STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
Sponsor:
Summary:
All articles in Senate section
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
(Senate - July 01, 1999)
Text of this article available as:
TXT
PDF
[Pages S8085-
S8140]
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
By Mr. HOLLINGS:
S. 1312. A bill to ensure full and expeditious enforcement of the
provisions of the Communications Act of 1934 that seek to bring about
competition in local telecommunications markets, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
the telecommunications competition enforcement act of 1999
Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I rise to introduce,
S. 1312, the
Telecommunications Competition Enforcement Act of 1999.
The United States has a telecommunications system that is unequaled.
We have worked hard to ensure that consumers in all parts of the
country have access to this system and enjoy services at an affordable
price. Therefore, when the Bell companies asked us to allow them to
enter the long distance market, it was with great caution that we began
to develop policies that would change the existing framework. We did
not want to jeopardize existing service as we phased in competition
into local markets and allowed local phone companies to enter the long
distance market.
Bell companies worked with Congress to create the fourteen point
checklist and they celebrated the passage of the 1996 Act. They then
filed applications with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to
enter the long distance market. However, the FCC found that the Bell
companies had not opened their local markets to competition, and
therefore, under the 1996 Act, could not enter the long distance
market. Once the Bell companies realized that they were not going to
get into the long distance market before they complied with the 1996
Act, they began a strategy of litigation to delay competition into
their local markets and hold on to their monopolies. They appealed the
FCC's decisions to the Court of Appeals and challenged the
constitutionality of the Act taking their case to the Supreme Court.
Having lost in those forums they have now come to Congress seeking
changes to the Act that only three years ago they championed. As a
result bills have been introduced in the Senate and the House that
significantly amend the 1996 Act, harm competition in the local
markets, and slow the delivery of advanced, affordable services to
consumers.
Therefore, I introduce this legislation as part of a continuing
effort to promote competition in the local telecommunications markets.
I am frustrated by the broken promises of the Bell companies given that
not a single Bell company has adequately opened its local phone market
to competition since the enactment of the Telecommunications Act of
1996. According to wall street analysts, as of the end of last year new
entrants had only 2.5 percent of all access lines while Bell companies
and incumbent local exchange carriers continued to control over 97
percent of those lines into the home.
Three years ago when we passed the 1996 Act, Bell companies
proclaimed that they would open their markets immediately and begin
competing. In fact, they and their lawyers helped write the 14 point
checklist--their roadmap into the long distance market in their region.
All these companies have to do to provide long distance service in
their regions is to follow that roadmap and meet the requirements of
Section 271.
I remember the excitement by the local phone companies at the time of
the 1996 Act. On March 5, 1996, Bell South-Alabama President, Neal
Travis, stated that the ``Telecommunications Act now means that
consumers will have more choices . . . We are going full speed ahead .
. . and within a year or so we can offer [long distance] to our
residential and business wireline customers.''
And, on February 8, 1996, USWest's President of Long Distance,
Richard Coleman, issued this statement: ``The Inter-LATA long distance
potential is a tremendous business opportunity for USWest. Customers
have made it clear they want one-stop shopping for both their local and
long distance service. We are preparing to give them exactly what
they've been asking for.'' He went on to predict that USWest would meet
the 14 point checklist in a majority of its states within 12-18 months.
Ameritech's chief executive office, Richard Notebaert February 1,
1996,
[[Page
S8086]]
noted his support of the 1996 Act by stating that, ``[t]he real open
competition this bill promotes will bring customers more choices,
competitive prices and better quality services . . . [T]his bill will
rank as one of the most important and far-reaching pieces of federal
legislation passed this decade . . . It offers a comprehensive
communications policy, solidly grounded in the principles of the
competitive marketplace. It's truly a framework for the information
age.''
Those were the statements of the local phone companies in 1996. What
has happened since then? The answer is very little. In fact, rather
than meet their promises, the local phone companies were in federal
court challenging the FCC's implementation of the Act less than one
year after its enactment. In addition, only five applications for
Section 271 relief have been filed at the FCC--and none have met the
requirements of section 271. On more than one occasion, the FCC's
decision to deny a 271 application has been upheld by the D.C. Circuit
Court. One of the regional Bell companies even challenged the
constitutionality of section 271--a challenge the court of appeals
denied and the Supreme Court refused to hear. Today, there are no 271
applications on file at the FCC and not a single application has been
presented to the FCC since July 1998.
What this means for the customer is that the choice and the local
competition we tried to create with the passage of the
Telecommunications Act has been thwarted by the very companies that
promised to compete. Instead, they have chosen to litigate, complain,
and combine. Just two days ago, the Chairman of the FCC decided to
grant SBC and Ameritech approval to merge their operations. In
permitting the merger to go forward, the FCC has conditioned approval
on future performance--performance which SBC has not met in the three
years since the passage of the 1996 Act. In fact, on the same day
conditional approval of the SBC and Ameritech merger was announced, SBC
agreed to pay $1.3 million to settle disputes surrounding alleged
violations of sections of the 1996 Act dealing with the provision of
long distance service. One company will now control one-third of all
access lines in the United States even though its market is not open to
competition. Competition again becomes a casualty of the unwillingness
of Bell companies, to open their markets and let go of their
monopolies.
Today, there are companies seeking to connect to the Bell networks
and provide service to consumers. However, these companies often times
experience significant difficulties in obtaining access to these
networks. Thus, while I applaud the efforts of the competitive local
exchange carriers, long distance carriers, and the cable industry to
provide facilities-based local competition, I must express my
disappointment that not a single regional bell operating company has
sufficiently opened its markets to competition.
Since the beginning of this Congress, many of the Bell companies have
been meeting with Senators and Representatives, often accompanied by
the same lawyers who helped write the Telecommunications Act. But this
time their message is different. They are asking us to change the rules
of the game. They now want to offer lucrative high-speed data services
for long distance customers without first having to open their local
markets to competition. They maintain that they should be permitted to
continue their hold on the local customer as they provide data services
because the 1996 Act did not contemplate the provision of such
services. To state it plainly--they are wrong. The Telecommunications
Act clearly contemplated the provision of advanced services--data and
otherwise. In fact, the Act had an entire section dedicated to
promoting the development and deployment of advanced services. To quote
the Act, ``advanced telecommunications capability'' is defined as
``high-speed switched, broadband telecommunications capability that
enables users to originate and receive high-quality voice, data,
graphics, and video telecommunications using any technology.''
Regardless, nothing in the 1996 Act prevents phone companies from
providing high speed data services to consumers inside and outside
their region. They are already providing DSL service to customers
inside their region. And, under the 1996 Act, Bell companies can
provide long distance service in their region once they open their
local markets. We must hold to this principle if we want consumers to
have a choice of service providers. In fact, a number of Bell companies
are working to meet Section 271 requirements. I applaud those attempts
which, if successful, will ultimately provide new and innovative
services at low prices to consumers.
Therefore, I reject their proposed legislative solutions, and
instead, forward a different proposal. By 2001, five years will have
passed since the Telecommunications Act became law. I believe, it is
reasonable to expect Bell companies to have at least one-half of their
markets in their region open to competition by 2001 and all of their
markets in their region open to competition by 2003. The legislation
that I introduce today accomplishs just that. My bill requires the
Federal Communications Commission to assess a forfeiture penalty of
$100,000 per day if a Bell operating company has not met the section
271 checklist in at least half of the states in its region by February
8, 2001--the five year anniversary of President Clinton signing the
Telecommunications Act into law. Moreover, if the FCC finds that a Bell
operating company has not met the section 271 checklist throughout its
region by February 8, 2003, the Commission is required to order the
company to divest its telecommunications network facilities within six
months, in states in which it is not in compliance with the checklist.
