relying on Social Security alone will not be enough. Yet the law may penalize many private sector employees in multiemployer plans by arbitrarily limiting the amount of pension benefits they can receive. It is wrong, and it should be fixed.