Summary:

All articles in Senate section

STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
(Senate - July 27, 2000)

Text of this article available as: TXT PDF [Pages S7841-S7908] STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS By Mr. BREAUX: S. 2944. A bill to clarify that certain penalties provided for in the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 are the exclusive criminal penalties for any action or activity that may arise or occur in connection with certain discharges of oil or a hazardous substance; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works. Strict Criminal Liability Reform for Oil Spill Incidents Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce legislation to address a long-standing problem which adversely affects the safe and reliable maritime transport of oil products. The legislation I am introducing today will eliminate the application and use of strict criminal liability statutes, statutes that do not require a showing of criminal intent or even the slightest degree of negligence, for maritime transportation-related oil spill incidents. Through comprehensive Congressional action that led to the enactment and implementation of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990, commonly referred to as ``OPA90'', the United States has successfully reduced the number of oil spills in the maritime environment and has established a cooperative public/private partnership to respond effectively in the diminishing number of situations when an oil spill occurs. Nonetheless, over the past decade, the use of the unrelated strict criminal liability statutes that I referred to above has undermined the spill prevention and response objectives of OPA90, the very objectives that were established by the Congress to preserve the environment, safeguard the public welfare, and promote the safe transportation of oil. The legislation I am introducing today will restore the delicate balance of interests reached in OPA90, and will reaffirm OPA90's preeminent role as the statute providing the exclusive criminal penalties for oil spill incidents. As stated in the Coast Guard's own environmental enforcement directive, a company, its officers, employees, and mariners, in the event of an oil spill ``could be convicted and sentenced to a criminal fine even where [they] took all reasonable precautions to avoid the discharge''. Accordingly, responsible operators in my home state of Louisiana and elsewhere in the United States who transport oil are unavoidably exposed to potentially immeasurable criminal fines and, in the worst case scenario, jail time. Not only is this situation unfairly targeting an industry that plays an extremely important role in our national economy, but it also works contrary to the public welfare. Most liquid cargo transportation companies on the coastal and inland waterway system of the United States have embraced safe operation and risk management as two of their most important and fundamental values. For example, members of the American Waterways Operators (AWO) from Louisiana and other states have implemented stronger safety programs that have significantly reduced personal injuries to mariners. Tank barge fleets have been upgraded through construction of new state-of- the-art double hulled tank barges while obsolete single skin barges are being retired far in advance of the OPA90 timetable. Additionally, AWO members have dedicated significant time and financial resources to provide continuous and comprehensive education and training for vessel captains, crews and shoreside staff, not only in the operation of vessels but also in preparation for all contingencies that could occur in the transportation of oil products. This commitment to marine safety and environmental protection by responsible members of the oil transportation industry is real. The industry continues to work closely with the Coast Guard to upgrade regulatory standards in such key areas as towing vessel operator qualifications and navigation equipment on towing vessels. Through the efforts of AWO and other organizations, the maritime transportation industry has achieved an outstanding compliance record with the numerous laws and regulations enforced by the Coast Guard. Let me be clear: responsible carriers, and frankly their customers, have a ``zero tolerance'' policy for oil spills. Additionally, the industry is taking spill response preparedness seriously. Industry representatives and operators routinely participate in Coast Guard oil spill crisis management courses, PREP Drills, and regional spill response drills. Yet despite all of the modernization, safety, and training efforts of the marine transportation industry, their mariners and shoreside employees cannot escape the threat of criminal liability in the event of an oil spill, even where it is shown that they ``took all reasonable precautions to avoid [a] discharge''. As you know, in response to the tragic Exxon Valdez spill, Congress enacted OPA90. OPA90 mandated new, comprehensive, and complex regulatory and enforcement requirements for the transportation of oil products and for oil spill response. Both the federal government and maritime industry have worked hard to accomplish the legislation's primary objective--to provide greater environmental safeguards in oil transportation by creating a comprehensive prevention, response, liability, and compensation regime to deal with vessel and facility oil pollution. And OPA90 is working in a truly meaningful sense. To prevent oil spill incidents from occurring in the first place, OPA90 provides an enormously powerful deterrent, through both its criminal and civil liability provisions. Moreover, OPA90 mandates prompt reporting of spills, contingency planning, and both cooperation and coordination with federal, state, and local authorities in connection with managing the spill response. Failure to report and cooperate as required by OPA90 may impose automatic civil penalties, criminal liability and unlimited civil liability. As a result, the number of domestic oil spills has been dramatically reduced over the past decade since OPA90 was enacted. In those limited situations in which oil spills unfortunately occurred, intensive efforts commenced immediately with federal, state and local officials working in a joint, unified manner with the industry, as contemplated by OPA90, to clean up and report spills as quickly as possible and to mitigate to the greatest extent any impact on the environment. OPA90 has provided a comprehensive and cohesive ``blueprint'' for proper planning, training, and resource identification to respond to an oil spill incident, and to ensure that such a response is properly and cooperatively managed. OPA90 also provides a complete statutory framework for proceeding against individuals for civil and/or criminal penalties arising out of oil spills in the marine environment. When Congress crafted this Act, it carefully balanced the imposition of stronger criminal and civil penalties with the need to promote enhanced cooperation among all of the parties involved in the spill prevention and response effort. In so doing, the Congress clearly enumerated the circumstances in which criminal penalties could be imposed for actions related to maritime oil spills, and added and/or substantially increased criminal penalties under the related laws which comprehensively govern the maritime transportation of oil and other petroleum products. The legislation we are introducing today will not change in any way the tough criminal sanctions that were imposed in OPA90. However, responsible, law-abiding members of the maritime industry in Louisiana and elsewhere are concerned by the willingness of the Department of Justice and other federal agencies in the post-OPA90 environment to use strict criminal liability statutes in oil spill incidents. As you know, strict liability imposes criminal sanctions without requiring a showing of criminal knowledge, intent or even negligence. These federal actions imposing strict liability have created an atmosphere of extreme uncertainty for the maritime transportation industry about how to respond to and cooperate with the Coast Guard and other federal [[Page S7842]] agencies in cleaning up an oil spill. Criminal culpability in this country, both historically and as reflected in the comprehensive OPA90 legislation itself, typically requires wrongful actions or omissions by individuals through some degree of criminal intent or through the failure to use the required standard of care. However, Federal prosecutors have been employing other antiquated, seemingly unrelated ``strict liability'' statutes that do not require a showing of ``knowledge'' or ``intent'' as a basis for criminal prosecution for oil spill incidents. Such strict criminal liability statutes as the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the Refuse Act, statutes that were enacted at the turn of the century to serve other purposes, have been used to harass and intimidate the maritime industry, and, in effect, have turned every oil spill into a potential crime scene without regard to the fault or intent of companies, corporate officers and employees, and mariners. The Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) (16 U.S.C. 703 et seq.) provides that ``it shall be unlawful at any time, by any means or in any manner, to pursue, hunt, take, capture, kill, attempt to take, capture, or kill, . . . any migratory bird . . .'', a violation of which is punishable by imprisonment and/or fines. Prior to the Exxon Valdez oil spill in 1989, the MBTA was primarily used to prosecute the illegal activities of hunters and capturers of migratory birds, as the Congress originally intended when it enacted the MBTA in 1918. In the Exxon Valdez case itself, and prior to the enactment of OPA90, the MBTA was first used to support a criminal prosecution against a vessel owner in relation to a maritime oil spill, and this ``hunting statute'' has been used ever since against the maritime industry. The ``Refuse Act'' (33 U.S.C. 407, 411) was enacted over 100 years ago at a time well before subsequent federal legislation essentially replaced it with comprehensive requirements and regulations specifically directed to the maritime transportation of oil and other petroleum products. Such strict liability statutes are unrelated to the regulation and enforcement of oil transportation activities, and in fact were not included within the comprehensive OPA90 legislation as statutes in which criminal liability could be found. With the prosecutorial use of strict liability statutes, owners and mariners engaged in the transportation of oil cannot avoid exposure to criminal liability, regardless of how diligently they adhere to prudent practice and safe environmental standards. Although conscientious safety and training programs, state-of-the-art equipment, proper operational procedures, preventative maintenance programs, and the employment of qualified and experienced personnel will collectively prevent most oil spills from occurring, unfortunately spills will still occur on occasion. To illustrate this point, please permit me to present a scenario that highlights the dilemma faced by the maritime oil transportation industry in Louisiana. Imagine, if you will, that a company is operating a towing vessel in compliance with Coast Guard regulations on the Mississippi River on a calm, clear day with several fully laden tank barges in tow. Suddenly, in what was charted and previously identified to be a clear portion of the waterway, one of the tank barges strikes an unknown submerged object which shears through its hull and causes a significant oil spill in the river. Unfortunately, in addition to any other environmental damage that may occur, the oil spill kills one or more migratory birds. As you know, under OPA90 the operator must immediately undertake coordinated spill response actions with the Coast Guard and other federal, state, and local agencies to safeguard the vessel and its crew, clean up the oil spill, and otherwise mitigate any damage to the surrounding environment. The overriding objectives at this critical moment are to assure personnel and public safety and to clean up the oil spill as quickly as possible without constraint. However, in the current atmosphere the operator must take into consideration the threat of strict criminal liability under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the Refuse Act, together with their attendant imprisonment and fines, despite the reasonable care and precautions taken in the operation and navigation of the tow and in the spill response effort. Indeed, in the Coast Guard's own environmental enforcement directive, the statement is made that ``[t]he decision to commit the necessary Coast Guard resources to obtain the evidence that will support a criminal prosecution must often be made in the very early stages of a pollution incident.'' Any prudent operator will quickly recognize the dilemma in complying with the mandate to act cooperatively with all appropriate public agencies in cleaning up the oil spill, while at the same time those very agencies may be conducting a criminal investigation of that operator. Vessel owners and their employees who have complied with federal laws and regulations and have exercised all reasonable care should not continue to face a substantial risk of imprisonment and criminal fines under such strict liability statutes. Criminal liability, when appropriately imposed under OPA90, should be employed only where a discharge is caused by conduct which is truly ``criminal'' in nature, i.e., where a discharge is caused by reckless, intentional or other conduct deemed criminal by OPA90. As this scenario demonstrates, the unjustified use of strict liability statutes is plainly undermining the very objectives which OPA90 sought to achieve, namely to enhance the prevention of and response to oil spills in Louisiana and elsewhere in the United States. As we are well aware, tremendous time, effort, and resources have been expended by both the federal government and the maritime industry to eliminate oil spills to the maximum extent possible, and to plan for and undertake an immediate and effective response to mitigate any environmental damage from spills that do occur. Clearly unwarranted and improper prosecutorial use of strict liability statutes is having a ``chilling'' effect on these cooperative spill prevention and response efforts. Indeed, even if we were to believe that criminal prosecution only follows intentional criminal conduct, the mere fact that strict criminal liability statutes are available at the prosecutor's discretion will intimidate even the most innocent and careful operator. With strict liability criminal enforcement, responsible members of the maritime transportation industry are faced with an extreme dilemma in the event of an oil spill--provide less than full cooperation and response as criminal defense attorneys will certainly direct, or cooperate fully despite the risk of criminal prosecution that could result from any additional actions or statements made during the course of the spill response. Consequently, increased criminalization of oil spill incidents introduces uncertainty into the response effort by discouraging full and open communication and cooperation, and leaves vessel owners and operators criminally vulnerable for response actions taken in an effort to ``do the right thing''. In the maritime industry's continuing effort to improve its risk management process, it seeks to identify and address all foreseeable risks associated with the operation of its business. Through fleet modernization, personnel training, and all other reasonable steps to address identified risks in its business, the industry still cannot manage or avoid the increased risks of strict criminal liability (again, a liability that has no regard to fault or intent). The only method available to companies and their officers to avoid the risk of criminal liability completely is to divest themselves from the maritime business of transporting oil and other petroleum products, in effect to get out of the business altogether. Furthermore, strict liability criminal laws provide a strong disincentive for trained, highly experienced mariners to continue the operation of tank vessels, and for talented and capable individuals from even entering into that maritime trade. An earlier editorial highlighted the fact that tugboat captains ``are reporting feelings of intense relief and lightening of their spirits when they are ordered to push a cargo of grain or other dry cargo, as compared to the apprehension they feel when they are staring out of their wheelhouses at tank barges'', and ``that the reason for this is very obvious in the way that they find themselves instantly facing criminal charges . . . in the event of a collision or grounding and oil or chemicals end up in the water''. Certainly, the federal government does not want to create a situation where the least experienced [[Page S7843]] mariners are the only available crew to handle the most hazardous cargoes, or the least responsible operators are the only available carriers. Thus, the unavoidable risk of such criminal liability directly and adversely affects the safe transportation of oil products, an activity essential for the public, the economy, and the nation. Therefore, despite the commitment and effort to provide trained and experienced vessel operators and employees, to comply with all safety and operational mandates of Coast Guard laws and regulations, and to provide for the safe transportation of oil as required by OPA90, maritime transportation companies in Louisiana, and elsewhere still cannot avoid criminal liability in the event of an oil spill. Responsible, law-abiding companies have unfortunately been forced to undertake the only prudent action that they could under the circumstances, namely the development of criminal liability action plans and retention of criminal counsel in an attempt to prepare for the unavoidable risks of such liability. These are only preliminary steps and do not begin to address the many implications of the increasing criminalization of oil spills. The industry is now asking what responsibility does it have to educate its mariners and shoreside staff about the potential personal exposure they may face and wonder how to do this without creating many undesirable consequences? How should the industry organize spill management teams and educate them on how to cooperate openly and avoid unwitting exposure to criminal liability? Mr. President, I have thought about these issues a great deal and simply do not know how to resolve these dilemmas under current, strict liability law. In the event of an oil spill, a responsible party not only must manage the cleanup of the oil and the civil liability resulting from the spill itself, but also must protect itself from the criminal liability that now exists due to the available and willing use of strict liability criminal laws by the federal government. Managing the pervasive threat of strict criminal liability, by its very nature, prevents a responsible party from cooperating fully and completely in response to an oil spill situation. The OPA90 ``blueprint'' is no longer clear. Is this serving the objectives of OPA90? Does this really serve the public welfare of our nation? Is this what Congress had in mind when it mandated its spill response regime? Is this in the interest of the most immediate, most effective oil spill cleanup in the unfortunate event of a spill? We think not. To restore the delicate balance of interests reached in the enactment of OPA90 a decade ago, we intend to work with the Congress to reaffirm the OPA90 framework for criminal prosecutions in oil spill incidents. The enactment of the legislation we are introducing today will ensure increased cooperation and responsiveness desired by all those interested in oil spill response issues without diluting the deterrent effect and stringent criminal penalties imposed by OPA90 itself. I look forward to continuing the effort to upgrade the safety of marine operations in the navigable waterways of the United States, and I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record. There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows: S. 2944 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, SECTION 1. AFFIRMATION OF PENALTIES UNDER OIL POLLUTION ACT OF 1990. (a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision or rule of law, section 4301(c) and 4302 of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (Public Law 101-380; 104 Stat. 537) and the amendments made by those sections provide the exclusive criminal penalties for any action or activity that may arise or occur in connection with a discharge of oil or a hazardous substance referred to in section 311(b)(3) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1321(b)(3)). (b) Rule of Construction.--Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit, or otherwise exempt any person from, liability for conspiracy to commit any offense against the United States, for fraud and false statements, or for the obstruction of justice. ______ By Mr. KENNEDY (for himself, Mr. Torricelli and Mr. Harkin): S. 2946. A bill to amend title I of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 to ensure that employees are not improperly disqualified from benefits under pension plans and welfare plans based on a miscategorization of their employee status; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. employee benefits eligibility fairness act of 2000 Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, contingent workers in our society face significant problems, and they deserve our help in meeting them. These men and women--temporary and part-time workers, contract workers, and independent contractors--continue to suffer unfairly, even in our prosperous economy. A new report from the General Accounting Office emphasizes that contingent workers often lack income security and retirement security. We know that for most workers today, a single lifetime job is a relic of the past. The world is long gone in which workers stay with their employer for many years, and then retire on a company pension. Since 1982 the number of temporary help jobs has grown 577 percent. The GAO report shows that 30 percent of the workforce--39 million working Americans--now get their paychecks from contingent jobs. Contingent workers have lower incomes than traditional, full-time workers and many are living in poverty. For example, 30 percent of agency temporary workers have family incomes below $15,000. By comparison, only 8 percent of standard full-time workers have family incomes below $15,000. Contingent workers are less likely to be covered by employer health and retirement benefits than are standard, full-time workers. Even when employers do sponsor a plan, contingent workers are less likely to participate in the plan, either because they are excluded or because the plan is too expensive. Only 21 percent of part-time workers are included in an employer-sponsored pension plan. By comparison, 64 percent of standard full-time workers are included in their employer's pension plan. Non-standard or alternative work arrangements can meet the needs of working families and employers alike, but these arrangements should not be used to divide the workforce into ``haves'' and ``have-nots.'' Flexible work arrangements, for example, can give working parents more time to care for their children, but many workers are not in their contingent jobs by choice. More than half of temporary workers would prefer a permanent job instead of their contingent job, but temporary work is all they can find. As the GAO report makes clear, employers have economic incentives to cut costs by miscategorizing their workers as temporary or contract workers. Too often, contingent arrangements are set-up by employers for the purpose of excluding workers from their employee benefit programs and evading their responsibilities to their workers. Millions of employees have been miscategorized by their employers, and as a result they have been denied the benefits and protections that they rightly deserve and worked hard to earn. All workers deserve a secure retirement at the end of their working years. Social Security has been and will continue to be the best foundation for that security. But the foundation is just that--the beginning of our responsibility, not the end of it. We cannot expect Americans to work hard all their lives, only to face poverty and hard times when they retire. That is why I am introducing, with Senators Torricelli and Harkin, the Employee Benefits Eligibility Fairness Act of 2000 to help contingent workers obtain the retirement benefits they deserve. This legislation clarifies employers' responsibilities under the law so that they cannot exclude contingent workers from employee benefit plans based on artificial labels or payroll practices. This is an issue of basic fairness for working men and women. It is unfair for individuals who work full-time, on an indefinite long-term basis for an employer to be excluded from the employer's pension plan, merely because the employer classifies the workers as ``temporary'' when in fact they are not. The employer-employee relationship should be determined on the facts of [[Page S7844]] the working arrangement, not on artificial labels, not on artificial accounting practices, not artificial payroll practices. It is long past time for Congress to recognize the plight of contingent workers and see that they get the employee benefits they deserve. These important changes are critical to improving the security of working families, and I look forward to their enactment. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record. There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows: S. 2946 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 ``Employee Benefits Eligibility Fairness Act of 2000''. SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSE. (a) Findings.--Congress makes the following findings: (1) The intent of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 to protect the pension and welfare benefits of workers is frustrated by the practice of mislabeling employees to improperly exclude them from employee benefit plans. Employees are wrongly denied benefits when they are mislabeled as temporary employees, part-time employees, leased employees, agency employees, staffing firm employees, and contractors. If their true employment status were recognized, mislabeled employees would be eligible to participate in employee benefit plans because such plans are offered to other employees performing the same or substantially the same work and working for the same employer. (2) Mislabeled employees are often paid through staffing, temporary, employee leasing, or other similar firms to give the appearance that the employees do not work for their worksite employer. Employment contracts and reports to government agencies also are used to give the erroneous impression that mislabeled employees work for staffing, temporary, employee leasing, or other similar firms, when the facts of the work arrangement do not meet the common law standard for determining the employment relationship. Employees are also mislabeled as contractors and paid from non-payroll accounts to give the appearance that they are not employees of their worksite employer. These practices violate the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. (3) Employers are amending their benefit plans to add provisions that exclude mislabeled employees from participation in the plan even in the event that such employees are determined to be common law employees and otherwise eligible to participate in the plan. These plan provisions violate the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. (4) As a condition of employment or continued employment, mislabeled employees are often required to sign documents that purport to waive their right to participate in employee benefit plans. Such documents inaccurately claim to limit the authority of the courts and applicable Federal agencies to correct the mislabeling of employees and to enforce the terms of plans providing for their participation. This practice violates the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. (b) Purpose.--The purpose of this Act is to clarify applicable provisions of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 to ensure that employees are not improperly excluded from participation in employee benefit plans as a result of mislabeling of their employment status. SEC. 3. ADDITIONAL STANDARDS RELATING TO MINIMUM PARTICIPATION REQUIREMENTS. (a) Required Inclusion of Service.--Section 202(a)(3) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (29 U.S.C. 1052(a)(3)) is amended by adding at the end the following new subparagraph: ``(E) For purposes of this section, in determining `years of service' and `hours of service', service shall include all service for the employer as an employee under the common law, irrespective of whether the worker-- ``(i) is paid through a staffing firm, temporary help firm, payroll agency, employment agency, or other such similar arrangement, ``(ii) is paid directly by the employer under an arrangement purporting to characterize an employee under the common law as other than an employee, or ``(iii) is paid from an account not designated as a payroll account.'' (b) Exclusion Precluded When Related to Certain Purported Categorizations.