With respect to non-Bell incumbent local exchange carriers with more
than 5 percent of the access lines in the nation, the Commission, upon
the petition of any interested party, is required to investigate
whether the carrier's markets are open to competition to determine
whether such carrier has complied with the interconnection requirements
of the Act. A determination that such an incumbent local exchange
company has not opened its markets shall result in a $50,000 per day
forfeiture penalty, to be imposed by the FCC, if the company does not
come into compliance within 60 days. In addition, the FCC shall order
the company to cease and desist in marketing and selling long distance
services to new customers, if it has not complied within the 60 day
grace period.
Lastly, to protect competition once the Bell companies have met the
section 271 checklist requirements, this bill provides the FCC with
additional enforcement tools. If, at some point after meeting the
checklist requirements, a Bell company fails to meet one or more
provisions of the checklist, the FCC shall impose a forfeiture penalty
of $100,000 for each day of the continuing violation. Moreover, if,
after meeting the checklist requirements, the Bell company willfully,
knowing, and repeatedly fails to meet one or more provisions of the
checklist, the FCC shall require the Bell company, within 180 days, to
divest its telecommunications network facilities in states in which the
repeated violations have occurred.
While these penalties may appear severe, severe action needs to be
taken to force dominant market providers to open their markets to
competition. During the debate over the Telecommunications Act, we did
not include such a strong approach. Rather, we settled on a rational
and reasonable set of procedures--endorsed by the local phone
monoplies--that provided incentives to open their local markets while
preserving the integrity of the premier communications networks in the
world. That approach seemed particularly palatable in light of the
statements issued at the time of enactment of the 1996 Act by the local
phone companies promising an early opening of the local phone market
pursuant to the requirements of the Section 271 checklist.
Today, our communications networks remain the envy of the world and
the development of innovative advanced services is accelerating
rapidly. Unfortunately, the rollout of those services on a competitive
basis to all Americans is being thwarted by the failure of Bell
companies to open their markets to competition. Those same monopolists
told us their markets
[[Page
S8087]]
would be open months ago. This legislation seeks to hold them to their
word.
I ask consent that a summary of the bill be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the summary was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
The Telecommunications Competition Enforcement Act of 1999
SUMMARY
A Bell Operating Company (BOC) is required to meet the
market opening requirements of the section 271 checklist of
the Telecommunications Act of 1996 for half of the states in
its region by February 8, 2001. The FCC is required to assess
a forfeiture penalty of $100,000 for each day a BOC is in
violation of this requirement.
A BOC is required to meet the market opening requirements
of the section 271 checklist of the Telecommunications Act of
1996 for all the states in its region by February 8, 2003.
The FCC is required to order a BOC to divest its
telecommunications network facilities within 180 days in
which it is in violation of this requirement.
Upon petition by any interested party, the FCC is directed
to investigate whether incumbent local exchange carriers
(ILEC) with more than 5 percent of the nation's access lines
(that are not Bell Companies) have opened their markets to
competition pursuant to Section 251(c) of the
Telecommunications Act of 1996.
Upon a determination that such ILECs are not in full
compliance with Section 251(c), the FCC shall set forth the
reasons for non-compliance and grant 60 days for the ILEC to
come into full compliance. Absent such compliance after that
60 day period, the FCC is required to assess a civil
forfeiture penalty of $50,000 for each day of the continuing
violation and order the company to cease and desist in
marketing and selling long distance services to new
customers.
If upon meeting the checklist requirements, a BOC fails to
meet one or more provisions of the checklist, the FCC shall
impose a forfeiture of $100,000 for each day of the
continuing violation. If upon meeting the checklist
requirements, the BOC knowingly, willfully, and repeatedly
fails to meet one or more provisions of the checklist, the
FCC shall require the BOC, to divest its telecommunications
network facilities, within 180 days, in states in which
repeated violations have occurred.
JUSTIFICATION
The Telecommunications Act of 1996 required Bell Operating
Companies (BOCs) to open their markets to competition. Yet,
not a single BOC has met the market opening requirements of
the Section 271 checklist. No Section 271 applications have
been filed at the FCC since July of 1998. Only five
applications have been filed since 1996--none of which
complied with Section 271.
In the three years since enactment, however, the BOCs have
pursued a strategy of stonewalling and litigation that has
delayed implementation of the critical interconnection,
unbundling, collocation, and resale requirements of the Act.
Now, BOCs are seeking legislative relief from the pro-
competitive provisions of the Telecommunications Act. They
argue that they will provide rural America with advanced
communications services, but only if they are allowed to
provide long distance service to their current customers. The
truth is that BOCs can provide advanced services today.
However, to get into the long distance market, they must open
their local markets to competition. This bill provides an
incentive for them to do just that.
By requiring a date certain by which the local phone
monopolies must open their markets, and by accompanying that
requirement with federal enforcement authority, we can be
assured that American consumers will obtain the benefits of
local competition.
______
By Mr. LEAHY (for himself, Mr. DeWINE, and Mr. ROBB):
S. 1314. A bill to establish a grant program to assist State and
local law enforcement in deterring, investigating, and prosecuting
computer crimes; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
computer crime enforcement act
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce the Computer
Crime Enforcement Act. This legislation establishes a Department of
Justice grant program to support state and local law enforcement
officers and prosecutors to prevent, investigate and prosecute computer
crime. I am pleased that Senator DeWine, with whom I worked closely and
successfully last year on the Crime Identification Technology Act, and
Senator Robb, who has long been a leader on law enforcement issues,
support this bill as original cosponsors.
Computer crime is quickly emerging as one of today's top challenges
for state and local law enforcement officials. A recent survey by the
FBI and the Computer Security Institute found that 62% of information
security professionals reported computer security breaches in the past
year. These breaches in computer security resulted in financial losses
of more than $120 million from fraud, theft of proprietary information,
sabotage, computer viruses and stolen laptops. Computer crime has
become a multi-billion dollar problem.
I am proud to report that the States, including my home state of
Vermont, are reacting to the increase in computer crime by enacted
tough computer crime control laws. For example, Vermont's new law makes
certain acts against computers illegal, such as: accessing any computer
system or data without permission; accessing a computer to commit
fraud, remove, destroy or copy data or deny access to the data;
damaging or interfering with the operation of the computer system or
data; and stealing or destroying any computer data or system. These
state laws establish a firm groundwork for electronic commerce, an
increasingly important sector of the Vermont economy and of the
nation's economy. Now all fifty states have enacted some type of
computer crime statute.
Unfortunately, too many state and local law enforcement agencies are
struggling to afford the high cost of enforcing their state computer
crime statute. The Computer Crime Enforcement Act would provide a
helping hand by authorizing a $25 million grant program to help the
states receive Federal funding for improved education, training,
enforcement and prosecution of computer crime. Our bill will help
states take a byte out of computer crime.
Congress has recognized the importance of providing state and local
law enforcement officers with the means necessary to prevent and combat
cyber attacks and other computer crime through the FBI's Computer
Analysis and Response Team (CART) Program and the National
Infrastructure Protection Center. Our legislation would enhance that
Federal role by providing each state with much-needed resources to join
Federal law enforcement officials in collaborative efforts to fight
computer crime.
In Vermont, for instance, only half a dozen law enforcement officers
among the more than 900 officers in the state have been trained in
investigating computer crimes and analyzing cyber evidence. As
Detective Michael Schirling of the Chittenden Unit for Special
Investigations recently observed in my home state: ``The bad guys are
using computers at a rate that's exponentially greater than our ability
to respond to the problem.'' Without the necessary educational
training, technical support, and coordinated information, our law
enforcement officials will be hamstrung in their efforts to crack down
on computer crime.