--Section 202 of such Act (29 U.S.C. 1052) is amended further by adding at the end the following new subsection: ``(c)(1) Subject to paragraph (2), a pension plan shall be treated as failing to meet the requirements of this section if any individual who-- ``(A) is an employee under the common law, and ``(B) performs the same work (or substantially the same work) for the employer as other employees who generally are not excluded from participation in the plan, is excluded from participation in the plan, irrespective of the placement of such employee in any category of workers (such as temporary employees, part-time employees, leased employees, agency employees, staffing firm employees, contractors, or any similar category) which may be specified under the plan as ineligible for participation. ``(2) Nothing in paragraph (1) shall be construed to preclude the exclusion from participation in a pension plan of individuals who in fact do not meet a minimum service period or minimum age which is required under the terms of the plan and which is otherwise in conformity with the requirements of this section.'' SEC. 4. WAIVERS OF PARTICIPATION INEFFECTIVE IF RELATED TO MISCATEGORIZATION OF EMPLOYEE. Section 202 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (29 U.S.C. 1052) (as amended by section 3) is amended further by adding at the end the following new subsection: ``(d) Any waiver or purported waiver by an employee of participation in a pension plan or welfare plan shall be ineffective if related, in whole or in part, to the a miscategorization of the employee in 1 or more ineligible plan categories.'' SEC. 5. OBJECTIVE ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA IN PLAN INSTRUMENTS. Section 402 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (29 U.S.C. 1102) is amended by adding at the end the following new subsection: ``(c)(1) The written instrument pursuant to which an employee benefit plan is maintained shall set forth eligibility criteria which-- ``(A) include and exclude employees on a uniform basis; ``(B) are based on reasonable job classifications; and ``(C) are based on objective criteria stated in the instrument itself for the inclusion or exclusion (other than the mere listing of an employee as included or excluded). ``(2) No plan instrument may permit an employer or plan sponsor to exclude an employee under the common law from participation irrespective of the placement of such employee in any category of workers (such as temporary employees, leased employees, agency employees, staffing firm employees, contractors, or any similar category) if the employee-- ``(A) is an employee of the employer under the common law, ``(B) performs the same work (or substantially the same work) for the employer as other employees who generally are not excluded from participation in the plan, and ``(C) meets a minimum service period or minimum age which is required under the terms of the plan.'' SEC. 6. ENFORCEMENT. Section 502(a)(3)(B) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (29 U.S.C. 1132(a)(3)(B)) is amended-- (1) by striking ``or'' in clause (i) and inserting a comma, (2) by striking the semicolon at the end of clause (ii) and inserting ``, or'', and (3) by adding at the end the following: ``(iii) to provide relief to employees who have been miscategorized in violation of sections 202 and 402;''. SEC. 7. EFFECTIVE DATE. The amendments made by this Act shall apply with respect to plan years beginning on or after the date of the enactment of this Act. ______ By Mr. CAMPBELL: S. 2950. A bill to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to establish the Sand Creek Massacre Historic Site in the State of Colorado; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. introduction of legislation to create the sand creek national historic site Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, today I introduce the Sand Creek Massacre National Historic Site Establishment Act of 2000, legislation which will finally recognize and memorialize the hallowed ground on which hundreds of peaceful Cheyenne and Arapaho Indians were massacred by members of the Colorado Militia. The legislation I introduce today follows The Sand Creek Massacre Historic Site Study Act of 1998, legislation I introduced and Congress approved to study the suitability of creating an enduring memorial to the slain innocents who were camped peacefully near Sand Creek, in Kiowa County, in Colorado on November 28, 1868. Much has been written about the horrors visited upon the plains Indians in the territories of the Western United States in the latter half of the 19th century. However, what has been lost for more than a century is a comprehensive understanding of the events of that day in a grove of cottonwood trees along Sand Creek now SE Colorado. In some cases denial of the events of the day or a sense that ``the Indians had it coming'' has prevailed. This legislation finally recognizes a shameful event in our country's history based on scientific studies, and [[Page S7845]] makes it clear America has the strength and resolve to face its past and learn the painful lessons that come with intolerance. The indisputable facts are these: 700 members of the Colorado Militia, commanded by Colonel John Chivington struck at dawn that November day, attacking a camp of Cheyenne and Arapaho Indians settled under the U.S. Flag and a white flag which the Indian Chiefs Black Kettle and White Antelope were told by the U.S. would protect them from military attack. By day's end, almost 150 Indians, many of them women, children and the elderly, lay dead. Chivington's men reportedly desecrated the bodies of the dead after the massacre, and newspaper reports from Denver at the time told of the troops displaying Indian body parts in a gruesome display as they rode through the streets of Colorado's largest city following the attack. The perpetrators of this horrible attack which left Indian women and even babies dead, were never brought to justice even after a congressional investigation concerning this brutality. The legislation I introduce today authorizes the National Park Service to enter into negotiations with willing sellers only, in an attempt to secure property inside a boundary which encompasses approximately 12,470 acres as identified by the National Park Service, for a lasting memorial to events of that fateful day. This legislation has been developed over the course of the last 18 months. It represents a remarkable effort which brought divergent points of view together to define the events of that day and to plan for the future protection of this site. The National Park Service, with the cooperation of the Kiowa County Commissioners, the Cheyenne and Arapaho Tribes of Oklahoma, the Northern Cheyenne Tribe and the Northern Arapaho Tribe, the State of Colorado and many local landowners and volunteers have completed extensive cultural, geomorphological and physical studies of the area where the massacre occurred. All of those involved in this project agree, not acting now is not a option. This legislation does not compel any private property owner to sell his or her property to the federal government. It allows the National Park Service to negotiate with willing sellers to secure property at fair market value, for a national memorial. This process could take years. However, several willing sellers have come forward and are willing to negotiate with the NPS. The property they own has been identified by the NPS as suitable for a memorial. Additional acquisitions of property from willing sellers could come in the future. However, the Sand Creek National Historic Site could never extend beyond the 12,470 acres identified by the site resource study already completed. This legislation has come to being because all of those involved have exhibited an extraordinary ability to put aside their differences, look with equal measure at the scientific evidence and the oral traditions of the Tribes, and come up with a plan that equally honors the memory of those killed and the rights of the private property owners who have been faithful and responsible stewards of this site. We have a window of opportunity here that will not always be available. I encourage my colleagues to respect the memory of those so brutally killed and support the creation of a National Historic Site on this hallowed ground in Kiowa County, in Colorado. I ask unanimous consent that the bill and other research material associated with the studies of the Sand Creek site be printed in the Record for my colleagues or the public to review. ______ By Mr. TORRICELLI: S. 2953. A bill to amend title 38, United States Code, to improve outreach programs carried out by the Department of Veterans Affairs to provide for more fully informing veterans of benefits available to them under laws administered by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs; to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs. The Veterans' Right to Know Act Mr. TORRICELLI: Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Veterans' Right to Know Act which will assist millions of brave Americans who have served this nation in times of war. This legislation would ensure that all veterans are fully informed of the various benefits that they have earned through their brave and dedicated service to their country. Throughout the history of the United States, the interests of our nation have been championed by ordinary citizens who willingly defend our nation when called upon. During the times of crisis which threatened the very existence of our Republic, we persevered because young men and women from all walks of life took up arms to defend the ideals by which this nation was founded. Whether it was winning our freedom from an oppressive empire, preserving our Union, defeating fascism or battling the spread of communism, the American people have time and time again answered the call to defend liberty, justice and democracy at home and throughout the world. Our government owes a debt of gratitude to each and every one of our veterans, and we must make a concerted effort to show our appreciation for their valiant service. The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) provides the necessary health care services and benefits to our war heroes; however, over half of the veterans in the United States are not fully aware of the benefits or pensions to which they are entitled. The bill I introduced today is straightforward and it does not call for the creation of new benefits. Rather, it seeks to ensure that our veterans are well informed of the benefits they are entitled to as a result of their service or injuries sustained during their service to their country. This legislation would require the VA to inform veterans about their eligibility for benefits and health care services whenever they first apply for any benefit with the VA. Furthermore, many times, widows and surviving family members of veterans are not aware of the special benefits available to them when their family member passes. My bill would help these individuals in their time of loss by instructing the VA to inform them of the benefits for which they are eligible on the passing of their loved one. My legislation also seeks to reach out to those veterans who are not currently enrolled in the VA system by calling upon the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to prepare an annual outreach plan that will encourage eligible veterans to register with the VA as well as keeping current enrollees aware of any changes to benefits or eligibility requirements. This bill will help ensure that our government and its services for veterans are there for the men and women who have served this nation in the armed forces. I am hopeful that my colleagues in the Senate will recognize the tremendous service that our veterans have given and support this reasonable measure to ensure that our veterans receive the benefits they deserve. ______ By Mr. HOLLINGS (for himself, Ms. Snowe, Mr. Kerrey, Mr. Stevens, Mr. Breaux, and Mr. Cleland): S. 2954. A bill to establish the Dr. Nancy Foster Marine Biology Scholarship Program; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. The Nancy Foster Scholarship Act Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Nancy Foster Scholarship Act, legislation to create a scholarship program in marine biology or oceanography in honor of Dr. Nancy Foster, head of the National Ocean Service at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) until her passing on Tuesday, June 27, 2000. I am proud to introduce legislation to commemorate the life and work of such a wonderful leader, mentor, and coastal advocate. I thank my colleagues Senators Snowe, Kerry, Stevens, Breaux, and Cleland for joining me in recognizing Dr. Foster's strong commitment to improving the conservation and scientific understanding of our precious coastal resources. My legislation would create a Nancy Foster Marine Biology Scholarship Program within the Department of Commerce. This Program would provide scholarship funds to outstanding women and minority graduate students to support and encourage independent graduate level research in marine biology. It is my hope that this scholarship program will promote the development of future leaders of Dr. Foster's caliber. [[Page S7846]] Dr. Foster was the first woman to direct a NOAA line office, and during her 23 years at NOAA rose to one of the most senior levels a career professional can achieve. She directed the complete modernization of NOAA's essential nautical mapping and charting programs, and created a ground-breaking partnership with the National Geographic Society to launch a 5-year undersea exploration program called the Sustainable Seas Expedition. Dr. Foster was a strong and enthusiastic mentor to young people and a staunch ally to her colleagues, and for this reason, I believe the legislation I am introducing today to be the most appropriate way for us all to ensure that her deep commitment to marine science continues on in others. Mr. President, we will all feel Dr. Foster's loss deeply for years to come. The creation of a scholarship program in her honor is one small way we can thank a person who did so much for us all. ______ By Mr. DeWINE (for himself, Mr. Hatch, Mr. Voinovich, and Mr. Leahy); S. 2955. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide relief for the payment of asbestos-related claims; to the Committee on Finance. asbestos-related claims relief legislation Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today as an original cosponsor of the bill introduced today by my friend and colleague from Ohio, Senator DeWine, that would provide relief for payment of asbestos-related claims. I urge my colleagues on the Finance Committee to take a close look at the serious problem this bill addresses. Certain manufacturers who were required by government specification to use asbestos in their products are facing a severe financial crisis arising from claims made by individuals who are suffering health problems from asbestos-related diseases. These claims have put several of these companies into bankruptcy, and several more appear to be on the brink of insolvency. Thousands of jobs may be at stake, as may be the proper compensation of the victims of the illnesses. A major part of the underlying justification for this measure is that the federal government shares some culpability in the harm caused by the asbestos-related products manufactured by these companies. For example, from World War II through the Vietnam War, the government required that private contractors and shipyard workers use asbestos to insulate navy ships from so-called ``secondary fires.'' Because of sovereign immunity, however, the government has not had to share in paying the damages, leaving American companies to bear the full and ongoing financial load of compensation. The legislation we are introducing today is a step toward recognizing that the federal government is partially responsible for payment of these claims. It does so through two income tax provisions, both of which directly benefit the victims of the illnesses. The first provision exempts from income tax the income earned by a designated or qualified settlement fund established for the principal purpose of resolving and satisfying present and future claims relating to asbestos illnesses. The effect of this provision, Mr. President, is to increase the amount of money available for the payment of these claims. The second provision allows taxpayers with specified liability losses attributable to asbestos to carry back those losses to the tax year in which the taxpayer, or its predecessor company, was first involved in producing or distributing products containing asbestos. This provision is a matter of fairness, Mr. President. Because of the long latency period related to asbestos-related diseases, which can be as long as 40 years, many of these claims are just now arising. Current law provides for the carryback of this kind of liability losses, but only for a ten-year period. Many of the companies involved earned profits and paid taxes on those profits in the years the asbestos-related products were made or distributed. However, it is now clear, many years after the taxes were paid, that there were no profits earned at all, since millions of dollars of health claims relating to those products must now be paid. It is only fair, and it is sound tax policy, to allow relief for situations like these. Again, it should be emphasized that the primary beneficiaries of this tax change will not be the corporations, but the victims of the illnesses, because the taxpayer would be required to devote the entire amount of the tax reduction to paying the claims. This is not the only time the federal government has been at least partially responsible for health problems of citizens that arose many years after the event that initially triggered the problem. During the Cold War, America conducted above ground atomic tests during which the wind blew the fallout into communities and ranches of Utah, New Mexico and Arizona. The government also demanded quantities of uranium, which is harmful to those who mined and milled it. The incidence of cancers and other debilitating diseases caused by this activity among the ``downwinders,'' miners and millers has been acknowledged by the federal government. The least we can do for those manufacturers forced to use asbestos instead of other materials is provide some tax relief for their compensation funds. This legislation has substantial bipartisan backing. It is sponsored in the House by both the Chairman and Ranking Minority Member of the Judiciary Committee. It is backed by the by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and by at least one related labor union. This bill addresses a very serious problem and is the right thing to do. I hope we can pass it expeditiously. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record. There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows: S. 2955 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, SECTION 1. EXEMPTION FOR ASBESTOS-RELATED SETTLEMENT FUNDS. (a) Exemption for Asbestos-Related Settlement Funds.-- Subsection (b) of section 468B of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph: ``(6) Exemption from tax for asbestos-related designated settlement funds.--Notwithstanding paragraph (1), no tax shall be imposed under this section or any other provision of this subtitle on any designated settlement fund established for the principal purpose of resolving and satisfying present and future claims relating to asbestos.'' (b) Conforming Amendments.-- (1) Paragraph (1) of section 468B(b) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by striking ``There'' and inserting ``Except as provided in paragraph (6), there''. (2) Subsection (g) of section 468B of such Code is amended by inserting ``(other than subsection (b)(6))'' after ``Nothing in any provision of law''. (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall apply to taxable years ending after the date of enactment of this Act. SEC. 2. MODIFY TREATMENT OF ASBESTOS-RELATED NET OPERATING LOSSES. (a) Asbestos-Related Net Operating Losses.--Subsection (f) of section 172 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by redesignating paragraphs (4), (5), and (6) as paragraphs (5), (6), and (7), respectively, and by inserting after paragraph (3) the following new paragraph: ``(4) Special rules for asbestos liability losses.-- ``(A) In general.--At the election of the taxpayer, the portion of any specified liability loss that is attributable to asbestos may, for purposes of subsection (b)(1)(C), be carried back to the taxable year in which the taxpayer, including any predecessor corporation, was first involved in the production or distribution of products containing asbestos and each subsequent taxable year. ``(B) Coordination with credits.--If a deduction is allowable for any taxable year by reason of a carryback described in subparagraph (A)-- ``(i) the credits allowable under part IV (other than subpart C) of subchapter A shall be determined without regard to such deduction, and ``(ii) the amount of taxable income taken into account with respect to the carryback under subsection (b)(2) for such taxable year shall be reduced by an amount equal to-- ``(I) the increase in the amount of such credits allowable for such taxable year solely by reason of clause (i), divided by ``(II) the maximum rate of tax under section 1 or 11 (whichever is applicable) for such taxable year. ``(C) Carryforwards taken into account before asbestos- related deductions.--For purposes of this section-- ``(i) in determining whether a net operating loss carryforward may be carried under subsection (b)(2) to a taxable year, taxable income for such year shall be determined [[Page S7847]] without regard to the deductions referred to in paragraph (1)(A) with respect to asbestos, and ``(ii) if there is a net operating loss for such year after taking into account such carryforwards and deductions, the portion of such loss attributable to such deductions shall be treated as a specified liability loss that is attributable to asbestos. ``(D) Limitation.--The amount of reduction in income tax liability arising from the election described in subparagraph (A) that exceeds the amount of reduction in income tax liability that would have resulted if the taxpayer utilized the 10-year carryback period under subsection (b)(1)(C) shall be devoted by the taxpayer solely to asbestos claimant compensation and related costs, through a designated settlement fund or otherwise. ``(E) Consolidated groups.--For purposes of this paragraph, all members of an affiliated group of corporations that join in the filing of a consolidated return pursuant to section 1501 (or a predecessor section) shall be treated as 1 corporation. ``(F) Predecessor corporation.--For purposes of this paragraph, a predecessor corporation shall include a corporation that transferred or distributed assets to the taxpayer in a transaction to which section 381(a) applies or that distributed the stock of the taxpayer in a transaction to which section 355 applies.'' (b) Conforming Amendment.--Paragraph (7) of section 172(f) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as redesignated by this section, is amended by striking ``10-year''. (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall apply to taxable years ending after the date of enactment of this Act. ______ By Mr. CAMPBELL: S. 2956. A bill to establish the Colorado Canyons National Conservation Area and the Black Ridge Canyons Wilderness, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. colorado canyons preservation act of 2000 Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, today I introduce legislation which would preserve over 130,000 acres of land in Western Colorado. This legislation is supported locally by property owners, county commissioners, environmentalists, and recreational groups. My bill is a Senate companion to H.R. 4275 which was introduced by my colleague and fellow Coloradan Representative Scott McInnis. The areas proposed for Wildernesss Protection are the Black Ridge and Ruby Canyons of the Grand Valley and Rabbit Valley near Grand Junction, Colorado. They contain unique and valuable scenic, recreational, multiple use, paleontological, natural, and wildlife components. This historic rural western setting provides extensive opportunities for recreational activities, and are publicly used for hiking, camping, and grazing. This area is truly worthy of additional protection as a national conservation area. This legislation has the support of the administration and should easily be signed into law. The only issue confronting us is the limited amount of time left in the 106th Congress. I hope we will be able to move this legislation quickly through the process and that it will not get bogged down in partisan politics. It simply is the right thing to do. I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in the Record following my remarks. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor. There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows: S. 2956 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 ``Colorado Canyons National Conservation Area and Black Ridge Canyons Wilderness Act of 2000''. SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSE. (a) Findings.--Congress finds that certain areas located in the Grand Valley in Mesa County, Colorado, and Grand County, Utah, should be protected and enhanced for the benefit and enjoyment of present and future generations. These areas include the following: (1) The areas making up the Black Ridge and Ruby Canyons of the Grand Valley and Rabbit Valley, which contain unique and valuable scenic, recreational, multiple use opportunities (including grazing), paleontological, natural, and wildlife components enhanced by the rural western setting of the area, provide extensive opportunities for recreational activities, and are publicly used for hiking, camping, and grazing, and are worthy of additional protection as a national conservation area. (2) The Black Ridge Canyons Wilderness Study Area has wilderness value and offers unique geological, paleontological, scientific, and recreational resources. (b) Purpose.--The purpose of this Act is to conserve, protect, and enhance for the benefit and enjoyment of present and future generations the unique and nationally important values of the public lands described in section 4(b), including geological, cultural, paleontological, natural, scientific, recreational, environmental, biological, wilderness, wildlife education, and scenic resources of such public lands, by establishing the Colorado Canyons National Conservation Area and the Black Ridge Canyons Wilderness in the State of Colorado and the State of Utah. SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS. In this Act: (1) Conservation area.--The term ``Conservation Area'' means the Colorado Canyons National Conservation Area established by section 4(a). (2) Council.--The term ``Council'' means the Colorado Canyons National Conservation Area Advisory Council established under section 8. (3) Management plan.--The term ``management plan'' means the management plan developed for the Conservation Area under section 6(h). (4) Map.--The term ``Map'' means the map entitled ``Proposed Colorado Canyons National Conservation Area and Black Ridge Canyons Wilderness Area'' and dated July 18, 2000. (5) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary of the Interior, acting through the Director of the Bureau of Land Management. (6) Wilderness.--The term ``Wilderness'' means the Black Ridge Canyons Wilderness so designated in section 5. SEC. 4. COLORADO CANYONS NATIONAL CONSERVATION AREA. (a) In General.--There is established the Colorado Canyons National Conservation Area in the State of Colorado and the State of Utah. (b) Areas Included.--The Conservation Area shall consist of approximately 122,300 acres of public land as generally depicted on the Map. SEC. 5. BLACK RIDGE CANYONS WILDERNESS DESIGNATION. Certain lands in Mesa County, Colorado, and Grand County, Utah, which comprise approximately 75,550 acres as generally depicted on the Map, are hereby designated as wilderness and therefore as a component of the National Wilderness Preservation System. Such component shall be known as the Black Ridge Canyons Wilderness. SEC. 6. MANAGEMENT. (a) Conservation Area.--The Secretary shall manage the Conservation Area in a manner that-- (1) conserves, protects, and enhances the resources of the Conservation Area specified in section 2(b); and (2) is in accordance with-- (A) the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.); and (B) other applicable law, including this Act. (b) Uses.--The Secretary shall allow only such uses of the Conservation Area as the Secretary determines will further the purposes for which the Conservation Area is established. (c) Withdrawals.--Subject to valid existing rights, all Federal land within the Conservation Area and the Wilderness and all land and interests in land acquired for the Conservation Area or the Wilderness by the United States are withdrawn from-- (1) all forms of entry, appropriation, or disposal under the public land laws; (2) location, entry, and patent

Major Actions:

All articles in Senate section

STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
(Senate - July 27, 2000)

Text of this article available as: TXT PDF [Pages S7841-S7908] STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS By Mr. BREAUX: S. 2944. A bill to clarify that certain penalties provided for in the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 are the exclusive criminal penalties for any action or activity that may arise or occur in connection with certain discharges of oil or a hazardous substance; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works. Strict Criminal Liability Reform for Oil Spill Incidents Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce legislation to address a long-standing problem which adversely affects the safe and reliable maritime transport of oil products. The legislation I am introducing today will eliminate the application and use of strict criminal liability statutes, statutes that do not require a showing of criminal intent or even the slightest degree of negligence, for maritime transportation-related oil spill incidents. Through comprehensive Congressional action that led to the enactment and implementation of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990, commonly referred to as ``OPA90'', the United States has successfully reduced the number of oil spills in the maritime environment and has established a cooperative public/private partnership to respond effectively in the diminishing number of situations when an oil spill occurs. Nonetheless, over the past decade, the use of the unrelated strict criminal liability statutes that I referred to above has undermined the spill prevention and response objectives of OPA90, the very objectives that were established by the Congress to preserve the environment, safeguard the public welfare, and promote the safe transportation of oil. The legislation I am introducing today will restore the delicate balance of interests reached in OPA90, and will reaffirm OPA90's preeminent role as the statute providing the exclusive criminal penalties for oil spill incidents. As stated in the Coast Guard's own environmental enforcement directive, a company, its officers, employees, and mariners, in the event of an oil spill ``could be convicted and sentenced to a criminal fine even where [they] took all reasonable precautions to avoid the discharge''. Accordingly, responsible operators in my home state of Louisiana and elsewhere in the United States who transport oil are unavoidably exposed to potentially immeasurable criminal fines and, in the worst case scenario, jail time. Not only is this situation unfairly targeting an industry that plays an extremely important role in our national economy, but it also works contrary to the public welfare. Most liquid cargo transportation companies on the coastal and inland waterway system of the United States have embraced safe operation and risk management as two of their most important and fundamental values. For example, members of the American Waterways Operators (AWO) from Louisiana and other states have implemented stronger safety programs that have significantly reduced personal injuries to mariners. Tank barge fleets have been upgraded through construction of new state-of- the-art double hulled tank barges while obsolete single skin barges are being retired far in advance of the OPA90 timetable. Additionally, AWO members have dedicated significant time and financial resources to provide continuous and comprehensive education and training for vessel captains, crews and shoreside staff, not only in the operation of vessels but also in preparation for all contingencies that could occur in the transportation of oil products. This commitment to marine safety and environmental protection by responsible members of the oil transportation industry is real. The industry continues to work closely with the Coast Guard to upgrade regulatory standards in such key areas as towing vessel operator qualifications and navigation equipment on towing vessels. Through the efforts of AWO and other organizations, the maritime transportation industry has achieved an outstanding compliance record with the numerous laws and regulations enforced by the Coast Guard. Let me be clear: responsible carriers, and frankly their customers, have a ``zero tolerance'' policy for oil spills. Additionally, the industry is taking spill response preparedness seriously. Industry representatives and operators routinely participate in Coast Guard oil spill crisis management courses, PREP Drills, and regional spill response drills. Yet despite all of the modernization, safety, and training efforts of the marine transportation industry, their mariners and shoreside employees cannot escape the threat of criminal liability in the event of an oil spill, even where it is shown that they ``took all reasonable precautions to avoid [a] discharge''. As you know, in response to the tragic Exxon Valdez spill, Congress enacted OPA90. OPA90 mandated new, comprehensive, and complex regulatory and enforcement requirements for the transportation of oil products and for oil spill response. Both the federal government and maritime industry have worked hard to accomplish the legislation's primary objective--to provide greater environmental safeguards in oil transportation by creating a comprehensive prevention, response, liability, and compensation regime to deal with vessel and facility oil pollution. And OPA90 is working in a truly meaningful sense. To prevent oil spill incidents from occurring in the first place, OPA90 provides an enormously powerful deterrent, through both its criminal and civil liability provisions. Moreover, OPA90 mandates prompt reporting of spills, contingency planning, and both cooperation and coordination with federal, state, and local authorities in connection with managing the spill response. Failure to report and cooperate as required by OPA90 may impose automatic civil penalties, criminal liability and unlimited civil liability. As a result, the number of domestic oil spills has been dramatically reduced over the past decade since OPA90 was enacted. In those limited situations in which oil spills unfortunately occurred, intensive efforts commenced immediately with federal, state and local officials working in a joint, unified manner with the industry, as contemplated by OPA90, to clean up and report spills as quickly as possible and to mitigate to the greatest extent any impact on the environment. OPA90 has provided a comprehensive and cohesive ``blueprint'' for proper planning, training, and resource identification to respond to an oil spill incident, and to ensure that such a response is properly and cooperatively managed. OPA90 also provides a complete statutory framework for proceeding against individuals for civil and/or criminal penalties arising out of oil spills in the marine environment. When Congress crafted this Act, it carefully balanced the imposition of stronger criminal and civil penalties with the need to promote enhanced cooperation among all of the parties involved in the spill prevention and response effort. In so doing, the Congress clearly enumerated the circumstances in which criminal penalties could be imposed for actions related to maritime oil spills, and added and/or substantially increased criminal penalties under the related laws which comprehensively govern the maritime transportation of oil and other petroleum products. The legislation we are introducing today will not change in any way the tough criminal sanctions that were imposed in OPA90. However, responsible, law-abiding members of the maritime industry in Louisiana and elsewhere are concerned by the willingness of the Department of Justice and other federal agencies in the post-OPA90 environment to use strict criminal liability statutes in oil spill incidents. As you know, strict liability imposes criminal sanctions without requiring a showing of criminal knowledge, intent or even negligence. These federal actions imposing strict liability have created an atmosphere of extreme uncertainty for the maritime transportation industry about how to respond to and cooperate with the Coast Guard and other federal [[Page S7842]] agencies in cleaning up an oil spill. Criminal culpability in this country, both historically and as reflected in the comprehensive OPA90 legislation itself, typically requires wrongful actions or omissions by individuals through some degree of criminal intent or through the failure to use the required standard of care. However, Federal prosecutors have been employing other antiquated, seemingly unrelated ``strict liability'' statutes that do not require a showing of ``knowledge'' or ``intent'' as a basis for criminal prosecution for oil spill incidents. Such strict criminal liability statutes as the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the Refuse Act, statutes that were enacted at the turn of the century to serve other purposes, have been used to harass and intimidate the maritime industry, and, in effect, have turned every oil spill into a potential crime scene without regard to the fault or intent of companies, corporate officers and employees, and mariners. The Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) (16 U.S.C. 703 et seq.) provides that ``it shall be unlawful at any time, by any means or in any manner, to pursue, hunt, take, capture, kill, attempt to take, capture, or kill, . . . any migratory bird . . .'', a violation of which is punishable by imprisonment and/or fines. Prior to the Exxon Valdez oil spill in 1989, the MBTA was primarily used to prosecute the illegal activities of hunters and capturers of migratory birds, as the Congress originally intended when it enacted the MBTA in 1918. In the Exxon Valdez case itself, and prior to the enactment of OPA90, the MBTA was first used to support a criminal prosecution against a vessel owner in relation to a maritime oil spill, and this ``hunting statute'' has been used ever since against the maritime industry. The ``Refuse Act'' (33 U.S.C. 407, 411) was enacted over 100 years ago at a time well before subsequent federal legislation essentially replaced it with comprehensive requirements and regulations specifically directed to the maritime transportation of oil and other petroleum products. Such strict liability statutes are unrelated to the regulation and enforcement of oil transportation activities, and in fact were not included within the comprehensive OPA90 legislation as statutes in which criminal liability could be found. With the prosecutorial use of strict liability statutes, owners and mariners engaged in the transportation of oil cannot avoid exposure to criminal liability, regardless of how diligently they adhere to prudent practice and safe environmental standards. Although conscientious safety and training programs, state-of-the-art equipment, proper operational procedures, preventative maintenance programs, and the employment of qualified and experienced personnel will collectively prevent most oil spills from occurring, unfortunately spills will still occur on occasion. To illustrate this point, please permit me to present a scenario that highlights the dilemma faced by the maritime oil transportation industry in Louisiana. Imagine, if you will, that a company is operating a towing vessel in compliance with Coast Guard regulations on the Mississippi River on a calm, clear day with several fully laden tank barges in tow. Suddenly, in what was charted and previously identified to be a clear portion of the waterway, one of the tank barges strikes an unknown submerged object which shears through its hull and causes a significant oil spill in the river. Unfortunately, in addition to any other environmental damage that may occur, the oil spill kills one or more migratory birds. As you know, under OPA90 the operator must immediately undertake coordinated spill response actions with the Coast Guard and other federal, state, and local agencies to safeguard the vessel and its crew, clean up the oil spill, and otherwise mitigate any damage to the surrounding environment. The overriding objectives at this critical moment are to assure personnel and public safety and to clean up the oil spill as quickly as possible without constraint. However, in the current atmosphere the operator must take into consideration the threat of strict criminal liability under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the Refuse Act, together with their attendant imprisonment and fines, despite the reasonable care and precautions taken in the operation and navigation of the tow and in the spill response effort. Indeed, in the Coast Guard's own environmental enforcement directive, the statement is made that ``[t]he decision to commit the necessary Coast Guard resources to obtain the evidence that will support a criminal prosecution must often be made in the very early stages of a pollution incident.'' Any prudent operator will quickly recognize the dilemma in complying with the mandate to act cooperatively with all appropriate public agencies in cleaning up the oil spill, while at the same time those very agencies may be conducting a criminal investigation of that operator. Vessel owners and their employees who have complied with federal laws and regulations and have exercised all reasonable care should not continue to face a substantial risk of imprisonment and criminal fines under such strict liability statutes. Criminal liability, when appropriately imposed under OPA90, should be employed only where a discharge is caused by conduct which is truly ``criminal'' in nature, i.e., where a discharge is caused by reckless, intentional or other conduct deemed criminal by OPA90. As this scenario demonstrates, the unjustified use of strict liability statutes is plainly undermining the very objectives which OPA90 sought to achieve, namely to enhance the prevention of and response to oil spills in Louisiana and elsewhere in the United States. As we are well aware, tremendous time, effort, and resources have been expended by both the federal government and the maritime industry to eliminate oil spills to the maximum extent possible, and to plan for and undertake an immediate and effective response to mitigate any environmental damage from spills that do occur. Clearly unwarranted and improper prosecutorial use of strict liability statutes is having a ``chilling'' effect on these cooperative spill prevention and response efforts. Indeed, even if we were to believe that criminal prosecution only follows intentional criminal conduct, the mere fact that strict criminal liability statutes are available at the prosecutor's discretion will intimidate even the most innocent and careful operator. With strict liability criminal enforcement, responsible members of the maritime transportation industry are faced with an extreme dilemma in the event of an oil spill--provide less than full cooperation and response as criminal defense attorneys will certainly direct, or cooperate fully despite the risk of criminal prosecution that could result from any additional actions or statements made during the course of the spill response. Consequently, increased criminalization of oil spill incidents introduces uncertainty into the response effort by discouraging full and open communication and cooperation, and leaves vessel owners and operators criminally vulnerable for response actions taken in an effort to ``do the right thing''. In the maritime industry's continuing effort to improve its risk management process, it seeks to identify and address all foreseeable risks associated with the operation of its business. Through fleet modernization, personnel training, and all other reasonable steps to address identified risks in its business, the industry still cannot manage or avoid the increased risks of strict criminal liability (again, a liability that has no regard to fault or intent). The only method available to companies and their officers to avoid the risk of criminal liability completely is to divest themselves from the maritime business of transporting oil and other petroleum products, in effect to get out of the business altogether. Furthermore, strict liability criminal laws provide a strong disincentive for trained, highly experienced mariners to continue the operation of tank vessels, and for talented and capable individuals from even entering into that maritime trade. An earlier editorial highlighted the fact that tugboat captains ``are reporting feelings of intense relief and lightening of their spirits when they are ordered to push a cargo of grain or other dry cargo, as compared to the apprehension they feel when they are staring out of their wheelhouses at tank barges'', and ``that the reason for this is very obvious in the way that they find themselves instantly facing criminal charges . . . in the event of a collision or grounding and oil or chemicals end up in the water''. Certainly, the federal government does not want to create a situation where the least experienced [[Page S7843]] mariners are the only available crew to handle the most hazardous cargoes, or the least responsible operators are the only available carriers. Thus, the unavoidable risk of such criminal liability directly and adversely affects the safe transportation of oil products, an activity essential for the public, the economy, and the nation. Therefore, despite the commitment and effort to provide trained and experienced vessel operators and employees, to comply with all safety and operational mandates of Coast Guard laws and regulations, and to provide for the safe transportation of oil as required by OPA90, maritime transportation companies in Louisiana, and elsewhere still cannot avoid criminal liability in the event of an oil spill. Responsible, law-abiding companies have unfortunately been forced to undertake the only prudent action that they could under the circumstances, namely the development of criminal liability action plans and retention of criminal counsel in an attempt to prepare for the unavoidable risks of such liability. These are only preliminary steps and do not begin to address the many implications of the increasing criminalization of oil spills. The industry is now asking what responsibility does it have to educate its mariners and shoreside staff about the potential personal exposure they may face and wonder how to do this without creating many undesirable consequences? How should the industry organize spill management teams and educate them on how to cooperate openly and avoid unwitting exposure to criminal liability? Mr. President, I have thought about these issues a great deal and simply do not know how to resolve these dilemmas under current, strict liability law. In the event of an oil spill, a responsible party not only must manage the cleanup of the oil and the civil liability resulting from the spill itself, but also must protect itself from the criminal liability that now exists due to the available and willing use of strict liability criminal laws by the federal government. Managing the pervasive threat of strict criminal liability, by its very nature, prevents a responsible party from cooperating fully and completely in response to an oil spill situation. The OPA90 ``blueprint'' is no longer clear. Is this serving the objectives of OPA90? Does this really serve the public welfare of our nation? Is this what Congress had in mind when it mandated its spill response regime? Is this in the interest of the most immediate, most effective oil spill cleanup in the unfortunate event of a spill? We think not. To restore the delicate balance of interests reached in the enactment of OPA90 a decade ago, we intend to work with the Congress to reaffirm the OPA90 framework for criminal prosecutions in oil spill incidents. The enactment of the legislation we are introducing today will ensure increased cooperation and responsiveness desired by all those interested in oil spill response issues without diluting the deterrent effect and stringent criminal penalties imposed by OPA90 itself. I look forward to continuing the effort to upgrade the safety of marine operations in the navigable waterways of the United States, and I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record. There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows: S. 2944 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, SECTION 1. AFFIRMATION OF PENALTIES UNDER OIL POLLUTION ACT OF 1990. (a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision or rule of law, section 4301(c) and 4302 of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (Public Law 101-380; 104 Stat. 537) and the amendments made by those sections provide the exclusive criminal penalties for any action or activity that may arise or occur in connection with a discharge of oil or a hazardous substance referred to in section 311(b)(3) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1321(b)(3)). (b) Rule of Construction.--Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit, or otherwise exempt any person from, liability for conspiracy to commit any offense against the United States, for fraud and false statements, or for the obstruction of justice. ______ By Mr. KENNEDY (for himself, Mr. Torricelli and Mr. Harkin): S. 2946. A bill to amend title I of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 to ensure that employees are not improperly disqualified from benefits under pension plans and welfare plans based on a miscategorization of their employee status; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. employee benefits eligibility fairness act of 2000 Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, contingent workers in our society face significant problems, and they deserve our help in meeting them. These men and women--temporary and part-time workers, contract workers, and independent contractors--continue to suffer unfairly, even in our prosperous economy. A new report from the General Accounting Office emphasizes that contingent workers often lack income security and retirement security. We know that for most workers today, a single lifetime job is a relic of the past. The world is long gone in which workers stay with their employer for many years, and then retire on a company pension. Since 1982 the number of temporary help jobs has grown 577 percent. The GAO report shows that 30 percent of the workforce--39 million working Americans--now get their paychecks from contingent jobs. Contingent workers have lower incomes than traditional, full-time workers and many are living in poverty. For example, 30 percent of agency temporary workers have family incomes below $15,000. By comparison, only 8 percent of standard full-time workers have family incomes below $15,000. Contingent workers are less likely to be covered by employer health and retirement benefits than are standard, full-time workers. Even when employers do sponsor a plan, contingent workers are less likely to participate in the plan, either because they are excluded or because the plan is too expensive. Only 21 percent of part-time workers are included in an employer-sponsored pension plan. By comparison, 64 percent of standard full-time workers are included in their employer's pension plan. Non-standard or alternative work arrangements can meet the needs of working families and employers alike, but these arrangements should not be used to divide the workforce into ``haves'' and ``have-nots.'' Flexible work arrangements, for example, can give working parents more time to care for their children, but many workers are not in their contingent jobs by choice. More than half of temporary workers would prefer a permanent job instead of their contingent job, but temporary work is all they can find. As the GAO report makes clear, employers have economic incentives to cut costs by miscategorizing their workers as temporary or contract workers. Too often, contingent arrangements are set-up by employers for the purpose of excluding workers from their employee benefit programs and evading their responsibilities to their workers. Millions of employees have been miscategorized by their employers, and as a result they have been denied the benefits and protections that they rightly deserve and worked hard to earn. All workers deserve a secure retirement at the end of their working years. Social Security has been and will continue to be the best foundation for that security. But the foundation is just that--the beginning of our responsibility, not the end of it. We cannot expect Americans to work hard all their lives, only to face poverty and hard times when they retire. That is why I am introducing, with Senators Torricelli and Harkin, the Employee Benefits Eligibility Fairness Act of 2000 to help contingent workers obtain the retirement benefits they deserve. This legislation clarifies employers' responsibilities under the law so that they cannot exclude contingent workers from employee benefit plans based on artificial labels or payroll practices. This is an issue of basic fairness for working men and women. It is unfair for individuals who work full-time, on an indefinite long-term basis for an employer to be excluded from the employer's pension plan, merely because the employer classifies the workers as ``temporary'' when in fact they are not. The employer-employee relationship should be determined on the facts of [[Page S7844]] the working arrangement, not on artificial labels, not on artificial accounting practices, not artificial payroll practices. It is long past time for Congress to recognize the plight of contingent workers and see that they get the employee benefits they deserve. These important changes are critical to improving the security of working families, and I look forward to their enactment. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record. There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows: S. 2946 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 ``Employee Benefits Eligibility Fairness Act of 2000''. SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSE. (a) Findings.--Congress makes the following findings: (1) The intent of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 to protect the pension and welfare benefits of workers is frustrated by the practice of mislabeling employees to improperly exclude them from employee benefit plans. Employees are wrongly denied benefits when they are mislabeled as temporary employees, part-time employees, leased employees, agency employees, staffing firm employees, and contractors. If their true employment status were recognized, mislabeled employees would be eligible to participate in employee benefit plans because such plans are offered to other employees performing the same or substantially the same work and working for the same employer. (2) Mislabeled employees are often paid through staffing, temporary, employee leasing, or other similar firms to give the appearance that the employees do not work for their worksite employer. Employment contracts and reports to government agencies also are used to give the erroneous impression that mislabeled employees work for staffing, temporary, employee leasing, or other similar firms, when the facts of the work arrangement do not meet the common law standard for determining the employment relationship. Employees are also mislabeled as contractors and paid from non-payroll accounts to give the appearance that they are not employees of their worksite employer. These practices violate the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. (3) Employers are amending their benefit plans to add provisions that exclude mislabeled employees from participation in the plan even in the event that such employees are determined to be common law employees and otherwise eligible to participate in the plan. These plan provisions violate the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. (4) As a condition of employment or continued employment, mislabeled employees are often required to sign documents that purport to waive their right to participate in employee benefit plans. Such documents inaccurately claim to limit the authority of the courts and applicable Federal agencies to correct the mislabeling of employees and to enforce the terms of plans providing for their participation. This practice violates the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. (b) Purpose.--The purpose of this Act is to clarify applicable provisions of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 to ensure that employees are not improperly excluded from participation in employee benefit plans as a result of mislabeling of their employment status. SEC. 3. ADDITIONAL STANDARDS RELATING TO MINIMUM PARTICIPATION REQUIREMENTS. (a) Required Inclusion of Service.--Section 202(a)(3) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (29 U.S.C. 1052(a)(3)) is amended by adding at the end the following new subparagraph: ``(E) For purposes of this section, in determining `years of service' and `hours of service', service shall include all service for the employer as an employee under the common law, irrespective of whether the worker-- ``(i) is paid through a staffing firm, temporary help firm, payroll agency, employment agency, or other such similar arrangement, ``(ii) is paid directly by the employer under an arrangement purporting to characterize an employee under the common law as other than an employee, or ``(iii) is paid from an account not designated as a payroll account.'' (b) Exclusion Precluded When Related to Certain Purported Categorizations.