Computers have ushered in a new age filled with unlimited potential
for good. But the computer age has also ushered in new challenges for
our state and local law enforcement officers. Let's provide our state
and local partners in crime fighting with the resources that they need
in the battle against computer crime.
I urge my colleagues to support the Computer Crime Enforcement Act
and its quick passage into law.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the Computer
Crime Enforcement Act be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 1314
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 ``Computer Crime Enforcement
Act''.
SEC. 2. STATE GRANT PROGRAM FOR TRAINING AND PROSECUTION OF
COMPUTER CRIMES.
(a) In General.--Subject to the availability of amounts
provided in advance in appropriations Acts, the Office of
Justice Programs shall make a grant to each State, which
shall be used by the State, in conjunction with units of
local government, State and local courts, other States, or
combinations thereof, to--
(1) assist State and local law enforcement in enforcing
State and local criminal laws relating to computer crime;
(2) assist State and local law enforcement in educating the
public to prevent and identify computer crime;
(3) assist in educating and training State and local law
enforcement officers and prosecutors to conduct
investigations and forensic analyses of evidence and
prosecutions of computer crime;
[[Page
S8088]]
(4) assist State and local law enforcement officers and
prosecutors in acquiring computer and other equipment to
conduct investigations and forensic analysis of evidence of
computer crimes; and
(5) facilitate and promote the sharing of Federal law
enforcement expertise and information about the
investigation, analysis, and prosecution of computer crimes
with State and local law enforcement officers and
prosecutors, including the use of multijurisdictional task
forces.
(b) Use of Grant Amounts.--Grants under this section may be
used to establish and develop programs to--
(1) assist State and local law enforcement in enforcing
State and local criminal laws relating to computer crime;
(2) assist State and local law enforcement in educating the
public to prevent and identify computer crime;
(3) educate and train State and local law enforcement
officers and prosecutors to conduct investigations and
forensic analyses of evidence and prosecutions of computer
crime;
(4) assist State and local law enforcement officers and
prosecutors in acquiring computer and other equipment to
conduct investigations and forensic analysis of evidence of
computer crimes; and
(5) facilitate and promote the sharing of Federal law
enforcement expertise and information about the
investigation, analysis, and prosecution of computer crimes
with State and local law enforcement officers and
prosecutors, including the use of multijurisdictional task
forces.
(c) Assurances.--To be eligible to receive a grant under
this section, a State shall provide assurances to the
Attorney General that the State--
(1) has in effect laws that penalize computer crime, such
as penal laws prohibiting--
(A) fraudulent schemes executed by means of a computer
system or network;
(B) the unlawful damaging, destroying, altering, deleting,
removing of computer software, or data contained in a
computer, computer system, computer program, or computer
network; or
(C) the unlawful interference with the operation of or
denial of access to a computer, computer program, computer
system, or computer network;
(2) an assessment of the State and local resource needs,
including criminal justice resources being devoted to the
investigation and enforcement of computer crime laws; and
(3) a plan for coordinating the programs funded under this
section with other federally funded technical assistant and
training programs, including directly funded local programs
such as the Local Law Enforcement Block Grant program
(described under the heading ``Violent Crime Reduction
Programs, State and Local Law Enforcement Assistance'' of the
Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary,
and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1998 (Public Law
105-119)).
(d) Matching Funds.--The Federal share of a grant received
under this section may not exceed 90 percent of the costs of
a program or proposal funded under this section unless the
Attorney General waives, wholly or in part, the requirements
of this subsection.
(e) Authorization of Appropriations.--
(1) In general.--There is authorized to be appropriated to
carry out this section $25,000,000 for each of fiscal years
2000 through 2003.
(2) Limitations.--Of the amount made available to carry out
this section in any fiscal year not more than 3 percent may
be used by the Attorney General for salaries and
administrative expenses.
(3) Minimum amount.--Unless all eligible applications
submitted by any State or unit of local government within
such State for a grant under this section have been funded,
such State, together with grantees within the State (other
than Indian tribes), shall be allocated in each fiscal year
under this section not less than 0.75 percent of the total
amount appropriated in the fiscal year for grants pursuant to
this section, except that the United States Virgin Islands,
American Samoa, Guam, and the Northern Mariana Islands each
shall be allocated 0.25 percent.
(f) Grants to Indian Tribes.--Notwithstanding any other
provision of this section, the Attorney General may use
amounts made available under this section to make grants to
Indian tribes for use in accordance with this section.
______
By Mr. BINGAMAN:
S. 1315. A bill to permit the leasing of oil and gas rights on
certain lands held in trust for the Navajo Nation or allotted to a
member of the Navajo Nation, in any case in which there is consent from
a specified percentage interest in the parcel of land under
consideration for lease; to the Committee on Indian Affairs.
fractionated lands
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise to talk about a bill that I have
sent to the desk. It relates to a very serious problem faced by a large
number of Navajo people in my State. The issue is referred to as
``fractionated lands.''
Around the turn of the century, the Federal Government attempted to
force Indian people to assimilate by breaking up traditional tribal
lands and allotting parcels of the land to individual tribal members.
In New Mexico, this policy created what is known as the
``checkerboard,'' because alternating tracts of land are now owned by
individual Navajos, the state, the federal government, or private
landowners. A Navajo allotment was generally 160 acres. Under the
allotment system, the Navajo owner was granted an undivided interest in
the entire parcel. The heirs of the original owner also inherit an
undivided interest, geometrically compounding--or fractionating--the
number of owners of the original 160 acres.
This allotment policy, coupled with other federal laws governing
Indian land ownership, land management, and probate, have not served
the Navajo people well during this century. I am introducing
legislation today to help address this problem.
Mr. President, I'd like to take a few minutes to illustrate why the
legislation I am proposing is needed. If a Navajo was allotted a 160-
acre parcel and had four heirs, the heirs did not inherit 40 acres each
when the original owner died. Rather, each heir inherited a 25 percent
undivided interest in the full 160-acre allotment. Going forward, when
the current four owners died, assuming again four heirs each, sixteen
heirs inherited a 6.25 percent undivided interest in the allotment. The
next generation would result in 64 heirs each with a 1.5625 percent
undivided interest. And so forth.
What makes this situation so unique is that each heir inherits an
undivided interest in the allotment. Over time, individual owners may
inherit tiny fractions in many different allotments around the
reservation. In my state, there are about 4,000 individual allotments
covering nearly 700,000 acres. At this point, these 4,000 Navajo
allotments have a total of 40,000 listed owners, and the number grows
every day. It doesn't take a Ph.D. in math to figure out what's wrong
with this policy.
Mr. President, in April I held a town meeting with Navajo allottees
in Nageezi, New Mexico, a small chapter house in the Northeast section
of the Navajo Reservation. The allottees talked about the serious
problems that fractionated ownership has caused. Over 100 members of
the Navajo Nation came from as far away as Aneth, Utah, to speak at the
meeting. As you know, the Navajo Nation extends into three states, New
Mexico, Arizona and Utah, and there are allottees living in all three
states.
Record keeping of individual land ownership has become a nightmare.
In many cases, owners can no longer be located. Also, ownership can be
clouded when an owner dies without a legal will--a common situation in
Indian Country.
Some individuals do not even realize they own one or more of these
allotments. Often, individuals are surprised to find out that they are
an heir to an allotment on another reservation.
Mr. President, we all recognize there are serious problems with BIA's
management of its trust responsibilities for allotted lands in New
Mexico. The management problems were brought out very clearly at a
joint Senate hearing in March. The hearing also revealed the extent to
which the government's allotment policy contributed to BIA's current
trust management problems.
On the Navajo reservation, a three-year pilot project is underway in
Farmington, New Mexico, to try to unravel some of the management
problems with allotted Navajo lands. This project, called the
Farmington Indian Minerals Office, or FIMO, is trying to cut through
the red tape created by three different Bureaus in the Department of
Interior, BIA, BLM, and MMS, which share responsibility for management
of allotted lands. The FIMO has worked hard to assist Navajo allottees
determine who their fellow allottees are and what land each allottee
owns. I support the efforts of FIMO. If this legislation is passed,
FIMO could accomplish even more on behalf of the Navajo allottees in
the three states.
Mr. President, over the years, Congress has tried to deal with the
problem of fractionated lands, and has failed every time. The long
history of trust management problems is not going to be corrected
quickly. Developing and implementing a comprehensive solution is going
to take time. The Indian Land Working Group is one of
[[Page
S8089]]
the leaders in this area and has submitted a proposal for Congress to
consider. I applaud the efforts of Senators Campbell and Inouye and the
members of the Indian Affairs Committee for taking on this difficult
issue. Some of the proposals include improved record keeping, probate
and estate planning programs, and new processes for consolidating
fractionated lands. I look forward to working with the Committee to
craft a comprehensive solution.
While the larger issue of fractionated ownership is being considered
by the Senate, I believe it is appropriate to consider a stop-gap
measure to help stimulate near-term economic development on
fractionated Navajo lands. There is an abundance of oil and gas beneath
the Navajo allotments, yet the allottees are unable to benefit from
this wealth because of federal laws that make it very difficult for
Indian allottees to lease their land. To illustrate, during the last 12
years, $7 million in leasing bonuses has been paid to the state and
federal government for leases in the checkerboard region of New Mexico,
while only $27,000 has been paid to owners of Navajo allotments.
The problem lies in the 1909 Mineral Leasing Act. The Act requires
all persons who have an undivided interest in any particular parcel to
consent to its lease. In the case of Navajo allottees, 100 percent of
the allottees must consent to a lease of their land. Because of the
fractionated land problem, obtaining 100 percent consent is often
impossible because many owners cannot be located. Consequently, the
Navajo allottees are precluded from the beneficial use of their land.
The bill I am introducing today will facilitate the leasing of Navajo
allotted land for oil and gas development. In the case of non-Indians,
most states already allow mineral leases with less than 100 percent
consent of the owners as long as all persons who own an interest
receive the benefits from the lease. My bill simply extends similar
benefits to Navajo allottees. The bill would authorize the Secretary of
the Interior to approve an oil or gas lease connected to Navajo
allotted land when less than 100 percent of the owners consent to such
a lease. A similar bill was passed in the 105th Congress to facilitate
mineral leasing of allotted lands on the Ft. Berthold Reservation in
North Dakota.
My bill proposes a graded system for lease approval. In situations
where there are 10 or fewer owners of an allotment, 100 percent of the
owners must consent to a lease. However, where there exists 11 to 50
owners of an allotment, only 80 percent of the owners need consent.
And, with more than 50 owners, 60 percent consent would be required.
This graded system was suggested by the Navajo allottees.
Mr. President, unemployment on the Navajo Reservation now exceeds 50
percent. The opportunities for economic development on this land are
few. It is not appropriate for the federal government to continue to
deprive the legal owners of Navajo allotted lands the option to develop
their land as they choose. This bill is a small step toward correcting
the mistakes of the past and a bigger step towards providing economic
prosperity for future generations of Navajo allottees.
The bill has the support of the Navajo Nation and the Shii Shi Keyah,
the principal Navajo Allottees' Association.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a resolution from the
Shii Shi Keyah Association and a letter from the Navajo Nation be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Shii Shi Keyah Association Resolution of the Board of Directors
Whereas, the Board of Directors of Shii Shi Keyah
Association (``SSKA''), an unincorporated association of
Navajos who have ownership interests in allotments on or near
the Navajo Reservation, generally referred to as Navajo
Indian Country, has considered a number of issues relating to
oil and gas rights and revenues which require its attention;
Whereas, United States Senator Jeff Bingaman will introduce
in the 106th Congress, 1st Session, a bill which begins ``To
permit the leasing of oil and gas rights on certain lands in
New Mexico held in trust for the Navajo Tribe or allotted to
a member of the Navajo Tribe, in any case in which there is
consent from a specified percentage interest in the parcel of
land under consideration for issue;''
Be it Resolved that SSKA will support Senator Bingaman's
bill if it is amended to include the states of Utah and
Arizona.
certification
The foregoing Resolution was adopted by the Board of
Directors of Shii Shi Keyah Association of Bloomfield, NM
with no votes against and no abstentions at a regular meeting
of the Board held on June 4, 1999.
____
The Navajo Nation,
Washington, DC, May 18, 1999.
Re: Proposed Bill to Permit the Leasing of Oil and Gas Rights
on Certain Lands in New Mexico Held in Trust for the
Navajo Tribe or Allotted to a Member of the Navajo Tribe,
in any Case in which There Is Consent from a Specified
Percentage Interest in the Parcel of Land under
Consideration for Lease
Hon. Jeff Bingaman,
U.S. Senate,
Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
Senator Bingaman: Thank you for scheduling the April 8,
1999 meeting at the Nageezi Chapter. The Navajo Nation
appreciates your interest in the problems faced by Navajo
people regarding their allotted lands in northwestern New
Mexico.
The Navajo Nation supports your efforts toward solving the
problems engendered by increasingly fractionated interests
held by Navajo individuals in allotted lands. We support the
intent of the bill, provided that it is supported by a
consensus of Navajo individuals that will be affected. In
addition, we can support most of the particulars of the bill,
although the Navajo Nation would request some minor revisions
to the bill before it is introduced, as explained below.
Initially, we are concerned whether a consensus of affected
Navajo individuals support the proposed bill. The Navajo
Nation is concerned that the Shii Shi Keyah Association
apparently opposes the bill, as indicated in a letter to you
dated March 11, 1999 from the Association's attorney, Alan R.
Taradash, copy attached. We understand that the Shii Shi
Keyah Association is a respected organization comprised of
Navajo individuals numbering in the thousands.
The approach suggested by Mr. Taradash, the conveyance of
fractionated interests into family trusts, appears to have
much to commend it. However, we are not sure that the family
trust approach and the approach reflected in the proposed
bill are mutually exclusive. The Navajo Nation
respectfully requests that your office continue to work
with affected Navajo individuals to assure that the bill
reflects the best approach or combination of approaches to
solve the problems facing those individuals. The Navajo
Nation would be happy to work with your office in this
regard, and stands ready to provide any assistance your
office may need.
In addition, the Navajo Nation is very concerned with the
effect of section 1(b)(3)(A) of the proposed legislation,
which would appear to make the Navajo Nation a party to any
lease of oil and gas rights in allotted lands in which it
might own a minority interest. While the Navajo Nation has no
objection to any minority interest it might hold being leased
in accordance with the provisions of the bill, if that is the
approach that a consensus of affected Navajo individuals
support, the Navajo Nation must opposed being made a party to
any such lease. The Navajo Nation has very deliberate
policies and requirements regarding terms and conditions in
leases to which it is a party. In the present judicial
climate, lease terms and conditions can have a profound
effect on the sovereignty of an Indian nation. Therefore, we
must respectfully request that section 1(b)(3) of the bill be
changed to read in its entirety as follows:
``(3) Effect of approval.--On approval by the Secretary
under paragraph (1), an oil or gas lease or agreement shall
be binding upon each of the beneficial owners that have
consented in writing to the lease or agreement and upon all
other parties to the lease or agreement and shall be binding
upon the entire undivided interest in a Navajo Indian
allotted land covered under the lease or agreement.''