--Section 202 of such Act (29 U.S.C. 1052) is amended further by adding at the end the following new subsection: ``(c)(1) Subject to paragraph (2), a pension plan shall be treated as failing to meet the requirements of this section if any individual who-- ``(A) is an employee under the common law, and ``(B) performs the same work (or substantially the same work) for the employer as other employees who generally are not excluded from participation in the plan, is excluded from participation in the plan, irrespective of the placement of such employee in any category of workers (such as temporary employees, part-time employees, leased employees, agency employees, staffing firm employees, contractors, or any similar category) which may be specified under the plan as ineligible for participation. ``(2) Nothing in paragraph (1) shall be construed to preclude the exclusion from participation in a pension plan of individuals who in fact do not meet a minimum service period or minimum age which is required under the terms of the plan and which is otherwise in conformity with the requirements of this section.'' SEC. 4. WAIVERS OF PARTICIPATION INEFFECTIVE IF RELATED TO MISCATEGORIZATION OF EMPLOYEE. Section 202 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (29 U.S.C. 1052) (as amended by section 3) is amended further by adding at the end the following new subsection: ``(d) Any waiver or purported waiver by an employee of participation in a pension plan or welfare plan shall be ineffective if related, in whole or in part, to the a miscategorization of the employee in 1 or more ineligible plan categories.'' SEC. 5. OBJECTIVE ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA IN PLAN INSTRUMENTS. Section 402 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (29 U.S.C. 1102) is amended by adding at the end the following new subsection: ``(c)(1) The written instrument pursuant to which an employee benefit plan is maintained shall set forth eligibility criteria which-- ``(A) include and exclude employees on a uniform basis; ``(B) are based on reasonable job classifications; and ``(C) are based on objective criteria stated in the instrument itself for the inclusion or exclusion (other than the mere listing of an employee as included or excluded). ``(2) No plan instrument may permit an employer or plan sponsor to exclude an employee under the common law from participation irrespective of the placement of such employee in any category of workers (such as temporary employees, leased employees, agency employees, staffing firm employees, contractors, or any similar category) if the employee-- ``(A) is an employee of the employer under the common law, ``(B) performs the same work (or substantially the same work) for the employer as other employees who generally are not excluded from participation in the plan, and ``(C) meets a minimum service period or minimum age which is required under the terms of the plan.'' SEC. 6. ENFORCEMENT. Section 502(a)(3)(B) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (29 U.S.C. 1132(a)(3)(B)) is amended-- (1) by striking ``or'' in clause (i) and inserting a comma, (2) by striking the semicolon at the end of clause (ii) and inserting ``, or'', and (3) by adding at the end the following: ``(iii) to provide relief to employees who have been miscategorized in violation of sections 202 and 402;''. SEC. 7. EFFECTIVE DATE. The amendments made by this Act shall apply with respect to plan years beginning on or after the date of the enactment of this Act. ______ By Mr. CAMPBELL: S. 2950. A bill to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to establish the Sand Creek Massacre Historic Site in the State of Colorado; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. introduction of legislation to create the sand creek national historic site Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, today I introduce the Sand Creek Massacre National Historic Site Establishment Act of 2000, legislation which will finally recognize and memorialize the hallowed ground on which hundreds of peaceful Cheyenne and Arapaho Indians were massacred by members of the Colorado Militia. The legislation I introduce today follows The Sand Creek Massacre Historic Site Study Act of 1998, legislation I introduced and Congress approved to study the suitability of creating an enduring memorial to the slain innocents who were camped peacefully near Sand Creek, in Kiowa County, in Colorado on November 28, 1868. Much has been written about the horrors visited upon the plains Indians in the territories of the Western United States in the latter half of the 19th century. However, what has been lost for more than a century is a comprehensive understanding of the events of that day in a grove of cottonwood trees along Sand Creek now SE Colorado. In some cases denial of the events of the day or a sense that ``the Indians had it coming'' has prevailed. This legislation finally recognizes a shameful event in our country's history based on scientific studies, and [[Page S7845]] makes it clear America has the strength and resolve to face its past and learn the painful lessons that come with intolerance. The indisputable facts are these: 700 members of the Colorado Militia, commanded by Colonel John Chivington struck at dawn that November day, attacking a camp of Cheyenne and Arapaho Indians settled under the U.S. Flag and a white flag which the Indian Chiefs Black Kettle and White Antelope were told by the U.S. would protect them from military attack. By day's end, almost 150 Indians, many of them women, children and the elderly, lay dead. Chivington's men reportedly desecrated the bodies of the dead after the massacre, and newspaper reports from Denver at the time told of the troops displaying Indian body parts in a gruesome display as they rode through the streets of Colorado's largest city following the attack. The perpetrators of this horrible attack which left Indian women and even babies dead, were never brought to justice even after a congressional investigation concerning this brutality. The legislation I introduce today authorizes the National Park Service to enter into negotiations with willing sellers only, in an attempt to secure property inside a boundary which encompasses approximately 12,470 acres as identified by the National Park Service, for a lasting memorial to events of that fateful day. This legislation has been developed over the course of the last 18 months. It represents a remarkable effort which brought divergent points of view together to define the events of that day and to plan for the future protection of this site. The National Park Service, with the cooperation of the Kiowa County Commissioners, the Cheyenne and Arapaho Tribes of Oklahoma, the Northern Cheyenne Tribe and the Northern Arapaho Tribe, the State of Colorado and many local landowners and volunteers have completed extensive cultural, geomorphological and physical studies of the area where the massacre occurred. All of those involved in this project agree, not acting now is not a option. This legislation does not compel any private property owner to sell his or her property to the federal government. It allows the National Park Service to negotiate with willing sellers to secure property at fair market value, for a national memorial. This process could take years. However, several willing sellers have come forward and are willing to negotiate with the NPS. The property they own has been identified by the NPS as suitable for a memorial. Additional acquisitions of property from willing sellers could come in the future. However, the Sand Creek National Historic Site could never extend beyond the 12,470 acres identified by the site resource study already completed. This legislation has come to being because all of those involved have exhibited an extraordinary ability to put aside their differences, look with equal measure at the scientific evidence and the oral traditions of the Tribes, and come up with a plan that equally honors the memory of those killed and the rights of the private property owners who have been faithful and responsible stewards of this site. We have a window of opportunity here that will not always be available. I encourage my colleagues to respect the memory of those so brutally killed and support the creation of a National Historic Site on this hallowed ground in Kiowa County, in Colorado. I ask unanimous consent that the bill and other research material associated with the studies of the Sand Creek site be printed in the Record for my colleagues or the public to review. ______ By Mr. TORRICELLI: S. 2953. A bill to amend title 38, United States Code, to improve outreach programs carried out by the Department of Veterans Affairs to provide for more fully informing veterans of benefits available to them under laws administered by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs; to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs. The Veterans' Right to Know Act Mr. TORRICELLI: Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Veterans' Right to Know Act which will assist millions of brave Americans who have served this nation in times of war. This legislation would ensure that all veterans are fully informed of the various benefits that they have earned through their brave and dedicated service to their country. Throughout the history of the United States, the interests of our nation have been championed by ordinary citizens who willingly defend our nation when called upon. During the times of crisis which threatened the very existence of our Republic, we persevered because young men and women from all walks of life took up arms to defend the ideals by which this nation was founded. Whether it was winning our freedom from an oppressive empire, preserving our Union, defeating fascism or battling the spread of communism, the American people have time and time again answered the call to defend liberty, justice and democracy at home and throughout the world. Our government owes a debt of gratitude to each and every one of our veterans, and we must make a concerted effort to show our appreciation for their valiant service. The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) provides the necessary health care services and benefits to our war heroes; however, over half of the veterans in the United States are not fully aware of the benefits or pensions to which they are entitled. The bill I introduced today is straightforward and it does not call for the creation of new benefits. Rather, it seeks to ensure that our veterans are well informed of the benefits they are entitled to as a result of their service or injuries sustained during their service to their country. This legislation would require the VA to inform veterans about their eligibility for benefits and health care services whenever they first apply for any benefit with the VA. Furthermore, many times, widows and surviving family members of veterans are not aware of the special benefits available to them when their family member passes. My bill would help these individuals in their time of loss by instructing the VA to inform them of the benefits for which they are eligible on the passing of their loved one. My legislation also seeks to reach out to those veterans who are not currently enrolled in the VA system by calling upon the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to prepare an annual outreach plan that will encourage eligible veterans to register with the VA as well as keeping current enrollees aware of any changes to benefits or eligibility requirements. This bill will help ensure that our government and its services for veterans are there for the men and women who have served this nation in the armed forces. I am hopeful that my colleagues in the Senate will recognize the tremendous service that our veterans have given and support this reasonable measure to ensure that our veterans receive the benefits they deserve. ______ By Mr. HOLLINGS (for himself, Ms. Snowe, Mr. Kerrey, Mr. Stevens, Mr. Breaux, and Mr. Cleland): S. 2954. A bill to establish the Dr. Nancy Foster Marine Biology Scholarship Program; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. The Nancy Foster Scholarship Act Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Nancy Foster Scholarship Act, legislation to create a scholarship program in marine biology or oceanography in honor of Dr. Nancy Foster, head of the National Ocean Service at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) until her passing on Tuesday, June 27, 2000. I am proud to introduce legislation to commemorate the life and work of such a wonderful leader, mentor, and coastal advocate. I thank my colleagues Senators Snowe, Kerry, Stevens, Breaux, and Cleland for joining me in recognizing Dr. Foster's strong commitment to improving the conservation and scientific understanding of our precious coastal resources. My legislation would create a Nancy Foster Marine Biology Scholarship Program within the Department of Commerce. This Program would provide scholarship funds to outstanding women and minority graduate students to support and encourage independent graduate level research in marine biology. It is my hope that this scholarship program will promote the development of future leaders of Dr. Foster's caliber. [[Page S7846]] Dr. Foster was the first woman to direct a NOAA line office, and during her 23 years at NOAA rose to one of the most senior levels a career professional can achieve. She directed the complete modernization of NOAA's essential nautical mapping and charting programs, and created a ground-breaking partnership with the National Geographic Society to launch a 5-year undersea exploration program called the Sustainable Seas Expedition. Dr. Foster was a strong and enthusiastic mentor to young people and a staunch ally to her colleagues, and for this reason, I believe the legislation I am introducing today to be the most appropriate way for us all to ensure that her deep commitment to marine science continues on in others. Mr. President, we will all feel Dr. Foster's loss deeply for years to come. The creation of a scholarship program in her honor is one small way we can thank a person who did so much for us all. ______ By Mr. DeWINE (for himself, Mr. Hatch, Mr. Voinovich, and Mr. Leahy); S. 2955. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide relief for the payment of asbestos-related claims; to the Committee on Finance. asbestos-related claims relief legislation Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today as an original cosponsor of the bill introduced today by my friend and colleague from Ohio, Senator DeWine, that would provide relief for payment of asbestos-related claims. I urge my colleagues on the Finance Committee to take a close look at the serious problem this bill addresses. Certain manufacturers who were required by government specification to use asbestos in their products are facing a severe financial crisis arising from claims made by individuals who are suffering health problems from asbestos-related diseases. These claims have put several of these companies into bankruptcy, and several more appear to be on the brink of insolvency. Thousands of jobs may be at stake, as may be the proper compensation of the victims of the illnesses. A major part of the underlying justification for this measure is that the federal government shares some culpability in the harm caused by the asbestos-related products manufactured by these companies. For example, from World War II through the Vietnam War, the government required that private contractors and shipyard workers use asbestos to insulate navy ships from so-called ``secondary fires.'' Because of sovereign immunity, however, the government has not had to share in paying the damages, leaving American companies to bear the full and ongoing financial load of compensation. The legislation we are introducing today is a step toward recognizing that the federal government is partially responsible for payment of these claims. It does so through two income tax provisions, both of which directly benefit the victims of the illnesses. The first provision exempts from income tax the income earned by a designated or qualified settlement fund established for the principal purpose of resolving and satisfying present and future claims relating to asbestos illnesses. The effect of this provision, Mr. President, is to increase the amount of money available for the payment of these claims. The second provision allows taxpayers with specified liability losses attributable to asbestos to carry back those losses to the tax year in which the taxpayer, or its predecessor company, was first involved in producing or distributing products containing asbestos. This provision is a matter of fairness, Mr. President. Because of the long latency period related to asbestos-related diseases, which can be as long as 40 years, many of these claims are just now arising. Current law provides for the carryback of this kind of liability losses, but only for a ten-year period. Many of the companies involved earned profits and paid taxes on those profits in the years the asbestos-related products were made or distributed. However, it is now clear, many years after the taxes were paid, that there were no profits earned at all, since millions of dollars of health claims relating to those products must now be paid. It is only fair, and it is sound tax policy, to allow relief for situations like these. Again, it should be emphasized that the primary beneficiaries of this tax change will not be the corporations, but the victims of the illnesses, because the taxpayer would be required to devote the entire amount of the tax reduction to paying the claims. This is not the only time the federal government has been at least partially responsible for health problems of citizens that arose many years after the event that initially triggered the problem. During the Cold War, America conducted above ground atomic tests during which the wind blew the fallout into communities and ranches of Utah, New Mexico and Arizona. The government also demanded quantities of uranium, which is harmful to those who mined and milled it. The incidence of cancers and other debilitating diseases caused by this activity among the ``downwinders,'' miners and millers has been acknowledged by the federal government. The least we can do for those manufacturers forced to use asbestos instead of other materials is provide some tax relief for their compensation funds. This legislation has substantial bipartisan backing. It is sponsored in the House by both the Chairman and Ranking Minority Member of the Judiciary Committee. It is backed by the by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and by at least one related labor union. This bill addresses a very serious problem and is the right thing to do. I hope we can pass it expeditiously. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record. There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows: S. 2955 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, SECTION 1. EXEMPTION FOR ASBESTOS-RELATED SETTLEMENT FUNDS. (a) Exemption for Asbestos-Related Settlement Funds.-- Subsection (b) of section 468B of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph: ``(6) Exemption from tax for asbestos-related designated settlement funds.--Notwithstanding paragraph (1), no tax shall be imposed under this section or any other provision of this subtitle on any designated settlement fund established for the principal purpose of resolving and satisfying present and future claims relating to asbestos.'' (b) Conforming Amendments.-- (1) Paragraph (1) of section 468B(b) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by striking ``There'' and inserting ``Except as provided in paragraph (6), there''. (2) Subsection (g) of section 468B of such Code is amended by inserting ``(other than subsection (b)(6))'' after ``Nothing in any provision of law''. (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall apply to taxable years ending after the date of enactment of this Act. SEC. 2. MODIFY TREATMENT OF ASBESTOS-RELATED NET OPERATING LOSSES. (a) Asbestos-Related Net Operating Losses.--Subsection (f) of section 172 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by redesignating paragraphs (4), (5), and (6) as paragraphs (5), (6), and (7), respectively, and by inserting after paragraph (3) the following new paragraph: ``(4) Special rules for asbestos liability losses.-- ``(A) In general.--At the election of the taxpayer, the portion of any specified liability loss that is attributable to asbestos may, for purposes of subsection (b)(1)(C), be carried back to the taxable year in which the taxpayer, including any predecessor corporation, was first involved in the production or distribution of products containing asbestos and each subsequent taxable year. ``(B) Coordination with credits.--If a deduction is allowable for any taxable year by reason of a carryback described in subparagraph (A)-- ``(i) the credits allowable under part IV (other than subpart C) of subchapter A shall be determined without regard to such deduction, and ``(ii) the amount of taxable income taken into account with respect to the carryback under subsection (b)(2) for such taxable year shall be reduced by an amount equal to-- ``(I) the increase in the amount of such credits allowable for such taxable year solely by reason of clause (i), divided by ``(II) the maximum rate of tax under section 1 or 11 (whichever is applicable) for such taxable year. ``(C) Carryforwards taken into account before asbestos- related deductions.--For purposes of this section-- ``(i) in determining whether a net operating loss carryforward may be carried under subsection (b)(2) to a taxable year, taxable income for such year shall be determined [[Page S7847]] without regard to the deductions referred to in paragraph (1)(A) with respect to asbestos, and ``(ii) if there is a net operating loss for such year after taking into account such carryforwards and deductions, the portion of such loss attributable to such deductions shall be treated as a specified liability loss that is attributable to asbestos. ``(D) Limitation.--The amount of reduction in income tax liability arising from the election described in subparagraph (A) that exceeds the amount of reduction in income tax liability that would have resulted if the taxpayer utilized the 10-year carryback period under subsection (b)(1)(C) shall be devoted by the taxpayer solely to asbestos claimant compensation and related costs, through a designated settlement fund or otherwise. ``(E) Consolidated groups.--For purposes of this paragraph, all members of an affiliated group of corporations that join in the filing of a consolidated return pursuant to section 1501 (or a predecessor section) shall be treated as 1 corporation. ``(F) Predecessor corporation.--For purposes of this paragraph, a predecessor corporation shall include a corporation that transferred or distributed assets to the taxpayer in a transaction to which section 381(a) applies or that distributed the stock of the taxpayer in a transaction to which section 355 applies.'' (b) Conforming Amendment.--Paragraph (7) of section 172(f) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as redesignated by this section, is amended by striking ``10-year''. (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall apply to taxable years ending after the date of enactment of this Act. ______ By Mr. CAMPBELL: S. 2956. A bill to establish the Colorado Canyons National Conservation Area and the Black Ridge Canyons Wilderness, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. colorado canyons preservation act of 2000 Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, today I introduce legislation which would preserve over 130,000 acres of land in Western Colorado. This legislation is supported locally by property owners, county commissioners, environmentalists, and recreational groups. My bill is a Senate companion to H.R. 4275 which was introduced by my colleague and fellow Coloradan Representative Scott McInnis. The areas proposed for Wildernesss Protection are the Black Ridge and Ruby Canyons of the Grand Valley and Rabbit Valley near Grand Junction, Colorado. They contain unique and valuable scenic, recreational, multiple use, paleontological, natural, and wildlife components. This historic rural western setting provides extensive opportunities for recreational activities, and are publicly used for hiking, camping, and grazing. This area is truly worthy of additional protection as a national conservation area. This legislation has the support of the administration and should easily be signed into law. The only issue confronting us is the limited amount of time left in the 106th Congress. I hope we will be able to move this legislation quickly through the process and that it will not get bogged down in partisan politics. It simply is the right thing to do. I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in the Record following my remarks. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor. There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows: S. 2956 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 ``Colorado Canyons National Conservation Area and Black Ridge Canyons Wilderness Act of 2000''. SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSE. (a) Findings.--Congress finds that certain areas located in the Grand Valley in Mesa County, Colorado, and Grand County, Utah, should be protected and enhanced for the benefit and enjoyment of present and future generations. These areas include the following: (1) The areas making up the Black Ridge and Ruby Canyons of the Grand Valley and Rabbit Valley, which contain unique and valuable scenic, recreational, multiple use opportunities (including grazing), paleontological, natural, and wildlife components enhanced by the rural western setting of the area, provide extensive opportunities for recreational activities, and are publicly used for hiking, camping, and grazing, and are worthy of additional protection as a national conservation area. (2) The Black Ridge Canyons Wilderness Study Area has wilderness value and offers unique geological, paleontological, scientific, and recreational resources. (b) Purpose.--The purpose of this Act is to conserve, protect, and enhance for the benefit and enjoyment of present and future generations the unique and nationally important values of the public lands described in section 4(b), including geological, cultural, paleontological, natural, scientific, recreational, environmental, biological, wilderness, wildlife education, and scenic resources of such public lands, by establishing the Colorado Canyons National Conservation Area and the Black Ridge Canyons Wilderness in the State of Colorado and the State of Utah. SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS. In this Act: (1) Conservation area.--The term ``Conservation Area'' means the Colorado Canyons National Conservation Area established by section 4(a). (2) Council.--The term ``Council'' means the Colorado Canyons National Conservation Area Advisory Council established under section 8. (3) Management plan.--The term ``management plan'' means the management plan developed for the Conservation Area under section 6(h). (4) Map.--The term ``Map'' means the map entitled ``Proposed Colorado Canyons National Conservation Area and Black Ridge Canyons Wilderness Area'' and dated July 18, 2000. (5) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary of the Interior, acting through the Director of the Bureau of Land Management. (6) Wilderness.--The term ``Wilderness'' means the Black Ridge Canyons Wilderness so designated in section 5. SEC. 4. COLORADO CANYONS NATIONAL CONSERVATION AREA. (a) In General.--There is established the Colorado Canyons National Conservation Area in the State of Colorado and the State of Utah. (b) Areas Included.--The Conservation Area shall consist of approximately 122,300 acres of public land as generally depicted on the Map. SEC. 5. BLACK RIDGE CANYONS WILDERNESS DESIGNATION. Certain lands in Mesa County, Colorado, and Grand County, Utah, which comprise approximately 75,550 acres as generally depicted on the Map, are hereby designated as wilderness and therefore as a component of the National Wilderness Preservation System. Such component shall be known as the Black Ridge Canyons Wilderness. SEC. 6. MANAGEMENT. (a) Conservation Area.--The Secretary shall manage the Conservation Area in a manner that-- (1) conserves, protects, and enhances the resources of the Conservation Area specified in section 2(b); and (2) is in accordance with-- (A) the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.); and (B) other applicable law, including this Act. (b) Uses.--The Secretary shall allow only such uses of the Conservation Area as the Secretary determines will further the purposes for which the Conservation Area is established. (c) Withdrawals.--Subject to valid existing rights, all Federal land within the Conservation Area and the Wilderness and all land and interests in land acquired for the Conservation Area or the Wilderness by the United States are withdrawn from-- (1) all forms of entry, appropriation, or disposal under the public land laws; (2) location, entry, and patent under the mining laws; and