Finally, the Navajo Nation respectfully requests that all
references to the ``Navajo Tribe'' be changed to refer to the
``Navajo Nation,'' and that the reference be deleted in
section 1(a)(3) to the Navajo Nation as ``including the
Alamo, Ramah and Canoncito bands of Navajo Indians.'' The
Term ``Navajo Nation'' is the legal name of the Navajo
Nation, and by Navajo Nation statute is preferred over the
term ``Navajo Tribe.'' We must object to the reference to the
three bands (but not others) because of the possible negative
inference that there exists some ambiguity as to whether such
bands are constituent parts of the Navajo Nation. There is no
such ambiguity now, and we wish to avoid creating any. The
reference can safely be deleted without causing any
uncertainty in the definition.
Unfortunately, fractionated interests remains a significant
problem within the Navajo Nation, as we understand it is also
within our Indian nations. The Navajo Nation would like to
work your office and with other members of Congress on
comprehensive, long-term solution to this problem. If you
have any questions, or need additional information, please
contact the Navajo Nation Washington Office.
Sincerely,
Estelle J. Bowman,
Executive Director.
[[Page
S8090]]
______
By Mr. AKAKA (for himself, Mr. Moynihan, Mrs. Feinstein, Mr.
Wellstone, Mrs. Murray, and Mr. Lautenberg):
S. 1317. A bill to reauthorize the Welfare-to-Work program to provide
additional resources and flexibility to improve the administration of
the program; to the Committee on Finance.
welfare-to-work amendments of 1999
Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise to introduce a bill that would
continue a program vital to helping welfare recipients who face the
greatest barriers to finding and securing employment, called the
Welfare-to-Work Amendments of 1999. My bill targets resources to
families and communities with the greatest need, simplifies eligibility
criteria for participation, and helps non-custodial parents get jobs to
enable them to make child support payments. It also opens more
resources to Native Americans, the homeless, those with disabilities or
substance abuse problems, and victims of domestic violence. This is
similar to a proposal unveiled by the Clinton Administration earlier
this year and introduced as
H.R. 1482 by Representative Benjamin Cardin
of Maryland. I would also like to thank my colleagues Senators
Moynihan, Feinstein, Wellstone, Murray, and Lautenberg for joining me
as original cosponsors of my bill.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a letter which I received
from the Secretary of Labor, Alexis Herman, be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
Secretary of Labor,
Washington, July 1, 1999.
Hon. Daniel K. Akaka,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Akaka: I congratulate you on the introduction
of the ``Welfare-to-Work Amendments of 1999.'' I am pleased
that your legislation joins that introduced by Rep. Benjamin
Cardin earlier this year in the House in seeking to
accomplish the Administration's objectives in reauthorizing
the Welfare-to-Work (WtW) Grants Program. President Clinton
and I believe the Welfare-to-Work Grants Program is a key
component of the overall welfare reform effort. While welfare
caseloads have declined by nearly half over the last six
years, many individuals remaining on welfare are long-term
recipients who face significant barriers to employment. As
the President said in his April 10th radio address, ``We
can't finish the job of welfare reform without doing more to
help people who have the hardest time moving from welfare to
work--those who live in the poorest neighborhoods and have
the poorest job skills. That's why I call on Congress to pass
my plan to extend the Department of Labor's Welfare-to-Work
program.''
This legislation incorporates the President's proposal to
extend the WtW Program, reflecting key suggestions the
Administration has received from State and local service
providers since the passage of the Balanced Budget Act of
1997. The WtW program funds job creation, job placement, and
job retention efforts to help long-term welfare recipients
and non-custodial parents move into lasting, unsubsidized
employment. In addition to helping long-term welfare
recipients make the transition from welfare to work, this
bill will help more low-income fathers increase their
employment and their involvement with their children. Demand
for WtW has been great. Last year, over 1,400 applicants from
local communities across the nation applied for more than $5
billion in WtW Competitive Grants, but DOL had sufficient
resources to fund less than 10 percent of these projects. In
addition, 44 states covering 95 percent of the welfare
caseload applied for formula funds. While the fundamental
principles and features of the program are maintained
(including the focus on work, targeting resources to
individuals and communities with the greatest need, and
administration through the locally administered, business-led
workforce investment system) we are also pleased to see the
principles of the original legislation further carried out by
the addition of the following enhancements:
A simplification of eligibility criteria which continues to
focus on long-term welfare recipients but provides that at
least one, rather than two, specified barriers to employment
must be met.
The provisions of even greater flexibility to serve those
with the greatest challenges to employment by the addition of
long-term welfare recipients who are victims of domestic
violence, individuals with disabilities, or homeless as
eligible to participate.
A strong focus on the family by targeting at least 20
percent of the WtW Formula Grant funds to help noncustodial
parents (mainly fathers) with children who are on or have
exhausted Temporary Assistance to Needy Families fulfill
their responsibilities to their children by committing to
work and pay child support.
An increase in the reserve for grants to Indian tribes from
the current 1 percent of the total to 3 percent, and an
authorization for Indian tribes to apply directly to the
Department of Labor for WtW Competitive Grants.
A procedure which allows unallotted formula funds to be
used to award competitive grants in the subsequent year,
providing a preference in awarding these funds to those local
applicants and tribes from States that did not receive
formula grants.
The development of streamlined reporting requirements
through the Department of Labor.
The establishment of a one percent reserve of Fiscal Year
2000 funds for technical assistance which includes sharing of
innovative and promising practices and strategies for serving
noncustodial parents.
In addition to the changes proposed by the Administration,
the legislation also provides for:
The inclusion of children aging out of foster care as
eligible service recipients and
The addition of job skills training and vocational
educational training.
While our welfare reform efforts have resulted in some
important early successes, much remains to be done.
Reauthorizing the WtW program, together with the
Administration's proposals to provide welfare-to-work housing
vouchers, transportation funds, and employer tax credits,
will provide parents the tools they need to support their
children and succeed in the workforce. Your introduction of
the ``Welfare-to-Work Amendments of 1999'' provides
significant opportunities to hard-to-employ welfare
recipients to make the transition to stable employment and
assist noncustodial parents in making meaningful
contributions to their children's well-being. I applaud and
support your efforts.
The Office of Management and Budget advises that it has no
objection to the transmittal of this report from the
standpoint of the Administration's program.
Sincerely,
Alexis M. Herman.
Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I quote from that letter to me.
President Clinton and I believe the Welfare-to-Work Grants
Program is a key component of the overall welfare reform
efforts.
Mr. President, the Welfare-to-Work program has helped numerous
welfare parents--both custodial and non-custodial--find and keep jobs
that pay a living wage and allow them to fulfill basic obligations to
their children. Children have fundamental needs for food, shelter, and
clothing, yet many parents find themselves barely scraping by, in order
to obtain these things. Many families are unable to go much beyond the
essentials to enroll their children in sports and other activities that
build strong bodies and social skills, or to provide them with decent
school supplies, books or computers to develop strong minds. Most
families take these things for granted because they live without the
anxiety of wondering when the next paycheck or child support payment
might be coming in. They have the finances to pay for child care to
enable parents to work during the day. They have cars or other access
to transportation that will take them to work every morning. Or they
have a telephone so that they may receive calls for job interviews. The
families that cannot make ends meet continue to live in dire need and
find their children living at risk.
Mr. President, 14.5 million American children live in poverty.
Furthermore, as reported in Kids Count 1999, 32 percent of children do
not live with two parents and 19 percent live in a home where the head
of household is a high school dropout. Twenty-one percent of children
are in families with incomes below the poverty line, 28 percent are
living with a parent or parents lacking steady full-time employment,
and 15 percent do not have health insurance. It is a shame that, in the
most prosperous nation in the world, we continue to be faced with these
dismal statistics for our children--young Americans who hold the
promise of this country's future in their hands.
Many of these children were helped when the Balanced Budget Act of
1997 created the Welfare-to-Work program as a new system for providing
assistance to welfare recipients most in need. This followed on the
heels of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity
Reconciliation Act of 1996, which replaced the Aid to Families with
Dependent Children cash assistance program with the Temporary
Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program.
The 1996 welfare reform law addressed the bulk of the welfare
population but lacked a component to help the hardest to employ welfare
recipients. Thus, Welfare-to-Work was passed to assist this population
find jobs and achieve independence so they no longer
[[Page
S8091]]
would need public support. The Welfare-to-Work program became an
essential component of the Administration's welfare reform effort by
providing recipients with a good alternative to welfare.
Since 1996, the number of people in the system dropped by a record
number: forty percent from a peak of about five million families in
1994 down to three million families as of June, 1998, according to the
General Accounting Office. However, the job is not finished. Welfare-
to-Work is needed now more than ever because those remaining on the
rolls are increasing likely to have multiple barriers to employment
such as poor work experience, inadequate English or computer skills, or
substance abuse problems.
We need to invest much more to help these individuals reach self-
sufficiency than we did in those who have already left welfare-these
individuals might have already had an educational record, special
skills or significant family support behind them to help them to their
feet. In contrast, Welfare-to-Work participants are the welfare
recipients who need the most help. In addition, extending Welfare-to-
Work will become even more important when TANF recipients and their
children reach welfare time limits in 19 states by year's end and have
their benefits reduced or completely removed.
These are the hard luck cases, Mr. President. These are the people
who continue to be left out of the economic boom of the 1990s. And
these are the people whom Welfare-to-Work was designed to help. If we
let the program expire this year, even if states have three years from
the date of award to spend their program funds, we will be saying to
these people, ``We've forgotten the promises we made to you in 1996
that we would continue to help you. Now, there is no more help for
you.''
This would be particularly harmful in my state of Hawaii which has
struggled due to the Asian financial crisis and has been the only state
where welfare rolls have increased. Welfare-to-Work has assisted many
of Hawaii's welfare recipients through this period of financial
hardship for the state by helping them find unsubsidized employment.
The program must be extended so that it may help other recipients and
their families in my beleaguered state.
My bill not only extends the Welfare-to-Work program, but it also
makes a number of important improvements to the program that states,
counties, and cities have requested. Currently, most funds allocated to
Welfare-to-Work state formula grants cannot be used because of
eligibility criteria that are difficult to meet. Currently, an
individual must have been receiving assistance for at least 30 months
or must be within 12 months of reaching the maximum period for
assistance. In addition, they must have two of three characteristics,
including: lacks a high school diploma or GED and has low math or
reading skills; has a poor work history; or requires substance abuse
treatment for employment. These criteria have excluded many TANF
applicants who, for instance, may have a GED or high school diploma but
still cannot read; these criteria have proven unrealistic.
Instead, under my bill, criteria would be changed to require
participants to have one out of seven characteristics: lacks a high
school diploma or GED; has English reading writing, or computer skills
at or below the 8th grade level; has a poor work history; requires
substance abuse treatment for employment; is homeless; has a
disability; or is a victim of domestic violence. This revision in
eligibility criteria would allow the program to better match the
participant pool. It is necessary because current criteria have left
more than 90 percent of Welfare-to-Work state formula grants unspent.
In Hawaii alone, only 37 percent of our TANF recipients have been
eligible to participate in the program, and this figure would double
under my bill. Furthermore, officials of the Hawaii Department of Human
Services which administers TANF and Welfare-to-Work in my state predict
that unless the Federal law is changed, it is unlikely that they will
be able to refer clients in sufficient numbers to meet WtW
expectations. Similar situations exist in all states, and these
criteria revisions respond to State and local entities that have been
doing the work of Welfare-to-Work and want to serve as many
participants as possible. In Texas, 21,000 people would be able to
participate in the program, according to the U.S. Department of Labor.
Under my bill, figures like this could be seen across the nation, and
more people in need would be able to find employment.
A related improvement contained in my bill is that it transfers any
unallocated Welfare-to-Work formula grant funds into the competitive
grant program. This competitive grant program has been tremendously
popular.
Out of the 1400 applications submitted requesting a total of $5
billion, only 126 applications for $470 million in funds were awarded
in FY 1998. This portion of Welfare-to-Work needs more funding. Under
my bill, preference is given to grant applications submitted from
states that did not receive a formula grant.
Mr. President, my bill also provides a re-emphasis on the whole
family. This past Father's Day, I had the opportunity to celebrate with
several of my children and their families, as it was a day to celebrate
and honor the family. However, many fathers were not as fortunate as
myself and were not able to celebrate with their children because they
went through divorce and did not receive custody of the children. Even
worse, many of these fathers are dismissively labeled ``dead beat
dads'' because they are not a presence in their children's lives and do
not pay child support. What we have found, Mr. President, is that many
of these fathers do not want to abandon their children. Rather, they
are ``dead broke dads'' and face the same barriers to finding and
holding employment that many welfare mothers do. This prevents them
from fulfilling child support obligations, which many want to do. If
these fathers can provide for their children, they will be more likely
to see them more often. Hopefully, renewed financial and emotional
involvement of fathers will mean that these children's lives will
improve.
For these non-custodial fathers, my bill will make it easier for them
to participate in Welfare-to-Work. Currently, non-custodial parents
face the same problems in attempting to qualify for Welfare-to-Work as
other applicants because of the same overly-restrictive criteria. Under
my bill, the eligibility requirements for non-custodial parents will be
revised to allow them to demonstrate that they are unemployed,
underemployed, or having difficulty paying child support payments. In
addition, at least one of the following characteristics must apply to
the minor child or non-custodial parent: the child or non-custodial
parent has been on public assistance for over 30 months, or is within
12 months of becoming ineligible for TANF due to a time limit; the
child is receiving or eligible for TANF; the child has left TANF within
the past year; or the child is receiving or is eligible for
food stamps, Supplemental Security Income (SSI), Medicaid, or the
Children's Health Improvement Program (CHIP).
The bill increases funding for non-custodial parents by requiring
that at least 20 percent of state formula funds be used for this
population. The bill also provides that a non-custodial parent will
enter into an individual responsibility contract with the service
provider and state agency to say that he or she will cooperate in the
establishment of paternity and in the establishment or modification of
a child support order, make regular child support payments, and find
and hold a job. These revisions are an attempt to permit and encourage
non-custodial parents to provide for their children, become more
involved in their children's lives, and pursue better lives for
themselves and their families.
Mr. President, Native American communities will benefit from my bill
from a doubling of the Native American set-aside from $15 million to
$30 million. This funding increase in necessary because Native
Americans currently receive one percent of the total Welfare-to-Work
funds but serve 3.2 percent of total program participants, according to
a recent U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Welfare-to-Work
Evaluation. In recognition of their sovereignty, the bill also provides
Native American tribes with flexibility in designing programs that are
effective for their territories. It is a gross understatement to say
that our Native
[[Page
S8092]]
American communities have not had the chance to experience the economic
success that our nation has been enjoying. We must do what we can to
make up for this shortfall, fulfill our Federal responsibilities to
Native Americans, and help families and children in Native American
communities who face obstacles to self-sufficiency.