Summary:

All articles in Senate section

STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
(Senate - July 27, 2000)

Text of this article available as: TXT PDF [Pages S7841-S7908] STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS By Mr. BREAUX: S. 2944. A bill to clarify that certain penalties provided for in the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 are the exclusive criminal penalties for any action or activity that may arise or occur in connection with certain discharges of oil or a hazardous substance; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works. Strict Criminal Liability Reform for Oil Spill Incidents Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce legislation to address a long-standing problem which adversely affects the safe and reliable maritime transport of oil products. The legislation I am introducing today will eliminate the application and use of strict criminal liability statutes, statutes that do not require a showing of criminal intent or even the slightest degree of negligence, for maritime transportation-related oil spill incidents. Through comprehensive Congressional action that led to the enactment and implementation of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990, commonly referred to as ``OPA90'', the United States has successfully reduced the number of oil spills in the maritime environment and has established a cooperative public/private partnership to respond effectively in the diminishing number of situations when an oil spill occurs. Nonetheless, over the past decade, the use of the unrelated strict criminal liability statutes that I referred to above has undermined the spill prevention and response objectives of OPA90, the very objectives that were established by the Congress to preserve the environment, safeguard the public welfare, and promote the safe transportation of oil. The legislation I am introducing today will restore the delicate balance of interests reached in OPA90, and will reaffirm OPA90's preeminent role as the statute providing the exclusive criminal penalties for oil spill incidents. As stated in the Coast Guard's own environmental enforcement directive, a company, its officers, employees, and mariners, in the event of an oil spill ``could be convicted and sentenced to a criminal fine even where [they] took all reasonable precautions to avoid the discharge''. Accordingly, responsible operators in my home state of Louisiana and elsewhere in the United States who transport oil are unavoidably exposed to potentially immeasurable criminal fines and, in the worst case scenario, jail time. Not only is this situation unfairly targeting an industry that plays an extremely important role in our national economy, but it also works contrary to the public welfare. Most liquid cargo transportation companies on the coastal and inland waterway system of the United States have embraced safe operation and risk management as two of their most important and fundamental values. For example, members of the American Waterways Operators (AWO) from Louisiana and other states have implemented stronger safety programs that have significantly reduced personal injuries to mariners. Tank barge fleets have been upgraded through construction of new state-of- the-art double hulled tank barges while obsolete single skin barges are being retired far in advance of the OPA90 timetable. Additionally, AWO members have dedicated significant time and financial resources to provide continuous and comprehensive education and training for vessel captains, crews and shoreside staff, not only in the operation of vessels but also in preparation for all contingencies that could occur in the transportation of oil products. This commitment to marine safety and environmental protection by responsible members of the oil transportation industry is real. The industry continues to work closely with the Coast Guard to upgrade regulatory standards in such key areas as towing vessel operator qualifications and navigation equipment on towing vessels. Through the efforts of AWO and other organizations, the maritime transportation industry has achieved an outstanding compliance record with the numerous laws and regulations enforced by the Coast Guard. Let me be clear: responsible carriers, and frankly their customers, have a ``zero tolerance'' policy for oil spills. Additionally, the industry is taking spill response preparedness seriously. Industry representatives and operators routinely participate in Coast Guard oil spill crisis management courses, PREP Drills, and regional spill response drills. Yet despite all of the modernization, safety, and training efforts of the marine transportation industry, their mariners and shoreside employees cannot escape the threat of criminal liability in the event of an oil spill, even where it is shown that they ``took all reasonable precautions to avoid [a] discharge''. As you know, in response to the tragic Exxon Valdez spill, Congress enacted OPA90. OPA90 mandated new, comprehensive, and complex regulatory and enforcement requirements for the transportation of oil products and for oil spill response. Both the federal government and maritime industry have worked hard to accomplish the legislation's primary objective--to provide greater environmental safeguards in oil transportation by creating a comprehensive prevention, response, liability, and compensation regime to deal with vessel and facility oil pollution. And OPA90 is working in a truly meaningful sense. To prevent oil spill incidents from occurring in the first place, OPA90 provides an enormously powerful deterrent, through both its criminal and civil liability provisions. Moreover, OPA90 mandates prompt reporting of spills, contingency planning, and both cooperation and coordination with federal, state, and local authorities in connection with managing the spill response. Failure to report and cooperate as required by OPA90 may impose automatic civil penalties, criminal liability and unlimited civil liability. As a result, the number of domestic oil spills has been dramatically reduced over the past decade since OPA90 was enacted. In those limited situations in which oil spills unfortunately occurred, intensive efforts commenced immediately with federal, state and local officials working in a joint, unified manner with the industry, as contemplated by OPA90, to clean up and report spills as quickly as possible and to mitigate to the greatest extent any impact on the environment. OPA90 has provided a comprehensive and cohesive ``blueprint'' for proper planning, training, and resource identification to respond to an oil spill incident, and to ensure that such a response is properly and cooperatively managed. OPA90 also provides a complete statutory framework for proceeding against individuals for civil and/or criminal penalties arising out of oil spills in the marine environment. When Congress crafted this Act, it carefully balanced the imposition of stronger criminal and civil penalties with the need to promote enhanced cooperation among all of the parties involved in the spill prevention and response effort. In so doing, the Congress clearly enumerated the circumstances in which criminal penalties could be imposed for actions related to maritime oil spills, and added and/or substantially increased criminal penalties under the related laws which comprehensively govern the maritime transportation of oil and other petroleum products. The legislation we are introducing today will not change in any way the tough criminal sanctions that were imposed in OPA90. However, responsible, law-abiding members of the maritime industry in Louisiana and elsewhere are concerned by the willingness of the Department of Justice and other federal agencies in the post-OPA90 environment to use strict criminal liability statutes in oil spill incidents. As you know, strict liability imposes criminal sanctions without requiring a showing of criminal knowledge, intent or even negligence. These federal actions imposing strict liability have created an atmosphere of extreme uncertainty for the maritime transportation industry about how to respond to and cooperate with the Coast Guard and other federal [[Page S7842]] agencies in cleaning up an oil spill. Criminal culpability in this country, both historically and as reflected in the comprehensive OPA90 legislation itself, typically requires wrongful actions or omissions by individuals through some degree of criminal intent or through the failure to use the required standard of care. However, Federal prosecutors have been employing other antiquated, seemingly unrelated ``strict liability'' statutes that do not require a showing of ``knowledge'' or ``intent'' as a basis for criminal prosecution for oil spill incidents. Such strict criminal liability statutes as the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the Refuse Act, statutes that were enacted at the turn of the century to serve other purposes, have been used to harass and intimidate the maritime industry, and, in effect, have turned every oil spill into a potential crime scene without regard to the fault or intent of companies, corporate officers and employees, and mariners. The Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) (16 U.S.C. 703 et seq.) provides that ``it shall be unlawful at any time, by any means or in any manner, to pursue, hunt, take, capture, kill, attempt to take, capture, or kill, . . . any migratory bird . . .'', a violation of which is punishable by imprisonment and/or fines. Prior to the Exxon Valdez oil spill in 1989, the MBTA was primarily used to prosecute the illegal activities of hunters and capturers of migratory birds, as the Congress originally intended when it enacted the MBTA in 1918. In the Exxon Valdez case itself, and prior to the enactment of OPA90, the MBTA was first used to support a criminal prosecution against a vessel owner in relation to a maritime oil spill, and this ``hunting statute'' has been used ever since against the maritime industry. The ``Refuse Act'' (33 U.S.C. 407, 411) was enacted over 100 years ago at a time well before subsequent federal legislation essentially replaced it with comprehensive requirements and regulations specifically directed to the maritime transportation of oil and other petroleum products. Such strict liability statutes are unrelated to the regulation and enforcement of oil transportation activities, and in fact were not included within the comprehensive OPA90 legislation as statutes in which criminal liability could be found. With the prosecutorial use of strict liability statutes, owners and mariners engaged in the transportation of oil cannot avoid exposure to criminal liability, regardless of how diligently they adhere to prudent practice and safe environmental standards. Although conscientious safety and training programs, state-of-the-art equipment, proper operational procedures, preventative maintenance programs, and the employment of qualified and experienced personnel will collectively prevent most oil spills from occurring, unfortunately spills will still occur on occasion. To illustrate this point, please permit me to present a scenario that highlights the dilemma faced by the maritime oil transportation industry in Louisiana. Imagine, if you will, that a company is operating a towing vessel in compliance with Coast Guard regulations on the Mississippi River on a calm, clear day with several fully laden tank barges in tow. Suddenly, in what was charted and previously identified to be a clear portion of the waterway, one of the tank barges strikes an unknown submerged object which shears through its hull and causes a significant oil spill in the river. Unfortunately, in addition to any other environmental damage that may occur, the oil spill kills one or more migratory birds. As you know, under OPA90 the operator must immediately undertake coordinated spill response actions with the Coast Guard and other federal, state, and local agencies to safeguard the vessel and its crew, clean up the oil spill, and otherwise mitigate any damage to the surrounding environment. The overriding objectives at this critical moment are to assure personnel and public safety and to clean up the oil spill as quickly as possible without constraint. However, in the current atmosphere the operator must take into consideration the threat of strict criminal liability under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the Refuse Act, together with their attendant imprisonment and fines, despite the reasonable care and precautions taken in the operation and navigation of the tow and in the spill response effort. Indeed, in the Coast Guard's own environmental enforcement directive, the statement is made that ``[t]he decision to commit the necessary Coast Guard resources to obtain the evidence that will support a criminal prosecution must often be made in the very early stages of a pollution incident.'' Any prudent operator will quickly recognize the dilemma in complying with the mandate to act cooperatively with all appropriate public agencies in cleaning up the oil spill, while at the same time those very agencies may be conducting a criminal investigation of that operator. Vessel owners and their employees who have complied with federal laws and regulations and have exercised all reasonable care should not continue to face a substantial risk of imprisonment and criminal fines under such strict liability statutes. Criminal liability, when appropriately imposed under OPA90, should be employed only where a discharge is caused by conduct which is truly ``criminal'' in nature, i.e., where a discharge is caused by reckless, intentional or other conduct deemed criminal by OPA90. As this scenario demonstrates, the unjustified use of strict liability statutes is plainly undermining the very objectives which OPA90 sought to achieve, namely to enhance the prevention of and response to oil spills in Louisiana and elsewhere in the United States. As we are well aware, tremendous time, effort, and resources have been expended by both the federal government and the maritime industry to eliminate oil spills to the maximum extent possible, and to plan for and undertake an immediate and effective response to mitigate any environmental damage from spills that do occur. Clearly unwarranted and improper prosecutorial use of strict liability statutes is having a ``chilling'' effect on these cooperative spill prevention and response efforts. Indeed, even if we were to believe that criminal prosecution only follows intentional criminal conduct, the mere fact that strict criminal liability statutes are available at the prosecutor's discretion will intimidate even the most innocent and careful operator. With strict liability criminal enforcement, responsible members of the maritime transportation industry are faced with an extreme dilemma in the event of an oil spill--provide less than full cooperation and response as criminal defense attorneys will certainly direct, or cooperate fully despite the risk of criminal prosecution that could result from any additional actions or statements made during the course of the spill response. Consequently, increased criminalization of oil spill incidents introduces uncertainty into the response effort by discouraging full and open communication and cooperation, and leaves vessel owners and operators criminally vulnerable for response actions taken in an effort to ``do the right thing''. In the maritime industry's continuing effort to improve its risk management process, it seeks to identify and address all foreseeable risks associated with the operation of its business. Through fleet modernization, personnel training, and all other reasonable steps to address identified risks in its business, the industry still cannot manage or avoid the increased risks of strict criminal liability (again, a liability that has no regard to fault or intent). The only method available to companies and their officers to avoid the risk of criminal liability completely is to divest themselves from the maritime business of transporting oil and other petroleum products, in effect to get out of the business altogether. Furthermore, strict liability criminal laws provide a strong disincentive for trained, highly experienced mariners to continue the operation of tank vessels, and for talented and capable individuals from even entering into that maritime trade. An earlier editorial highlighted the fact that tugboat captains ``are reporting feelings of intense relief and lightening of their spirits when they are ordered to push a cargo of grain or other dry cargo, as compared to the apprehension they feel when they are staring out of their wheelhouses at tank barges'', and ``that the reason for this is very obvious in the way that they find themselves instantly facing criminal charges . . . in the event of a collision or grounding and oil or chemicals end up in the water''. Certainly, the federal government does not want to create a situation where the least experienced [[Page S7843]] mariners are the only available crew to handle the most hazardous cargoes, or the least responsible operators are the only available carriers. Thus, the unavoidable risk of such criminal liability directly and adversely affects the safe transportation of oil products, an activity essential for the public, the economy, and the nation. Therefore, despite the commitment and effort to provide trained and experienced vessel operators and employees, to comply with all safety and operational mandates of Coast Guard laws and regulations, and to provide for the safe transportation of oil as required by OPA90, maritime transportation companies in Louisiana, and elsewhere still cannot avoid criminal liability in the event of an oil spill. Responsible, law-abiding companies have unfortunately been forced to undertake the only prudent action that they could under the circumstances, namely the development of criminal liability action plans and retention of criminal counsel in an attempt to prepare for the unavoidable risks of such liability. These are only preliminary steps and do not begin to address the many implications of the increasing criminalization of oil spills. The industry is now asking what responsibility does it have to educate its mariners and shoreside staff about the potential personal exposure they may face and wonder how to do this without creating many undesirable consequences? How should the industry organize spill management teams and educate them on how to cooperate openly and avoid unwitting exposure to criminal liability? Mr. President, I have thought about these issues a great deal and simply do not know how to resolve these dilemmas under current, strict liability law. In the event of an oil spill, a responsible party not only must manage the cleanup of the oil and the civil liability resulting from the spill itself, but also must protect itself from the criminal liability that now exists due to the available and willing use of strict liability criminal laws by the federal government. Managing the pervasive threat of strict criminal liability, by its very nature, prevents a responsible party from cooperating fully and completely in response to an oil spill situation. The OPA90 ``blueprint'' is no longer clear. Is this serving the objectives of OPA90? Does this really serve the public welfare of our nation? Is this what Congress had in mind when it mandated its spill response regime? Is this in the interest of the most immediate, most effective oil spill cleanup in the unfortunate event of a spill? We think not. To restore the delicate balance of interests reached in the enactment of OPA90 a decade ago, we intend to work with the Congress to reaffirm the OPA90 framework for criminal prosecutions in oil spill incidents. The enactment of the legislation we are introducing today will ensure increased cooperation and responsiveness desired by all those interested in oil spill response issues without diluting the deterrent effect and stringent criminal penalties imposed by OPA90 itself. I look forward to continuing the effort to upgrade the safety of marine operations in the navigable waterways of the United States, and I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record. There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows: S. 2944 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, SECTION 1. AFFIRMATION OF PENALTIES UNDER OIL POLLUTION ACT OF 1990. (a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision or rule of law, section 4301(c) and 4302 of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (Public Law 101-380; 104 Stat. 537) and the amendments made by those sections provide the exclusive criminal penalties for any action or activity that may arise or occur in connection with a discharge of oil or a hazardous substance referred to in section 311(b)(3) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1321(b)(3)). (b) Rule of Construction.--Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit, or otherwise exempt any person from, liability for conspiracy to commit any offense against the United States, for fraud and false statements, or for the obstruction of justice. ______ By Mr. KENNEDY (for himself, Mr. Torricelli and Mr. Harkin): S. 2946. A bill to amend title I of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 to ensure that employees are not improperly disqualified from benefits under pension plans and welfare plans based on a miscategorization of their employee status; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. employee benefits eligibility fairness act of 2000 Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, contingent workers in our society face significant problems, and they deserve our help in meeting them. These men and women--temporary and part-time workers, contract workers, and independent contractors--continue to suffer unfairly, even in our prosperous economy. A new report from the General Accounting Office emphasizes that contingent workers often lack income security and retirement security. We know that for most workers today, a single lifetime job is a relic of the past. The world is long gone in which workers stay with their employer for many years, and then retire on a company pension. Since 1982 the number of temporary help jobs has grown 577 percent. The GAO report shows that 30 percent of the workforce--39 million working Americans--now get their paychecks from contingent jobs. Contingent workers have lower incomes than traditional, full-time workers and many are living in poverty. For example, 30 percent of agency temporary workers have family incomes below $15,000. By comparison, only 8 percent of standard full-time workers have family incomes below $15,000. Contingent workers are less likely to be covered by employer health and retirement benefits than are standard, full-time workers. Even when employers do sponsor a plan, contingent workers are less likely to participate in the plan, either because they are excluded or because the plan is too expensive. Only 21 percent of part-time workers are included in an employer-sponsored pension plan. By comparison, 64 percent of standard full-time workers are included in their employer's pension plan. Non-standard or alternative work arrangements can meet the needs of working families and employers alike, but these arrangements should not be used to divide the workforce into ``haves'' and ``have-nots.'' Flexible work arrangements, for example, can give working parents more time to care for their children, but many workers are not in their contingent jobs by choice. More than half of temporary workers would prefer a permanent job instead of their contingent job, but temporary work is all they can find. As the GAO report makes clear, employers have economic incentives to cut costs by miscategorizing their workers as temporary or contract workers. Too often, contingent arrangements are set-up by employers for the purpose of excluding workers from their employee benefit programs and evading their responsibilities to their workers. Millions of employees have been miscategorized by their employers, and as a result they have been denied the benefits and protections that they rightly deserve and worked hard to earn. All workers deserve a secure retirement at the end of their working years. Social Security has been and will continue to be the best foundation for that security. But the foundation is just that--the beginning of our responsibility, not the end of it. We cannot expect Americans to work hard all their lives, only to face poverty and hard times when they retire. That is why I am introducing, with Senators Torricelli and Harkin, the Employee Benefits Eligibility Fairness Act of 2000 to help contingent workers obtain the retirement benefits they deserve. This legislation clarifies employers' responsibilities under the law so that they cannot exclude contingent workers from employee benefit plans based on artificial labels or payroll practices. This is an issue of basic fairness for working men and women. It is unfair for individuals who work full-time, on an indefinite long-term basis for an employer to be excluded from the employer's pension plan, merely because the employer classifies the workers as ``temporary'' when in fact they are not. The employer-employee relationship should be determined on the facts of [[Page S7844]] the working arrangement, not on artificial labels, not on artificial accounting practices, not artificial payroll practices. It is long past time for Congress to recognize the plight of contingent workers and see that they get the employee benefits they deserve. These important changes are critical to improving the security of working families, and I look forward to their enactment. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record. There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows: S. 2946 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 ``Employee Benefits Eligibility Fairness Act of 2000''. SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSE. (a) Findings.--Congress makes the following findings: (1) The intent of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 to protect the pension and welfare benefits of workers is frustrated by the practice of mislabeling employees to improperly exclude them from employee benefit plans. Employees are wrongly denied benefits when they are mislabeled as temporary employees, part-time employees, leased employees, agency employees, staffing firm employees, and contractors. If their true employment status were recognized, mislabeled employees would be eligible to participate in employee benefit plans because such plans are offered to other employees performing the same or substantially the same work and working for the same employer. (2) Mislabeled employees are often paid through staffing, temporary, employee leasing, or other similar firms to give the appearance that the employees do not work for their worksite employer. Employment contracts and reports to government agencies also are used to give the erroneous impression that mislabeled employees work for staffing, temporary, employee leasing, or other similar firms, when the facts of the work arrangement do not meet the common law standard for determining the employment relationship. Employees are also mislabeled as contractors and paid from non-payroll accounts to give the appearance that they are not employees of their worksite employer. These practices violate the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. (3) Employers are amending their benefit plans to add provisions that exclude mislabeled employees from participation in the plan even in the event that such employees are determined to be common law employees and otherwise eligible to participate in the plan. These plan provisions violate the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. (4) As a condition of employment or continued employment, mislabeled employees are often required to sign documents that purport to waive their right to participate in employee benefit plans. Such documents inaccurately claim to limit the authority of the courts and applicable Federal agencies to correct the mislabeling of employees and to enforce the terms of plans providing for their participation. This practice violates the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. (b) Purpose.--The purpose of this Act is to clarify applicable provisions of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 to ensure that employees are not improperly excluded from participation in employee benefit plans as a result of mislabeling of their employment status. SEC. 3. ADDITIONAL STANDARDS RELATING TO MINIMUM PARTICIPATION REQUIREMENTS. (a) Required Inclusion of Service.--Section 202(a)(3) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (29 U.S.C. 1052(a)(3)) is amended by adding at the end the following new subparagraph: ``(E) For purposes of this section, in determining `years of service' and `hours of service', service shall include all service for the employer as an employee under the common law, irrespective of whether the worker-- ``(i) is paid through a staffing firm, temporary help firm, payroll agency, employment agency, or other such similar arrangement, ``(ii) is paid directly by the employer under an arrangement purporting to characterize an employee under the common law as other than an employee, or ``(iii) is paid from an account not designated as a payroll account.'' (b) Exclusion Precluded When Related to Certain Purported Categorizations.--Section 202 of such Act (29 U.S.C. 1052) is amended further by adding at the end the following new subsection: ``(c)(1) Subject to paragraph (2), a pension plan shall be treated as failing to meet the requirements of this section if any individual who-- ``(A) is an employee under the common law, and ``(B) performs the same work (or substantially the same work) for the employer as other employees who generally are not excluded from participation in the plan, is excluded from participation in the plan, irrespective of the placement of such employee in any category of workers (such as temporary employees, part-time employees, leased employees, agency employees, staffing firm employees, contractors, or any similar category) which may be specified under the plan as ineligible for participation. ``(2) Nothing in paragraph (1) shall be construed to preclude the exclusion from participation in a pension plan of individuals who in fact do not meet a minimum service period or minimum age which is required under the terms of the plan and which is otherwise in conformity with the requirements of this section.'' SEC. 4. WAIVERS OF PARTICIPATION INEFFECTIVE IF RELATED TO MISCATEGORIZATION OF EMPLOYEE. Section 202 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (29 U.S.C. 1052) (as amended by section 3) is amended further by adding at the end the following new subsection: ``(d) Any waiver or purported waiver by an employee of participation in a pension plan or welfare plan shall be ineffective if related, in whole or in part, to the a miscategorization of the employee in 1 or more ineligible plan categories.'' SEC. 5. OBJECTIVE ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA IN PLAN INSTRUMENTS. Section 402 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (29 U.S.C. 1102) is amended by adding at the end the following new subsection: ``(c)(1) The written instrument pursuant to which an employee benefit plan is maintained shall set forth eligibility criteria which-- ``(A) include and exclude employees on a uniform basis; ``(B) are based on reasonable job classifications; and ``(C) are based on objective criteria stated in the instrument itself for the inclusion or exclusion (other than the mere listing of an employee as included or excluded). ``(2) No plan instrument may permit an employer or plan sponsor to exclude an employee under the common law from participation irrespective of the placement of such employee in any category of workers (such as temporary employees, leased employees, agency employees, staffing firm employees, contractors, or any similar category) if the employee-- ``(A) is an employee of the employer under the common law, ``(B) performs the same work (or substantially the same work) for the employer as other employees who generally are not excluded from participation in the plan, and ``(C) meets a minimum service period or minimum age which is required under the terms of the plan.'' SEC. 6. ENFORCEMENT. Section 502(a)(3)(B) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (29 U.S.C. 1132(a)(3)(B)) is amended-- (1) by striking ``or'' in clause (i) and inserting a comma, (2) by striking the semicolon at the end of clause (ii) and inserting ``, or'', and (3) by adding at the end the following: ``(iii) to provide relief to employees who have been miscategorized in violation of sections 202 and 402;''. SEC. 7. EFFECTIVE DATE. The amendments made by this Act shall apply with respect to plan years beginning on or after the date of the enactment of this Act. ______ By Mr. CAMPBELL: S. 2950. A bill to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to establish the Sand Creek Massacre Historic Site in the State of Colorado; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. introduction of legislation to create the sand creek national historic site Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, today I introduce the Sand Creek Massacre National Historic Site Establishment Act of 2000, legislation which will finally recognize and memorialize the hallowed ground on which hundreds of peaceful Cheyenne and Arapaho Indians were massacred by members of the Colorado Militia. The legislation I introduce today follows The Sand Creek Massacre Historic Site Study Act of 1998, legislation I introduced and Congress approved to study the suitability of creating an enduring memorial to the slain innocents who were camped peacefully near Sand Creek, in Kiowa County, in Colorado on November 28, 1868. Much has been written about the horrors visited upon the plains Indians in the territories of the Western United States in the latter half of the 19th century. However, what has been lost for more than a century is a comprehensive understanding of the events of that day in a grove of cottonwood trees along Sand Creek now SE Colorado. In some cases denial of the events of the day or a sense that ``the Indians had it coming'' has prevailed. This legislation finally recognizes a shameful event in our country's history based on scientific studies, and [[Page S7845]] makes it clear America has the strength and resolve to face its past and learn the painful lessons that come with intolerance. The indisputable facts are these: 700 members of the Colorado Militia, commanded by Colonel John Chivington struck at dawn that November day, attacking a camp of Cheyenne and Arapaho Indians settled under the U.S. Flag and a white flag which the Indian Chiefs Black Kettle and White Antelope were told by the U.S. would protect them from military attack. By day's end, almost 150 Indians, many of them women, children and the elderly, lay dead. Chivington's men reportedly desecrated the bodies of the dead after the massacre, and newspaper reports from Denver at the time told of the troops displaying Indian body parts in a gruesome display as they rode through the streets of Colorado's largest city following the attack. The perpetrators of this horrible attack which left Indian women and even babies dead, were never brought to justice even after a congressional investigation concerning this brutality. The legislation I introduce today authorizes the National Park Service to enter into negotiations with willing sellers only, in an attempt to secure property inside a boundary which encompasses approximately 12,470 acres as identified by the National Park Service, for a lasting memorial to events of that fateful day. This legislation has been developed over the course of the last 18 months. It represents a remarkable effort which brought divergent points of view together to define the events of that day and to plan for the future protection of this site. The National Park Service, with the cooperation of the Kiowa County Commissioners, the Cheyenne and Arapaho Tribes of Oklahoma, the Northern Cheyenne Tribe and the Northern Arapaho Tribe, the State of Colorado and many local landowners and volunteers have completed extensive cultural, geomorphological and physical studies of the area where the massacre occurred. All of those involved in this project agree, not acting now is not a option. This legislation does not compel any private property owner to sell his or her property to the federal government. It allows the National Park Service to negotiate with willing sellers to secure property at fair market value, for a national memorial. This process could take years. However, several willing sellers have come forward and are willing to negotiate with the NPS. The property they own has been identified by the NPS as suitable for a memorial. Additional acquisitions of property from willing sellers could come in the future. However, the Sand Creek National Historic Site could never extend beyond the 12,470 acres identified by the site resource study already completed. This legislation has come to being because all of those involved have exhibited an extraordinary ability to put aside their differences, look with equal measure at the scientific evidence and the oral traditions of the Tribes, and come up with a plan that equally honors the memory of those killed and the rights of the private property owners who have been faithful and responsible stewards of this site. We have a window of opportunity here that will not always be available. I encourage my colleagues to respect the memory of those so brutally killed and support the creation of a National Historic Site on this hallowed ground in Kiowa County, in Colorado. I ask unanimous consent that the bill and other research material associated with the studies of the Sand Creek site be printed in the Record for my colleagues or the public to review. ______ By Mr. TORRICELLI: S. 2953. A bill to amend title 38, United States Code, to improve outreach programs carried out by the Department of Veterans Affairs to provide for more fully informing veterans of benefits available to them under laws administered by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs; to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs. The Veterans' Right to Know Act Mr. TORRICELLI: Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Veterans' Right to Know Act which will assist millions of brave Americans who have served this nation in times of war. This legislation would ensure that all veterans are fully informed of the various benefits that they have earned through their brave and dedicated service to their country. Throughout the history of the United States, the interests of our nation have been championed by ordinary citizens who willingly defend our nation when called upon. During the times of crisis which threatened the very existence of our Republic, we persevered because young men and women from all walks of life took up arms to defend the ideals by which this nation was founded. Whether it was winning our freedom from an oppressive empire, preserving our Union, defeating fascism or battling the spread of communism, the American people have time and time again answered the call to defend liberty, justice and democracy at home and throughout the world. Our government owes a debt of gratitude to each and every one of our veterans, and we must make a concerted effort to show our appreciation for their valiant service. The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) provides the necessary health care services and benefits to our war heroes; however, over half of the veterans in the United States are not fully aware of the benefits or pensions to which they are entitled. The bill I introduced today is straightforward and it does not call for the creation of new benefits. Rather, it seeks to ensure that our veterans are well informed of the benefits they are entitled to as a result of their service or injuries sustained during their service to their country. This legislation would require the VA to inform veterans about their eligibility for benefits and health care services whenever they first apply for any benefit with the VA. Furthermore, many times, widows and surviving family members of veterans are not aware of the special benefits available to them when their family member passes. My bill would help these individuals in their time of loss by instructing the VA to inform them of the benefits for which they are eligible on the passing of their loved one. My legislation also seeks to reach out to those veterans who are not currently enrolled in the VA system by calling upon the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to prepare an annual outreach plan that will encourage eligible veterans to register with the VA as well as keeping current enrollees aware of any changes to benefits or eligibility requirements. This bill will help ensure that our government and its services for veterans are there for the men and women who have served this nation in the armed forces. I am hopeful that my colleagues in the Senate will recognize the tremendous service that our veterans have given and support this reasonable measure to ensure that our veterans receive the benefits they deserve. ______ By Mr. HOLLINGS (for himself, Ms. Snowe, Mr. Kerrey, Mr. Stevens, Mr. Breaux, and Mr. Cleland): S. 2954. A bill to establish the Dr. Nancy Foster Marine Biology Scholarship Program; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. The Nancy Foster Scholarship Act Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Nancy Foster Scholarship Act, legislation to create a scholarship program in marine biology or oceanography in honor of Dr. Nancy Foster, head of the National Ocean Service at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) until her passing on Tuesday, June 27, 2000. I am proud to introduce legislation to commemorate the life and work of such a wonderful leader, mentor, and coastal advocate. I thank my colleagues Senators Snowe, Kerry, Stevens, Breaux, and Cleland for joining me in recognizing Dr. Foster's strong commitment to improving the conservation and scientific understanding of our precious coastal resources. My legislation would create a Nancy Foster Marine Biology Scholarship Program within the Department of Commerce. This Program would provide scholarship funds to outstanding women and minority graduate students to support and encourage independent graduate level research in marine biology. It is my hope that this scholarship program will promote the development of future leaders of Dr. Foster's caliber. [[Page S7846]] Dr. Foster was the first woman to direct a NOAA line office, and during her 23 years at NOAA rose to one of the most senior levels a career professional can achieve. She directed the complete modernization of NOAA's essential nautical mapping and charting programs, and created a ground-breaking partnership with the National Geographic Society to launch a 5-year undersea exploration program called the Sustainable Seas Expedition. Dr. Foster was a strong and enthusiastic mentor to young people and a staunch ally to her colleagues, and for this reason, I believe the legislation I am introducing today to be the most appropriate way for us all to ensure that her deep commitment to marine science continues on in others. Mr. President, we will all feel Dr. Foster's loss deeply for years to come. The creation of a scholarship program in her honor is one small way we can thank a person who did so much for us all. ______ By Mr. DeWINE (for himself, Mr. Hatch, Mr. Voinovich, and Mr. Leahy); S. 2955. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide relief for the payment of asbestos-related claims; to the Committee on Finance. asbestos-related claims relief legislation Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today as an original cosponsor of the bill introduced today by my friend and colleague from Ohio, Senator DeWine, that would provide relief for payment of asbestos-related claims. I urge my colleagues on the Finance Committee to take a close look at the serious problem this bill addresses. Certain manufacturers who were required by government specification to use asbestos in their products are facing a severe financial crisis arising from claims made by individuals who are suffering health problems from asbestos-related diseases. These claims have put several of these companies into bankruptcy, and several more appear to be on the brink of insolvency. Thousands of jobs may be at stake, as may be the proper compensation of the victims of the illnesses. A major part of the underlying justification for this measure is that the federal government shares some culpability in the harm caused by the asbestos-related products manufactured by these companies. For example, from World War II through the Vietnam War, the government required that private contractors and shipyard workers use asbestos to insulate navy ships from so-called ``secondary fires.'' Because of sovereign immunity, however, the government has not had to share in paying the damages, leaving American companies to bear the full and ongoing financial load of compensation. The legislation we are introducing today is a step toward recognizing that the federal government is partially responsible for payment of these claims. It does so through two income tax provisions, both of which directly benefit the victims of the illnesses. The first provision exempts from income tax the income earned by a designated or qualified settlement fund established for the principal purpose of resolving and satisfying present and future claims relating to asbestos illnesses. The effect of this provision, Mr. President, is to increase the amount of money available for the payment of these claims. The second provision allows taxpayers with specified liability losses attributable to asbestos to carry back those losses to the tax year in which the taxpayer, or its predecessor company, was first involved in producing or distributing products containing asbestos. This provision is a matter of fairness, Mr. President. Because of the long latency period related to asbestos-related diseases, which can be as long as 40 years, many of these claims are just now arising. Current law provides for the carryback of this kind of liability losses, but only for a ten-year period. Many of the companies involved earned profits and paid taxes on those profits in the years the asbestos-related products were made or distributed. However, it is now clear, many years after the taxes were paid, that there were no profits earned at all, since millions of dollars of health claims relating to those products must now be paid. It is only fair, and it is sound tax policy, to allow relief for situations like these. Again, it should be emphasized that the primary beneficiaries of this tax change will not be the corporations, but the victims of the illnesses, because the taxpayer would be required to devote the entire amount of the tax reduction to paying the claims. This is not the only time the federal government has been at least partially responsible for health problems of citizens that arose many years after the event that initially triggered the problem. During the Cold War, America conducted above ground atomic tests during which the wind blew the fallout into communities and ranches of Utah, New Mexico and Arizona. The government also demanded quantities of uranium, which is harmful to those who mined and milled it. The incidence of cancers and other debilitating diseases caused by this activity among the ``downwinders,'' miners and millers has been acknowledged by the federal government. The least we can do for those manufacturers forced to use asbestos instead of other materials is provide some tax relief for their compensation funds. This legislation has substantial bipartisan backing. It is sponsored in the House by both the Chairman and Ranking Minority Member of the Judiciary Committee. It is backed by the by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and by at least one related labor union. This bill addresses a very serious problem and is the right thing to do. I hope we can pass it expeditiously. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record. There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows: S. 2955 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, SECTION 1. EXEMPTION FOR ASBESTOS-RELATED SETTLEMENT FUNDS. (a) Exemption for Asbestos-Related Settlement Funds.-- Subsection (b) of section 468B of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph: ``(6) Exemption from tax for asbestos-related designated settlement funds.--Notwithstanding paragraph (1), no tax shall be imposed under this section or any other provision of this subtitle on any designated settlement fund established for the principal purpose of resolving and satisfying present and future claims relating to asbestos.'' (b) Conforming Amendments.-- (1) Paragraph (1) of section 468B(b) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by striking ``There'' and inserting ``Except as provided in paragraph (6), there''. (2) Subsection (g) of section 468B of such Code is amended by inserting ``(other than subsection (b)(6))'' after ``Nothing in any provision of law''. (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall apply to taxable years ending after the date of enactment of this Act. SEC. 2. MODIFY TREATMENT OF ASBESTOS-RELATED NET OPERATING LOSSES. (a) Asbestos-Related Net Operating Losses.--Subsection (f) of section 172 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by redesignating paragraphs (4), (5), and (6) as paragraphs (5), (6), and (7), respectively, and by inserting after paragraph (3) the following new paragraph: ``(4) Special rules for asbestos liability losses.-- ``(A) In general.--At the election of the taxpayer, the portion of any specified liability loss that is attributable to asbestos may, for purposes of subsection (b)(1)(C), be carried back to the taxable year in which the taxpayer, including any predecessor corporation, was first involved in the production or distribution of products containing asbestos and each subsequent taxable year. ``(B) Coordination with credits.--If a deduction is allowable for any taxable year by reason of a carryback described in subparagraph (A)-- ``(i) the credits allowable under part IV (other than subpart C) of subchapter A shall be determined without regard to such deduction, and ``(ii) the amount of taxable income taken into account with respect to the carryback under subsection (b)(2) for such taxable year shall be reduced by an amount equal to-- ``(I) the increase in the amount of such credits allowable for such taxable year solely by reason of clause (i), divided by ``(II) the maximum rate of tax under section 1 or 11 (whichever is applicable) for such taxable year. ``(C) Carryforwards taken into account before asbestos- related deductions.--For purposes of this section-- ``(i) in determining whether a net operating loss carryforward may be carried under subsection (b)(2) to a taxable year, taxable income for such year shall be determined [[Page S7847]] without regard to the deductions referred to in paragraph (1)(A) with respect to asbestos, and ``(ii) if there is a net operating loss for such year after taking into account such carryforwards and deductions, the portion of such loss attributable to such deductions shall be treated as a specified liability loss that is attributable to asbestos. ``(D) Limitation.--The amount of reduction in income tax liability arising from the election described in subparagraph (A) that exceeds the amount of reduction in income tax liability that would have resulted if the taxpayer utilized the 10-year carryback period under subsection (b)(1)(C) shall be devoted by the taxpayer solely to asbestos claimant compensation and related costs, through a designated settlement fund or otherwise. ``(E) Consolidated groups.--For purposes of this paragraph, all members of an affiliated group of corporations that join in the filing of a consolidated return pursuant to section 1501 (or a predecessor section) shall be treated as 1 corporation. ``(F) Predecessor corporation.--For purposes of this paragraph, a predecessor corporation shall include a corporation that transferred or distributed assets to the taxpayer in a transaction to which section 381(a) applies or that distributed the stock of the taxpayer in a transaction to which section 355 applies.'' (b) Conforming Amendment.--Paragraph (7) of section 172(f) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as redesignated by this section, is amended by striking ``10-year''. (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall apply to taxable years ending after the date of enactment of this Act. ______ By Mr. CAMPBELL: S. 2956. A bill to establish the Colorado Canyons National Conservation Area and the Black Ridge Canyons Wilderness, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. colorado canyons preservation act of 2000 Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, today I introduce legislation which would preserve over 130,000 acres of land in Western Colorado. This legislation is supported locally by property owners, county commissioners, environmentalists, and recreational groups. My bill is a Senate companion to H.R. 4275 which was introduced by my colleague and fellow Coloradan Representative Scott McInnis. The areas proposed for Wildernesss Protection are the Black Ridge and Ruby Canyons of the Grand Valley and Rabbit Valley near Grand Junction, Colorado. They contain unique and valuable scenic, recreational, multiple use, paleontological, natural, and wildlife components. This historic rural western setting provides extensive opportunities for recreational activities, and are publicly used for hiking, camping, and grazing. This area is truly worthy of additional protection as a national conservation area. This legislation has the support of the administration and should easily be signed into law. The only issue confronting us is the limited amount of time left in the 106th Congress. I hope we will be able to move this legislation quickly through the process and that it will not get bogged down in partisan politics. It simply is the right thing to do. I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in the Record following my remarks. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor. There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows: S. 2956 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 ``Colorado Canyons National Conservation Area and Black Ridge Canyons Wilderness Act of 2000''. SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSE. (a) Findings.--Congress finds that certain areas located in the Grand Valley in Mesa County, Colorado, and Grand County, Utah, should be protected and enhanced for the benefit and enjoyment of present and future generations. These areas include the following: (1) The areas making up the Black Ridge and Ruby Canyons of the Grand Valley and Rabbit Valley, which contain unique and valuable scenic, recreational, multiple use opportunities (including grazing), paleontological, natural, and wildlife components enhanced by the rural western setting of the area, provide extensive opportunities for recreational activities, and are publicly used for hiking, camping, and grazing, and are worthy of additional protection as a national conservation area. (2) The Black Ridge Canyons Wilderness Study Area has wilderness value and offers unique geological, paleontological, scientific, and recreational resources. (b) Purpose.--The purpose of this Act is to conserve, protect, and enhance for the benefit and enjoyment of present and future generations the unique and nationally important values of the public lands described in section 4(b), including geological, cultural, paleontological, natural, scientific, recreational, environmental, biological, wilderness, wildlife education, and scenic resources of such public lands, by establishing the Colorado Canyons National Conservation Area and the Black Ridge Canyons Wilderness in the State of Colorado and the State of Utah. SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS. In this Act: (1) Conservation area.--The term ``Conservation Area'' means the Colorado Canyons National Conservation Area established by section 4(a). (2) Council.--The term ``Council'' means the Colorado Canyons National Conservation Area Advisory Council established under section 8. (3) Management plan.--The term ``management plan'' means the management plan developed for the Conservation Area under section 6(h). (4) Map.--The term ``Map'' means the map entitled ``Proposed Colorado Canyons National Conservation Area and Black Ridge Canyons Wilderness Area'' and dated July 18, 2000. (5) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary of the Interior, acting through the Director of the Bureau of Land Management. (6) Wilderness.--The term ``Wilderness'' means the Black Ridge Canyons Wilderness so designated in section 5. SEC. 4. COLORADO CANYONS NATIONAL CONSERVATION AREA. (a) In General.--There is established the Colorado Canyons National Conservation Area in the State of Colorado and the State of Utah. (b) Areas Included.--The Conservation Area shall consist of approximately 122,300 acres of public land as generally depicted on the Map. SEC. 5. BLACK RIDGE CANYONS WILDERNESS DESIGNATION. Certain lands in Mesa County, Colorado, and Grand County, Utah, which comprise approximately 75,550 acres as generally depicted on the Map, are hereby designated as wilderness and therefore as a component of the National Wilderness Preservation System. Such component shall be known as the Black Ridge Canyons Wilderness. SEC. 6. MANAGEMENT. (a) Conservation Area.--The Secretary shall manage the Conservation Area in a manner that-- (1) conserves, protects, and enhances the resources of the Conservation Area specified in section 2(b); and (2) is in accordance with-- (A) the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.); and (B) other applicable law, including this Act. (b) Uses.--The Secretary shall allow only such uses of the Conservation Area as the Secretary determines will further the purposes for which the Conservation Area is established. (c) Withdrawals.--Subject to valid existing rights, all Federal land within the Conservation Area and the Wilderness and all land and interests in land acquired for the Conservation Area or the Wilderness by the United States are withdrawn from-- (1) all forms of entry, appropriation, or disposal under the public land laws; (2) location, entry, and patent

Major Actions:

All articles in Senate section

STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
(Senate - July 27, 2000)

Text of this article available as: TXT PDF [Pages S7841-S7908] STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS By Mr. BREAUX: S. 2944. A bill to clarify that certain penalties provided for in the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 are the exclusive criminal penalties for any action or activity that may arise or occur in connection with certain discharges of oil or a hazardous substance; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works. Strict Criminal Liability Reform for Oil Spill Incidents Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce legislation to address a long-standing problem which adversely affects the safe and reliable maritime transport of oil products. The legislation I am introducing today will eliminate the application and use of strict criminal liability statutes, statutes that do not require a showing of criminal intent or even the slightest degree of negligence, for maritime transportation-related oil spill incidents. Through comprehensive Congressional action that led to the enactment and implementation of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990, commonly referred to as ``OPA90'', the United States has successfully reduced the number of oil spills in the maritime environment and has established a cooperative public/private partnership to respond effectively in the diminishing number of situations when an oil spill occurs. Nonetheless, over the past decade, the use of the unrelated strict criminal liability statutes that I referred to above has undermined the spill prevention and response objectives of OPA90, the very objectives that were established by the Congress to preserve the environment, safeguard the public welfare, and promote the safe transportation of oil. The legislation I am introducing today will restore the delicate balance of interests reached in OPA90, and will reaffirm OPA90's preeminent role as the statute providing the exclusive criminal penalties for oil spill incidents. As stated in the Coast Guard's own environmental enforcement directive, a company, its officers, employees, and mariners, in the event of an oil spill ``could be convicted and sentenced to a criminal fine even where [they] took all reasonable precautions to avoid the discharge''. Accordingly, responsible operators in my home state of Louisiana and elsewhere in the United States who transport oil are unavoidably exposed to potentially immeasurable criminal fines and, in the worst case scenario, jail time. Not only is this situation unfairly targeting an industry that plays an extremely important role in our national economy, but it also works contrary to the public welfare. Most liquid cargo transportation companies on the coastal and inland waterway system of the United States have embraced safe operation and risk management as two of their most important and fundamental values. For example, members of the American Waterways Operators (AWO) from Louisiana and other states have implemented stronger safety programs that have significantly reduced personal injuries to mariners. Tank barge fleets have been upgraded through construction of new state-of- the-art double hulled tank barges while obsolete single skin barges are being retired far in advance of the OPA90 timetable. Additionally, AWO members have dedicated significant time and financial resources to provide continuous and comprehensive education and training for vessel captains, crews and shoreside staff, not only in the operation of vessels but also in preparation for all contingencies that could occur in the transportation of oil products. This commitment to marine safety and environmental protection by responsible members of the oil transportation industry is real. The industry continues to work closely with the Coast Guard to upgrade regulatory standards in such key areas as towing vessel operator qualifications and navigation equipment on towing vessels. Through the efforts of AWO and other organizations, the maritime transportation industry has achieved an outstanding compliance record with the numerous laws and regulations enforced by the Coast Guard. Let me be clear: responsible carriers, and frankly their customers, have a ``zero tolerance'' policy for oil spills. Additionally, the industry is taking spill response preparedness seriously. Industry representatives and operators routinely participate in Coast Guard oil spill crisis management courses, PREP Drills, and regional spill response drills. Yet despite all of the modernization, safety, and training efforts of the marine transportation industry, their mariners and shoreside employees cannot escape the threat of criminal liability in the event of an oil spill, even where it is shown that they ``took all reasonable precautions to avoid [a] discharge''. As you know, in response to the tragic Exxon Valdez spill, Congress enacted OPA90. OPA90 mandated new, comprehensive, and complex regulatory and enforcement requirements for the transportation of oil products and for oil spill response. Both the federal government and maritime industry have worked hard to accomplish the legislation's primary objective--to provide greater environmental safeguards in oil transportation by creating a comprehensive prevention, response, liability, and compensation regime to deal with vessel and facility oil pollution. And OPA90 is working in a truly meaningful sense. To prevent oil spill incidents from occurring in the first place, OPA90 provides an enormously powerful deterrent, through both its criminal and civil liability provisions. Moreover, OPA90 mandates prompt reporting of spills, contingency planning, and both cooperation and coordination with federal, state, and local authorities in connection with managing the spill response. Failure to report and cooperate as required by OPA90 may impose automatic civil penalties, criminal liability and unlimited civil liability. As a result, the number of domestic oil spills has been dramatically reduced over the past decade since OPA90 was enacted. In those limited situations in which oil spills unfortunately occurred, intensive efforts commenced immediately with federal, state and local officials working in a joint, unified manner with the industry, as contemplated by OPA90, to clean up and report spills as quickly as possible and to mitigate to the greatest extent any impact on the environment. OPA90 has provided a comprehensive and cohesive ``blueprint'' for proper planning, training, and resource identification to respond to an oil spill incident, and to ensure that such a response is properly and cooperatively managed. OPA90 also provides a complete statutory framework for proceeding against individuals for civil and/or criminal penalties arising out of oil spills in the marine environment. When Congress crafted this Act, it carefully balanced the imposition of stronger criminal and civil penalties with the need to promote enhanced cooperation among all of the parties involved in the spill prevention and response effort. In so doing, the Congress clearly enumerated the circumstances in which criminal penalties could be imposed for actions related to maritime oil spills, and added and/or substantially increased criminal penalties under the related laws which comprehensively govern the maritime transportation of oil and other petroleum products. The legislation we are introducing today will not change in any way the tough criminal sanctions that were imposed in OPA90. However, responsible, law-abiding members of the maritime industry in Louisiana and elsewhere are concerned by the willingness of the Department of Justice and other federal agencies in the post-OPA90 environment to use strict criminal liability statutes in oil spill incidents. As you know, strict liability imposes criminal sanctions without requiring a showing of criminal knowledge, intent or even negligence. These federal actions imposing strict liability have created an atmosphere of extreme uncertainty for the maritime transportation industry about how to respond to and cooperate with the Coast Guard and other federal [[Page S7842]] agencies in cleaning up an oil spill. Criminal culpability in this country, both historically and as reflected in the comprehensive OPA90 legislation itself, typically requires wrongful actions or omissions by individuals through some degree of criminal intent or through the failure to use the required standard of care. However, Federal prosecutors have been employing other antiquated, seemingly unrelated ``strict liability'' statutes that do not require a showing of ``knowledge'' or ``intent'' as a basis for criminal prosecution for oil spill incidents. Such strict criminal liability statutes as the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the Refuse Act, statutes that were enacted at the turn of the century to serve other purposes, have been used to harass and intimidate the maritime industry, and, in effect, have turned every oil spill into a potential crime scene without regard to the fault or intent of companies, corporate officers and employees, and mariners. The Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) (16 U.S.C. 703 et seq.) provides that ``it shall be unlawful at any time, by any means or in any manner, to pursue, hunt, take, capture, kill, attempt to take, capture, or kill, . . . any migratory bird . . .'', a violation of which is punishable by imprisonment and/or fines. Prior to the Exxon Valdez oil spill in 1989, the MBTA was primarily used to prosecute the illegal activities of hunters and capturers of migratory birds, as the Congress originally intended when it enacted the MBTA in 1918. In the Exxon Valdez case itself, and prior to the enactment of OPA90, the MBTA was first used to support a criminal prosecution against a vessel owner in relation to a maritime oil spill, and this ``hunting statute'' has been used ever since against the maritime industry. The ``Refuse Act'' (33 U.S.C. 407, 411) was enacted over 100 years ago at a time well before subsequent federal legislation essentially replaced it with comprehensive requirements and regulations specifically directed to the maritime transportation of oil and other petroleum products. Such strict liability statutes are unrelated to the regulation and enforcement of oil transportation activities, and in fact were not included within the comprehensive OPA90 legislation as statutes in which criminal liability could be found. With the prosecutorial use of strict liability statutes, owners and mariners engaged in the transportation of oil cannot avoid exposure to criminal liability, regardless of how diligently they adhere to prudent practice and safe environmental standards. Although conscientious safety and training programs, state-of-the-art equipment, proper operational procedures, preventative maintenance programs, and the employment of qualified and experienced personnel will collectively prevent most oil spills from occurring, unfortunately spills will still occur on occasion. To illustrate this point, please permit me to present a scenario that highlights the dilemma faced by the maritime oil transportation industry in Louisiana. Imagine, if you will, that a company is operating a towing vessel in compliance with Coast Guard regulations on the Mississippi River on a calm, clear day with several fully laden tank barges in tow. Suddenly, in what was charted and previously identified to be a clear portion of the waterway, one of the tank barges strikes an unknown submerged object which shears through its hull and causes a significant oil spill in the river. Unfortunately, in addition to any other environmental damage that may occur, the oil spill kills one or more migratory birds. As you know, under OPA90 the operator must immediately undertake coordinated spill response actions with the Coast Guard and other federal, state, and local agencies to safeguard the vessel and its crew, clean up the oil spill, and otherwise mitigate any damage to the surrounding environment. The overriding objectives at this critical moment are to assure personnel and public safety and to clean up the oil spill as quickly as possible without constraint. However, in the current atmosphere the operator must take into consideration the threat of strict criminal liability under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the Refuse Act, together with their attendant imprisonment and fines, despite the reasonable care and precautions taken in the operation and navigation of the tow and in the spill response effort. Indeed, in the Coast Guard's own environmental enforcement directive, the statement is made that ``[t]he decision to commit the necessary Coast Guard resources to obtain the evidence that will support a criminal prosecution must often be made in the very early stages of a pollution incident.'' Any prudent operator will quickly recognize the dilemma in complying with the mandate to act cooperatively with all appropriate public agencies in cleaning up the oil spill, while at the same time those very agencies may be conducting a criminal investigation of that operator. Vessel owners and their employees who have complied with federal laws and regulations and have exercised all reasonable care should not continue to face a substantial risk of imprisonment and criminal fines under such strict liability statutes. Criminal liability, when appropriately imposed under OPA90, should be employed only where a discharge is caused by conduct which is truly ``criminal'' in nature, i.e., where a discharge is caused by reckless, intentional or other conduct deemed criminal by OPA90. As this scenario demonstrates, the unjustified use of strict liability statutes is plainly undermining the very objectives which OPA90 sought to achieve, namely to enhance the prevention of and response to oil spills in Louisiana and elsewhere in the United States. As we are well aware, tremendous time, effort, and resources have been expended by both the federal government and the maritime industry to eliminate oil spills to the maximum extent possible, and to plan for and undertake an immediate and effective response to mitigate any environmental damage from spills that do occur. Clearly unwarranted and improper prosecutorial use of strict liability statutes is having a ``chilling'' effect on these cooperative spill prevention and response efforts. Indeed, even if we were to believe that criminal prosecution only follows intentional criminal conduct, the mere fact that strict criminal liability statutes are available at the prosecutor's discretion will intimidate even the most innocent and careful operator. With strict liability criminal enforcement, responsible members of the maritime transportation industry are faced with an extreme dilemma in the event of an oil spill--provide less than full cooperation and response as criminal defense attorneys will certainly direct, or cooperate fully despite the risk of criminal prosecution that could result from any additional actions or statements made during the course of the spill response. Consequently, increased criminalization of oil spill incidents introduces uncertainty into the response effort by discouraging full and open communication and cooperation, and leaves vessel owners and operators criminally vulnerable for response actions taken in an effort to ``do the right thing''. In the maritime industry's continuing effort to improve its risk management process, it seeks to identify and address all foreseeable risks associated with the operation of its business. Through fleet modernization, personnel training, and all other reasonable steps to address identified risks in its business, the industry still cannot manage or avoid the increased risks of strict criminal liability (again, a liability that has no regard to fault or intent). The only method available to companies and their officers to avoid the risk of criminal liability completely is to divest themselves from the maritime business of transporting oil and other petroleum products, in effect to get out of the business altogether. Furthermore, strict liability criminal laws provide a strong disincentive for trained, highly experienced mariners to continue the operation of tank vessels, and for talented and capable individuals from even entering into that maritime trade. An earlier editorial highlighted the fact that tugboat captains ``are reporting feelings of intense relief and lightening of their spirits when they are ordered to push a cargo of grain or other dry cargo, as compared to the apprehension they feel when they are staring out of their wheelhouses at tank barges'', and ``that the reason for this is very obvious in the way that they find themselves instantly facing criminal charges . . . in the event of a collision or grounding and oil or chemicals end up in the water''. Certainly, the federal government does not want to create a situation where the least experienced [[Page S7843]] mariners are the only available crew to handle the most hazardous cargoes, or the least responsible operators are the only available carriers. Thus, the unavoidable risk of such criminal liability directly and adversely affects the safe transportation of oil products, an activity essential for the public, the economy, and the nation. Therefore, despite the commitment and effort to provide trained and experienced vessel operators and employees, to comply with all safety and operational mandates of Coast Guard laws and regulations, and to provide for the safe transportation of oil as required by OPA90, maritime transportation companies in Louisiana, and elsewhere still cannot avoid criminal liability in the event of an oil spill. Responsible, law-abiding companies have unfortunately been forced to undertake the only prudent action that they could under the circumstances, namely the development of criminal liability action plans and retention of criminal counsel in an attempt to prepare for the unavoidable risks of such liability. These are only preliminary steps and do not begin to address the many implications of the increasing criminalization of oil spills. The industry is now asking what responsibility does it have to educate its mariners and shoreside staff about the potential personal exposure they may face and wonder how to do this without creating many undesirable consequences? How should the industry organize spill management teams and educate them on how to cooperate openly and avoid unwitting exposure to criminal liability? Mr. President, I have thought about these issues a great deal and simply do not know how to resolve these dilemmas under current, strict liability law. In the event of an oil spill, a responsible party not only must manage the cleanup of the oil and the civil liability resulting from the spill itself, but also must protect itself from the criminal liability that now exists due to the available and willing use of strict liability criminal laws by the federal government. Managing the pervasive threat of strict criminal liability, by its very nature, prevents a responsible party from cooperating fully and completely in response to an oil spill situation. The OPA90 ``blueprint'' is no longer clear. Is this serving the objectives of OPA90? Does this really serve the public welfare of our nation? Is this what Congress had in mind when it mandated its spill response regime? Is this in the interest of the most immediate, most effective oil spill cleanup in the unfortunate event of a spill? We think not. To restore the delicate balance of interests reached in the enactment of OPA90 a decade ago, we intend to work with the Congress to reaffirm the OPA90 framework for criminal prosecutions in oil spill incidents. The enactment of the legislation we are introducing today will ensure increased cooperation and responsiveness desired by all those interested in oil spill response issues without diluting the deterrent effect and stringent criminal penalties imposed by OPA90 itself. I look forward to continuing the effort to upgrade the safety of marine operations in the navigable waterways of the United States, and I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record. There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows: S. 2944 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, SECTION 1. AFFIRMATION OF PENALTIES UNDER OIL POLLUTION ACT OF 1990. (a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision or rule of law, section 4301(c) and 4302 of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (Public Law 101-380; 104 Stat. 537) and the amendments made by those sections provide the exclusive criminal penalties for any action or activity that may arise or occur in connection with a discharge of oil or a hazardous substance referred to in section 311(b)(3) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1321(b)(3)). (b) Rule of Construction.--Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit, or otherwise exempt any person from, liability for conspiracy to commit any offense against the United States, for fraud and false statements, or for the obstruction of justice. ______ By Mr. KENNEDY (for himself, Mr. Torricelli and Mr. Harkin): S. 2946. A bill to amend title I of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 to ensure that employees are not improperly disqualified from benefits under pension plans and welfare plans based on a miscategorization of their employee status; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. employee benefits eligibility fairness act of 2000 Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, contingent workers in our society face significant problems, and they deserve our help in meeting them. These men and women--temporary and part-time workers, contract workers, and independent contractors--continue to suffer unfairly, even in our prosperous economy. A new report from the General Accounting Office emphasizes that contingent workers often lack income security and retirement security. We know that for most workers today, a single lifetime job is a relic of the past. The world is long gone in which workers stay with their employer for many years, and then retire on a company pension. Since 1982 the number of temporary help jobs has grown 577 percent. The GAO report shows that 30 percent of the workforce--39 million working Americans--now get their paychecks from contingent jobs. Contingent workers have lower incomes than traditional, full-time workers and many are living in poverty. For example, 30 percent of agency temporary workers have family incomes below $15,000. By comparison, only 8 percent of standard full-time workers have family incomes below $15,000. Contingent workers are less likely to be covered by employer health and retirement benefits than are standard, full-time workers. Even when employers do sponsor a plan, contingent workers are less likely to participate in the plan, either because they are excluded or because the plan is too expensive. Only 21 percent of part-time workers are included in an employer-sponsored pension plan. By comparison, 64 percent of standard full-time workers are included in their employer's pension plan. Non-standard or alternative work arrangements can meet the needs of working families and employers alike, but these arrangements should not be used to divide the workforce into ``haves'' and ``have-nots.'' Flexible work arrangements, for example, can give working parents more time to care for their children, but many workers are not in their contingent jobs by choice. More than half of temporary workers would prefer a permanent job instead of their contingent job, but temporary work is all they can find. As the GAO report makes clear, employers have economic incentives to cut costs by miscategorizing their workers as temporary or contract workers. Too often, contingent arrangements are set-up by employers for the purpose of excluding workers from their employee benefit programs and evading their responsibilities to their workers. Millions of employees have been miscategorized by their employers, and as a result they have been denied the benefits and protections that they rightly deserve and worked hard to earn. All workers deserve a secure retirement at the end of their working years. Social Security has been and will continue to be the best foundation for that security. But the foundation is just that--the beginning of our responsibility, not the end of it. We cannot expect Americans to work hard all their lives, only to face poverty and hard times when they retire. That is why I am introducing, with Senators Torricelli and Harkin, the Employee Benefits Eligibility Fairness Act of 2000 to help contingent workers obtain the retirement benefits they deserve. This legislation clarifies employers' responsibilities under the law so that they cannot exclude contingent workers from employee benefit plans based on artificial labels or payroll practices. This is an issue of basic fairness for working men and women. It is unfair for individuals who work full-time, on an indefinite long-term basis for an employer to be excluded from the employer's pension plan, merely because the employer classifies the workers as ``temporary'' when in fact they are not. The employer-employee relationship should be determined on the facts of [[Page S7844]] the working arrangement, not on artificial labels, not on artificial accounting practices, not artificial payroll practices. It is long past time for Congress to recognize the plight of contingent workers and see that they get the employee benefits they deserve. These important changes are critical to improving the security of working families, and I look forward to their enactment. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record. There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows: S. 2946 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 ``Employee Benefits Eligibility Fairness Act of 2000''. SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSE. (a) Findings.--Congress makes the following findings: (1) The intent of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 to protect the pension and welfare benefits of workers is frustrated by the practice of mislabeling employees to improperly exclude them from employee benefit plans. Employees are wrongly denied benefits when they are mislabeled as temporary employees, part-time employees, leased employees, agency employees, staffing firm employees, and contractors. If their true employment status were recognized, mislabeled employees would be eligible to participate in employee benefit plans because such plans are offered to other employees performing the same or substantially the same work and working for the same employer. (2) Mislabeled employees are often paid through staffing, temporary, employee leasing, or other similar firms to give the appearance that the employees do not work for their worksite employer. Employment contracts and reports to government agencies also are used to give the erroneous impression that mislabeled employees work for staffing, temporary, employee leasing, or other similar firms, when the facts of the work arrangement do not meet the common law standard for determining the employment relationship. Employees are also mislabeled as contractors and paid from non-payroll accounts to give the appearance that they are not employees of their worksite employer. These practices violate the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. (3) Employers are amending their benefit plans to add provisions that exclude mislabeled employees from participation in the plan even in the event that such employees are determined to be common law employees and otherwise eligible to participate in the plan. These plan provisions violate the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. (4) As a condition of employment or continued employment, mislabeled employees are often required to sign documents that purport to waive their right to participate in employee benefit plans. Such documents inaccurately claim to limit the authority of the courts and applicable Federal agencies to correct the mislabeling of employees and to enforce the terms of plans providing for their participation. This practice violates the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. (b) Purpose.--The purpose of this Act is to clarify applicable provisions of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 to ensure that employees are not improperly excluded from participation in employee benefit plans as a result of mislabeling of their employment status. SEC. 3. ADDITIONAL STANDARDS RELATING TO MINIMUM PARTICIPATION REQUIREMENTS. (a) Required Inclusion of Service.--Section 202(a)(3) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (29 U.S.C. 1052(a)(3)) is amended by adding at the end the following new subparagraph: ``(E) For purposes of this section, in determining `years of service' and `hours of service', service shall include all service for the employer as an employee under the common law, irrespective of whether the worker-- ``(i) is paid through a staffing firm, temporary help firm, payroll agency, employment agency, or other such similar arrangement, ``(ii) is paid directly by the employer under an arrangement purporting to characterize an employee under the common law as other than an employee, or ``(iii) is paid from an account not designated as a payroll account.'' (b) Exclusion Precluded When Related to Certain Purported Categorizations.