Mr. President, children who leave foster care at age 18 make up
another hard-to-help population that faces numerous barriers to
employment. My bill introduces new support for these individuals when
they attempt to start out on their own by allowing them to take
advantage of Welfare-to-Work programs. According to DOL, 20,000
children leave foster care annually. Of these, 32 to 40 percent receive
some type of government assistance within the first 18 months after
leaving the foster care system. This bill provides funds to help them
find alternatives to welfare as they leave their state care system.
My bill simplifies Welfare-to-Work reporting requirements so that the
program can be evaluated effectively. This evaluation will allow
Congress and DOL access to better statistics on how the program is
performing nationwide. In addition, one-percent of the funds are
provided for technical assistance so that DOL can ensure cooperation
between states, local governments, TANF and child support agencies, and
community-based organizations so
Major Actions:
All articles in Senate section
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
(Senate - July 01, 1999)
Text of this article available as:
TXT
PDF
[Pages S8085-
S8140]
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
By Mr. HOLLINGS:
S. 1312. A bill to ensure full and expeditious enforcement of the
provisions of the Communications Act of 1934 that seek to bring about
competition in local telecommunications markets, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
the telecommunications competition enforcement act of 1999
Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I rise to introduce,
S. 1312, the
Telecommunications Competition Enforcement Act of 1999.
The United States has a telecommunications system that is unequaled.
We have worked hard to ensure that consumers in all parts of the
country have access to this system and enjoy services at an affordable
price. Therefore, when the Bell companies asked us to allow them to
enter the long distance market, it was with great caution that we began
to develop policies that would change the existing framework. We did
not want to jeopardize existing service as we phased in competition
into local markets and allowed local phone companies to enter the long
distance market.
Bell companies worked with Congress to create the fourteen point
checklist and they celebrated the passage of the 1996 Act. They then
filed applications with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to
enter the long distance market. However, the FCC found that the Bell
companies had not opened their local markets to competition, and
therefore, under the 1996 Act, could not enter the long distance
market. Once the Bell companies realized that they were not going to
get into the long distance market before they complied with the 1996
Act, they began a strategy of litigation to delay competition into
their local markets and hold on to their monopolies. They appealed the
FCC's decisions to the Court of Appeals and challenged the
constitutionality of the Act taking their case to the Supreme Court.
Having lost in those forums they have now come to Congress seeking
changes to the Act that only three years ago they championed. As a
result bills have been introduced in the Senate and the House that
significantly amend the 1996 Act, harm competition in the local
markets, and slow the delivery of advanced, affordable services to
consumers.
Therefore, I introduce this legislation as part of a continuing
effort to promote competition in the local telecommunications markets.
I am frustrated by the broken promises of the Bell companies given that
not a single Bell company has adequately opened its local phone market
to competition since the enactment of the Telecommunications Act of
1996. According to wall street analysts, as of the end of last year new
entrants had only 2.5 percent of all access lines while Bell companies
and incumbent local exchange carriers continued to control over 97
percent of those lines into the home.
Three years ago when we passed the 1996 Act, Bell companies
proclaimed that they would open their markets immediately and begin
competing. In fact, they and their lawyers helped write the 14 point
checklist--their roadmap into the long distance market in their region.
All these companies have to do to provide long distance service in
their regions is to follow that roadmap and meet the requirements of
Section 271.
I remember the excitement by the local phone companies at the time of
the 1996 Act. On March 5, 1996, Bell South-Alabama President, Neal
Travis, stated that the ``Telecommunications Act now means that
consumers will have more choices . . . We are going full speed ahead .
. . and within a year or so we can offer [long distance] to our
residential and business wireline customers.''
And, on February 8, 1996, USWest's President of Long Distance,
Richard Coleman, issued this statement: ``The Inter-LATA long distance
potential is a tremendous business opportunity for USWest. Customers
have made it clear they want one-stop shopping for both their local and
long distance service. We are preparing to give them exactly what
they've been asking for.'' He went on to predict that USWest would meet
the 14 point checklist in a majority of its states within 12-18 months.
Ameritech's chief executive office, Richard Notebaert February 1,
1996,
[[Page
S8086]]
noted his support of the 1996 Act by stating that, ``[t]he real open
competition this bill promotes will bring customers more choices,
competitive prices and better quality services . . . [T]his bill will
rank as one of the most important and far-reaching pieces of federal
legislation passed this decade . . . It offers a comprehensive
communications policy, solidly grounded in the principles of the
competitive marketplace. It's truly a framework for the information
age.''
Those were the statements of the local phone companies in 1996. What
has happened since then? The answer is very little. In fact, rather
than meet their promises, the local phone companies were in federal
court challenging the FCC's implementation of the Act less than one
year after its enactment. In addition, only five applications for
Section 271 relief have been filed at the FCC--and none have met the
requirements of section 271. On more than one occasion, the FCC's
decision to deny a 271 application has been upheld by the D.C. Circuit
Court. One of the regional Bell companies even challenged the
constitutionality of section 271--a challenge the court of appeals
denied and the Supreme Court refused to hear. Today, there are no 271
applications on file at the FCC and not a single application has been
presented to the FCC since July 1998.
What this means for the customer is that the choice and the local
competition we tried to create with the passage of the
Telecommunications Act has been thwarted by the very companies that
promised to compete. Instead, they have chosen to litigate, complain,
and combine. Just two days ago, the Chairman of the FCC decided to
grant SBC and Ameritech approval to merge their operations. In
permitting the merger to go forward, the FCC has conditioned approval
on future performance--performance which SBC has not met in the three
years since the passage of the 1996 Act. In fact, on the same day
conditional approval of the SBC and Ameritech merger was announced, SBC
agreed to pay $1.3 million to settle disputes surrounding alleged
violations of sections of the 1996 Act dealing with the provision of
long distance service. One company will now control one-third of all
access lines in the United States even though its market is not open to
competition. Competition again becomes a casualty of the unwillingness
of Bell companies, to open their markets and let go of their
monopolies.
Today, there are companies seeking to connect to the Bell networks
and provide service to consumers. However, these companies often times
experience significant difficulties in obtaining access to these
networks. Thus, while I applaud the efforts of the competitive local
exchange carriers, long distance carriers, and the cable industry to
provide facilities-based local competition, I must express my
disappointment that not a single regional bell operating company has
sufficiently opened its markets to competition.
Since the beginning of this Congress, many of the Bell companies have
been meeting with Senators and Representatives, often accompanied by
the same lawyers who helped write the Telecommunications Act. But this
time their message is different. They are asking us to change the rules
of the game. They now want to offer lucrative high-speed data services
for long distance customers without first having to open their local
markets to competition. They maintain that they should be permitted to
continue their hold on the local customer as they provide data services
because the 1996 Act did not contemplate the provision of such
services. To state it plainly--they are wrong. The Telecommunications
Act clearly contemplated the provision of advanced services--data and
otherwise. In fact, the Act had an entire section dedicated to
promoting the development and deployment of advanced services. To quote
the Act, ``advanced telecommunications capability'' is defined as
``high-speed switched, broadband telecommunications capability that
enables users to originate and receive high-quality voice, data,
graphics, and video telecommunications using any technology.''
Regardless, nothing in the 1996 Act prevents phone companies from
providing high speed data services to consumers inside and outside
their region. They are already providing DSL service to customers
inside their region. And, under the 1996 Act, Bell companies can
provide long distance service in their region once they open their
local markets. We must hold to this principle if we want consumers to
have a choice of service providers. In fact, a number of Bell companies
are working to meet Section 271 requirements. I applaud those attempts
which, if successful, will ultimately provide new and innovative
services at low prices to consumers.