--Section 202 of such Act (29 U.S.C. 1052) is amended further by adding at the end the following new subsection: ``(c)(1) Subject to paragraph (2), a pension plan shall be treated as failing to meet the requirements of this section if any individual who-- ``(A) is an employee under the common law, and ``(B) performs the same work (or substantially the same work) for the employer as other employees who generally are not excluded from participation in the plan, is excluded from participation in the plan, irrespective of the placement of such employee in any category of workers (such as temporary employees, part-time employees, leased employees, agency employees, staffing firm employees, contractors, or any similar category) which may be specified under the plan as ineligible for participation. ``(2) Nothing in paragraph (1) shall be construed to preclude the exclusion from participation in a pension plan of individuals who in fact do not meet a minimum service period or minimum age which is required under the terms of the plan and which is otherwise in conformity with the requirements of this section.'' SEC. 4. WAIVERS OF PARTICIPATION INEFFECTIVE IF RELATED TO MISCATEGORIZATION OF EMPLOYEE. Section 202 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (29 U.S.C. 1052) (as amended by section 3) is amended further by adding at the end the following new subsection: ``(d) Any waiver or purported waiver by an employee of participation in a pension plan or welfare plan shall be ineffective if related, in whole or in part, to the a miscategorization of the employee in 1 or more ineligible plan categories.'' SEC. 5. OBJECTIVE ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA IN PLAN INSTRUMENTS. Section 402 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (29 U.S.C. 1102) is amended by adding at the end the following new subsection: ``(c)(1) The written instrument pursuant to which an employee benefit plan is maintained shall set forth eligibility criteria which-- ``(A) include and exclude employees on a uniform basis; ``(B) are based on reasonable job classifications; and ``(C) are based on objective criteria stated in the instrument itself for the inclusion or exclusion (other than the mere listing of an employee as included or excluded). ``(2) No plan instrument may permit an employer or plan sponsor to exclude an employee under the common law from participation irrespective of the placement of such employee in any category of workers (such as temporary employees, leased employees, agency employees, staffing firm employees, contractors, or any similar category) if the employee-- ``(A) is an employee of the employer under the common law, ``(B) performs the same work (or substantially the same work) for the employer as other employees who generally are not excluded from participation in the plan, and ``(C) meets a minimum service period or minimum age which is required under the terms of the plan.'' SEC. 6. ENFORCEMENT. Section 502(a)(3)(B) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (29 U.S.C. 1132(a)(3)(B)) is amended-- (1) by striking ``or'' in clause (i) and inserting a comma, (2) by striking the semicolon at the end of clause (ii) and inserting ``, or'', and (3) by adding at the end the following: ``(iii) to provide relief to employees who have been miscategorized in violation of sections 202 and 402;''. SEC. 7. EFFECTIVE DATE. The amendments made by this Act shall apply with respect to plan years beginning on or after the date of the enactment of this Act. ______ By Mr. CAMPBELL: S. 2950. A bill to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to establish the Sand Creek Massacre Historic Site in the State of Colorado; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. introduction of legislation to create the sand creek national historic site Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, today I introduce the Sand Creek Massacre National Historic Site Establishment Act of 2000, legislation which will finally recognize and memorialize the hallowed ground on which hundreds of peaceful Cheyenne and Arapaho Indians were massacred by members of the Colorado Militia. The legislation I introduce today follows The Sand Creek Massacre Historic Site Study Act of 1998, legislation I introduced and Congress approved to study the suitability of creating an enduring memorial to the slain innocents who were camped peacefully near Sand Creek, in Kiowa County, in Colorado on November 28, 1868. Much has been written about the horrors visited upon the plains Indians in the territories of the Western United States in the latter half of the 19th century. However, what has been lost for more than a century is a comprehensive understanding of the events of that day in a grove of cottonwood trees along Sand Creek now SE Colorado. In some cases denial of the events of the day or a sense that ``the Indians had it coming'' has prevailed. This legislation finally recognizes a shameful event in our country's history based on scientific studies, and [[Page S7845]] makes it clear America has the strength and resolve to face its past and learn the painful lessons that come with intolerance. The indisputable facts are these: 700 members of the Colorado Militia, commanded by Colonel John Chivington struck at dawn that November day, attacking a camp of Cheyenne and Arapaho Indians settled under the U.S. Flag and a white flag which the Indian Chiefs Black Kettle and White Antelope were told by the U.S. would protect them from military attack. By day's end, almost 150 Indians, many of them women, children and the elderly, lay dead. Chivington's men reportedly desecrated the bodies of the dead after the massacre, and newspaper reports from Denver at the time told of the troops displaying Indian body parts in a gruesome display as they rode through the streets of Colorado's largest city following the attack. The perpetrators of this horrible attack which left Indian women and even babies dead, were never brought to justice even after a congressional investigation concerning this brutality. The legislation I introduce today authorizes the National Park Service to enter into negotiations with willing sellers only, in an attempt to secure property inside a boundary which encompasses approximately 12,470 acres as identified by the National Park Service, for a lasting memorial to events of that fateful day. This legislation has been developed over the course of the last 18 months. It represents a remarkable effort which brought divergent points of view together to define the events of that day and to plan for the future protection of this site. The National Park Service, with the cooperation of the Kiowa County Commissioners, the Cheyenne and Arapaho Tribes of Oklahoma, the Northern Cheyenne Tribe and the Northern Arapaho Tribe, the State of Colorado and many local landowners and volunteers have completed extensive cultural, geomorphological and physical studies of the area where the massacre occurred. All of those involved in this project agree, not acting now is not a option. This legislation does not compel any private property owner to sell his or her property to the federal government. It allows the National Park Service to negotiate with willing sellers to secure property at fair market value, for a national memorial. This process could take years. However, several willing sellers have come forward and are willing to negotiate with the NPS. The property they own has been identified by the NPS as suitable for a memorial. Additional acquisitions of property from willing sellers could come in the future. However, the Sand Creek National Historic Site could never extend beyond the 12,470 acres identified by the site resource study already completed. This legislation has come to being because all of those involved have exhibited an extraordinary ability to put aside their differences, look with equal measure at the scientific evidence and the oral traditions of the Tribes, and come up with a plan that equally honors the memory of those killed and the rights of the private property owners who have been faithful and responsible stewards of this site. We have a window of opportunity here that will not always be available. I encourage my colleagues to respect the memory of those so brutally killed and support the creation of a National Historic Site on this hallowed ground in Kiowa County, in Colorado. I ask unanimous consent that the bill and other research material associated with the studies of the Sand Creek site be printed in the Record for my colleagues or the public to review. ______ By Mr. TORRICELLI: S. 2953. A bill to amend title 38, United States Code, to improve outreach programs carried out by the Department of Veterans Affairs to provide for more fully informing veterans of benefits available to them under laws administered by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs; to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs. The Veterans' Right to Know Act Mr. TORRICELLI: Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Veterans' Right to Know Act which will assist millions of brave Americans who have served this nation in times of war. This legislation would ensure that all veterans are fully informed of the various benefits that they have earned through their brave and dedicated service to their country. Throughout the history of the United States, the interests of our nation have been championed by ordinary citizens who willingly defend our nation when called upon. During the times of crisis which threatened the very existence of our Republic, we persevered because young men and women from all walks of life took up arms to defend the ideals by which this nation was founded. Whether it was winning our freedom from an oppressive empire, preserving our Union, defeating fascism or battling the spread of communism, the American people have time and time again answered the call to defend liberty, justice and democracy at home and throughout the world. Our government owes a debt of gratitude to each and every one of our veterans, and we must make a concerted effort to show our appreciation for their valiant service. The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) provides the necessary health care services and benefits to our war heroes; however, over half of the veterans in the United States are not fully aware of the benefits or pensions to which they are entitled. The bill I introduced today is straightforward and it does not call for the creation of new benefits. Rather, it seeks to ensure that our veterans are well informed of the benefits they are entitled to as a result of their service or injuries sustained during their service to their country. This legislation would require the VA to inform veterans about their eligibility for benefits and health care services whenever they first apply for any benefit with the VA. Furthermore, many times, widows and surviving family members of veterans are not aware of the special benefits available to them when their family member passes. My bill would help these individuals in their time of loss by instructing the VA to inform them of the benefits for which they are eligible on the passing of their loved one. My legislation also seeks to reach out to those veterans who are not currently enrolled in the VA system by calling upon the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to prepare an annual outreach plan that will encourage eligible veterans to register with the VA as well as keeping current enrollees aware of any changes to benefits or eligibility requirements. This bill will help ensure that our government and its services for veterans are there for the men and women who have served this nation in the armed forces. I am hopeful that my colleagues in the Senate will recognize the tremendous service that our veterans have given and support this reasonable measure to ensure that our veterans receive the benefits they deserve. ______ By Mr. HOLLINGS (for himself, Ms. Snowe, Mr. Kerrey, Mr. Stevens, Mr. Breaux, and Mr. Cleland): S. 2954. A bill to establish the Dr. Nancy Foster Marine Biology Scholarship Program; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. The Nancy Foster Scholarship Act Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Nancy Foster Scholarship Act, legislation to create a scholarship program in marine biology or oceanography in honor of Dr. Nancy Foster, head of the National Ocean Service at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) until her passing on Tuesday, June 27, 2000. I am proud to introduce legislation to commemorate the life and work of such a wonderful leader, mentor, and coastal advocate. I thank my colleagues Senators Snowe, Kerry, Stevens, Breaux, and Cleland for joining me in recognizing Dr. Foster's strong commitment to improving the conservation and scientific understanding of our precious coastal resources. My legislation would create a Nancy Foster Marine Biology Scholarship Program within the Department of Commerce. This Program would provide scholarship funds to outstanding women and minority graduate students to support and encourage independent graduate level research in marine biology. It is my hope that this scholarship program will promote the development of future leaders of Dr. Foster's caliber. [[Page S7846]] Dr. Foster was the first woman to direct a NOAA line office, and during her 23 years at NOAA rose to one of the most senior levels a career professional can achieve. She directed the complete modernization of NOAA's essential nautical mapping and charting programs, and created a ground-breaking partnership with the National Geographic Society to launch a 5-year undersea exploration program called the Sustainable Seas Expedition. Dr. Foster was a strong and enthusiastic mentor to young people and a staunch ally to her colleagues, and for this reason, I believe the legislation I am introducing today to be the most appropriate way for us all to ensure that her deep commitment to marine science continues on in others. Mr. President, we will all feel Dr. Foster's loss deeply for years to come. The creation of a scholarship program in her honor is one small way we can thank a person who did so much for us all. ______ By Mr. DeWINE (for himself, Mr. Hatch, Mr. Voinovich, and Mr. Leahy); S. 2955. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide relief for the payment of asbestos-related claims; to the Committee on Finance. asbestos-related claims relief legislation Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today as an original cosponsor of the bill introduced today by my friend and colleague from Ohio, Senator DeWine, that would provide relief for payment of asbestos-related claims. I urge my colleagues on the Finance Committee to take a close look at the serious problem this bill addresses. Certain manufacturers who were required by government specification to use asbestos in their products are facing a severe financial crisis arising from claims made by individuals who are suffering health problems from asbestos-related diseases. These claims have put several of these companies into bankruptcy, and several more appear to be on the brink of insolvency. Thousands of jobs may be at stake, as may be the proper compensation of the victims of the illnesses. A major part of the underlying justification for this measure is that the federal government shares some culpability in the harm caused by the asbestos-related products manufactured by these companies. For example, from World War II through the Vietnam War, the government required that private contractors and shipyard workers use asbestos to insulate navy ships from so-called ``secondary fires.'' Because of sovereign immunity, however, the government has not had to share in paying the damages, leaving American companies to bear the full and ongoing financial load of compensation. The legislation we are introducing today is a step toward recognizing that the federal government is partially responsible for payment of these claims. It does so through two income tax provisions, both of which directly benefit the victims of the illnesses. The first provision exempts from income tax the income earned by a designated or qualified settlement fund established for the principal purpose of resolving and satisfying present and future claims relating to asbestos illnesses. The effect of this provision, Mr. President, is to increase the amount of money available for the payment of these claims. The second provision allows taxpayers with specified liability losses attributable to asbestos to carry back those losses to the tax year in which the taxpayer, or its predecessor company, was first involved in producing or distributing products containing asbestos. This provision is a matter of fairness, Mr. President. Because of the long latency period related to asbestos-related diseases, which can be as long as 40 years, many of these claims are just now arising. Current law provides for the carryback of this kind of liability losses, but only for a ten-year period. Many of the companies involved earned profits and paid taxes on those profits in the years the asbestos-related products were made or distributed. However, it is now clear, many years after the taxes were paid, that there were no profits earned at all, since millions of dollars of health claims relating to those products must now be paid. It is only fair, and it is sound tax policy, to allow relief for situations like these. Again, it should be emphasized that the primary beneficiaries of this tax change will not be the corporations, but the victims of the illnesses, because the taxpayer would be required to devote the entire amount of the tax reduction to paying the claims. This is not the only time the federal government has been at least partially responsible for health problems of citizens that arose many years after the event that initially triggered the problem. During the Cold War, America conducted above ground atomic tests during which the wind blew the fallout into communities and ranches of Utah, New Mexico and Arizona. The government also demanded quantities of uranium, which is harmful to those who mined and milled it. The incidence of cancers and other debilitating diseases caused by this activity among the ``downwinders,'' miners and millers has been acknowledged by the federal government. The least we can do for those manufacturers forced to use asbestos instead of other materials is provide some tax relief for their compensation funds. This legislation has substantial bipartisan backing. It is sponsored in the House by both the Chairman and Ranking Minority Member of the Judiciary Committee. It is backed by the by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and by at least one related labor union. This bill addresses a very serious problem and is the right thing to do. I hope we can pass it expeditiously. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record. There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows: S. 2955 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, SECTION 1. EXEMPTION FOR ASBESTOS-RELATED SETTLEMENT FUNDS. (a) Exemption for Asbestos-Related Settlement Funds.-- Subsection (b) of section 468B of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph: ``(6) Exemption from tax for asbestos-related designated settlement funds.--Notwithstanding paragraph (1), no tax shall be imposed under this section or any other provision of this subtitle on any designated settlement fund established for the principal purpose of resolving and satisfying present and future claims relating to asbestos.'' (b) Conforming Amendments.-- (1) Paragraph (1) of section 468B(b) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by striking ``There'' and inserting ``Except as provided in paragraph (6), there''. (2) Subsection (g) of section 468B of such Code is amended by inserting ``(other than subsection (b)(6))'' after ``Nothing in any provision of law''. (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall apply to taxable years ending after the date of enactment of this Act. SEC. 2. MODIFY TREATMENT OF ASBESTOS-RELATED NET OPERATING LOSSES. (a) Asbestos-Related Net Operating Losses.--Subsection (f) of section 172 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by redesignating paragraphs (4), (5), and (6) as paragraphs (5), (6), and (7), respectively, and by inserting after paragraph (3) the following new paragraph: ``(4) Special rules for asbestos liability losses.-- ``(A) In general.--At the election of the taxpayer, the portion of any specified liability loss that is attributable to asbestos may, for purposes of subsection (b)(1)(C), be carried back to the taxable year in which the taxpayer, including any predecessor corporation, was first involved in the production or distribution of products containing asbestos and each subsequent taxable year. ``(B) Coordination with credits.--If a deduction is allowable for any taxable year by reason of a carryback described in subparagraph (A)-- ``(i) the credits allowable under part IV (other than subpart C) of subchapter A shall be determined without regard to such deduction, and ``(ii) the amount of taxable income taken into account with respect to the carryback under subsection (b)(2) for such taxable year shall be reduced by an amount equal to-- ``(I) the increase in the amount of such credits allowable for such taxable year solely by reason of clause (i), divided by ``(II) the maximum rate of tax under section 1 or 11 (whichever is applicable) for such taxable year. ``(C) Carryforwards taken into account before asbestos- related deductions.--For purposes of this section-- ``(i) in determining whether a net operating loss carryforward may be carried under subsection (b)(2) to a taxable year, taxable income for such year shall be determined [[Page S7847]] without regard to the deductions referred to in paragraph (1)(A) with respect to asbestos, and ``(ii) if there is a net operating loss for such year after taking into account such carryforwards and deductions, the portion of such loss attributable to such deductions shall be treated as a specified liability loss that is attributable to asbestos. ``(D) Limitation.--The amount of reduction in income tax liability arising from the election described in subparagraph (A) that exceeds the amount of reduction in income tax liability that would have resulted if the taxpayer utilized the 10-year carryback period under subsection (b)(1)(C) shall be devoted by the taxpayer solely to asbestos claimant compensation and related costs, through a designated settlement fund or otherwise. ``(E) Consolidated groups.--For purposes of this paragraph, all members of an affiliated group of corporations that join in the filing of a consolidated return pursuant to section 1501 (or a predecessor section) shall be treated as 1 corporation. ``(F) Predecessor corporation.--For purposes of this paragraph, a predecessor corporation shall include a corporation that transferred or distributed assets to the taxpayer in a transaction to which section 381(a) applies or that distributed the stock of the taxpayer in a transaction to which section 355 applies.'' (b) Conforming Amendment.--Paragraph (7) of section 172(f) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as redesignated by this section, is amended by striking ``10-year''. (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall apply to taxable years ending after the date of enactment of this Act. ______ By Mr. CAMPBELL: S. 2956. A bill to establish the Colorado Canyons National Conservation Area and the Black Ridge Canyons Wilderness, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. colorado canyons preservation act of 2000 Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, today I introduce legislation which would preserve over 130,000 acres of land in Western Colorado. This legislation is supported locally by property owners, county commissioners, environmentalists, and recreational groups. My bill is a Senate companion to H.R. 4275 which was introduced by my colleague and fellow Coloradan Representative Scott McInnis. The areas proposed for Wildernesss Protection are the Black Ridge and Ruby Canyons of the Grand Valley and Rabbit Valley near Grand Junction, Colorado. They contain unique and valuable scenic, recreational, multiple use, paleontological, natural, and wildlife components. This historic rural western setting provides extensive opportunities for recreational activities, and are publicly used for hiking, camping, and grazing. This area is truly worthy of additional protection as a national conservation area. This legislation has the support of the administration and should easily be signed into law. The only issue confronting us is the limited amount of time left in the 106th Congress. I hope we will be able to move this legislation quickly through the process and that it will not get bogged down in partisan politics. It simply is the right thing to do. I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in the Record following my remarks. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor. There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows: S. 2956 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 ``Colorado Canyons National Conservation Area and Black Ridge Canyons Wilderness Act of 2000''. SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSE. (a) Findings.--Congress finds that certain areas located in the Grand Valley in Mesa County, Colorado, and Grand County, Utah, should be protected and enhanced for the benefit and enjoyment of present and future generations. These areas include the following: (1) The areas making up the Black Ridge and Ruby Canyons of the Grand Valley and Rabbit Valley, which contain unique and valuable scenic, recreational, multiple use opportunities (including grazing), paleontological, natural, and wildlife components enhanced by the rural western setting of the area, provide extensive opportunities for recreational activities, and are publicly used for hiking, camping, and grazing, and are worthy of additional protection as a national conservation area. (2) The Black Ridge Canyons Wilderness Study Area has wilderness value and offers unique geological, paleontological, scientific, and recreational resources. (b) Purpose.--The purpose of this Act is to conserve, protect, and enhance for the benefit and enjoyment of present and future generations the unique and nationally important values of the public lands described in section 4(b), including geological, cultural, paleontological, natural, scientific, recreational, environmental, biological, wilderness, wildlife education, and scenic resources of such public lands, by establishing the Colorado Canyons National Conservation Area and the Black Ridge Canyons Wilderness in the State of Colorado and the State of Utah. SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS. In this Act: (1) Conservation area.--The term ``Conservation Area'' means the Colorado Canyons National Conservation Area established by section 4(a). (2) Council.--The term ``Council'' means the Colorado Canyons National Conservation Area Advisory Council established under section 8. (3) Management plan.--The term ``management plan'' means the management plan developed for the Conservation Area under section 6(h). (4) Map.--The term ``Map'' means the map entitled ``Proposed Colorado Canyons National Conservation Area and Black Ridge Canyons Wilderness Area'' and dated July 18, 2000. (5) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary of the Interior, acting through the Director of the Bureau of Land Management. (6) Wilderness.--The term ``Wilderness'' means the Black Ridge Canyons Wilderness so designated in section 5. SEC. 4. COLORADO CANYONS NATIONAL CONSERVATION AREA. (a) In General.--There is established the Colorado Canyons National Conservation Area in the State of Colorado and the State of Utah. (b) Areas Included.--The Conservation Area shall consist of approximately 122,300 acres of public land as generally depicted on the Map. SEC. 5. BLACK RIDGE CANYONS WILDERNESS DESIGNATION. Certain lands in Mesa County, Colorado, and Grand County, Utah, which comprise approximately 75,550 acres as generally depicted on the Map, are hereby designated as wilderness and therefore as a component of the National Wilderness Preservation System. Such component shall be known as the Black Ridge Canyons Wilderness. SEC. 6. MANAGEMENT. (a) Conservation Area.--The Secretary shall manage the Conservation Area in a manner that-- (1) conserves, protects, and enhances the resources of the Conservation Area specified in section 2(b); and (2) is in accordance with-- (A) the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.); and (B) other applicable law, including this Act. (b) Uses.--The Secretary shall allow only such uses of the Conservation Area as the Secretary determines will further the purposes for which the Conservation Area is established. (c) Withdrawals.--Subject to valid existing rights, all Federal land within the Conservation Area and the Wilderness and all land and interests in land acquired for the Conservation Area or the Wilderness by the United States are withdrawn from-- (1) all forms of entry, appropriation, or disposal under the public land laws; (2) location, entry, and patent under the mining laws; and