Therefore, I reject their proposed legislative solutions, and
instead, forward a different proposal. By 2001, five years will have
passed since the Telecommunications Act became law. I believe, it is
reasonable to expect Bell companies to have at least one-half of their
markets in their region open to competition by 2001 and all of their
markets in their region open to competition by 2003. The legislation
that I introduce today accomplishs just that. My bill requires the
Federal Communications Commission to assess a forfeiture penalty of
$100,000 per day if a Bell operating company has not met the section
271 checklist in at least half of the states in its region by February
8, 2001--the five year anniversary of President Clinton signing the
Telecommunications Act into law. Moreover, if the FCC finds that a Bell
operating company has not met the section 271 checklist throughout its
region by February 8, 2003, the Commission is required to order the
company to divest its telecommunications network facilities within six
months, in states in which it is not in compliance with the checklist.
With respect to non-Bell incumbent local exchange carriers with more
than 5 percent of the access lines in the nation, the Commission, upon
the petition of any interested party, is required to investigate
whether the carrier's markets are open to competition to determine
whether such carrier has complied with the interconnection requirements
of the Act. A determination that such an incumbent local exchange
company has not opened its markets shall result in a $50,000 per day
forfeiture penalty, to be imposed by the FCC, if the company does not
come into compliance within 60 days. In addition, the FCC shall order
the company to cease and desist in marketing and selling long distance
services to new customers, if it has not complied within the 60 day
grace period.
Lastly, to protect competition once the Bell companies have met the
section 271 checklist requirements, this bill provides the FCC with
additional enforcement tools. If, at some point after meeting the
checklist requirements, a Bell company fails to meet one or more
provisions of the checklist, the FCC shall impose a forfeiture penalty
of $100,000 for each day of the continuing violation. Moreover, if,
after meeting the checklist requirements, the Bell company willfully,
knowing, and repeatedly fails to meet one or more provisions of the
checklist, the FCC shall require the Bell company, within 180 days, to
divest its telecommunications network facilities in states in which the
repeated violations have occurred.
While these penalties may appear severe, severe action needs to be
taken to force dominant market providers to open their markets to
competition. During the debate over the Telecommunications Act, we did
not include such a strong approach. Rather, we settled on a rational
and reasonable set of procedures--endorsed by the local phone
monoplies--that provided incentives to open their local markets while
preserving the integrity of the premier communications networks in the
world. That approach seemed particularly palatable in light of the
statements issued at the time of enactment of the 1996 Act by the local
phone companies promising an early opening of the local phone market
pursuant to the requirements of the Section 271 checklist.
Today, our communications networks remain the envy of the world and
the development of innovative advanced services is accelerating
rapidly. Unfortunately, the rollout of those services on a competitive
basis to all Americans is being thwarted by the failure of Bell
companies to open their markets to competition. Those same monopolists
told us their markets
[[Page
S8087]]
would be open months ago. This legislation seeks to hold them to their
word.
I ask consent that a summary of the bill be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the summary was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
The Telecommunications Competition Enforcement Act of 1999
SUMMARY
A Bell Operating Company (BOC) is required to meet the
market opening requirements of the section 271 checklist of
the Telecommunications Act of 1996 for half of the states in
its region by February 8, 2001. The FCC is required to assess
a forfeiture penalty of $100,000 for each day a BOC is in
violation of this requirement.
A BOC is required to meet the market opening requirements
of the section 271 checklist of the Telecommunications Act of
1996 for all the states in its region by February 8, 2003.
The FCC is required to order a BOC to divest its
telecommunications network facilities within 180 days in
which it is in violation of this requirement.
Upon petition by any interested party, the FCC is directed
to investigate whether incumbent local exchange carriers
(ILEC) with more than 5 percent of the nation's access lines
(that are not Bell Companies) have opened their markets to
competition pursuant to Section 251(c) of the
Telecommunications Act of 1996.
Upon a determination that such ILECs are not in full
compliance with Section 251(c), the FCC shall set forth the
reasons for non-compliance and grant 60 days for the ILEC to
come into full compliance. Absent such compliance after that
60 day period, the FCC is required to assess a civil
forfeiture penalty of $50,000 for each day of the continuing
violation and order the company to cease and desist in
marketing and selling long distance services to new
customers.
If upon meeting the checklist requirements, a BOC fails to
meet one or more provisions of the checklist, the FCC shall
impose a forfeiture of $100,000 for each day of the
continuing violation. If upon meeting the checklist
requirements, the BOC knowingly, willfully, and repeatedly
fails to meet one or more provisions of the checklist, the
FCC shall require the BOC, to divest its telecommunications
network facilities, within 180 days, in states in which
repeated violations have occurred.
JUSTIFICATION
The Telecommunications Act of 1996 required Bell Operating
Companies (BOCs) to open their markets to competition. Yet,
not a single BOC has met the market opening requirements of
the Section 271 checklist. No Section 271 applications have
been filed at the FCC since July of 1998. Only five
applications have been filed since 1996--none of which
complied with Section 271.
In the three years since enactment, however, the BOCs have
pursued a strategy of stonewalling and litigation that has
delayed implementation of the critical interconnection,
unbundling, collocation, and resale requirements of the Act.
Now, BOCs are seeking legislative relief from the pro-
competitive provisions of the Telecommunications Act. They
argue that they will provide rural America with advanced
communications services, but only if they are allowed to
provide long distance service to their current customers. The
truth is that BOCs can provide advanced services today.
However, to get into the long distance market, they must open
their local markets to competition. This bill provides an
incentive for them to do just that.
By requiring a date certain by which the local phone
monopolies must open their markets, and by accompanying that
requirement with federal enforcement authority, we can be
assured that American consumers will obtain the benefits of
local competition.
______
By Mr. LEAHY (for himself, Mr. DeWINE, and Mr. ROBB):
S. 1314. A bill to establish a grant program to assist State and
local law enforcement in deterring, investigating, and prosecuting
computer crimes; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
computer crime enforcement act
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce the Computer
Crime Enforcement Act. This legislation establishes a Department of
Justice grant program to support state and local law enforcement
officers and prosecutors to prevent, investigate and prosecute computer
crime. I am pleased that Senator DeWine, with whom I worked closely and
successfully last year on the Crime Identification Technology Act, and
Senator Robb, who has long been a leader on law enforcement issues,
support this bill as original cosponsors.
Computer crime is quickly emerging as one of today's top challenges
for state and local law enforcement officials. A recent survey by the
FBI and the Computer Security Institute found that 62% of information
security professionals reported computer security breaches in the past
year. These breaches in computer security resulted in financial losses
of more than $120 million from fraud, theft of proprietary information,
sabotage, computer viruses and stolen laptops. Computer crime has
become a multi-billion dollar problem.
I am proud to report that the States, including my home state of
Vermont, are reacting to the increase in computer crime by enacted
tough computer crime control laws. For example, Vermont's new law makes
certain acts against computers illegal, such as: accessing any computer
system or data without permission; accessing a computer to commit
fraud, remove, destroy or copy data or deny access to the data;
damaging or interfering with the operation of the computer system or
data; and stealing or destroying any computer data or system. These
state laws establish a firm groundwork for electronic commerce, an
increasingly important sector of the Vermont economy and of the
nation's economy. Now all fifty states have enacted some type of
computer crime statute.
Unfortunately, too many state and local law enforcement agencies are
struggling to afford the high cost of enforcing their state computer
crime statute. The Computer Crime Enforcement Act would provide a
helping hand by authorizing a $25 million grant program to help the
states receive Federal funding for improved education, training,
enforcement and prosecution of computer crime. Our bill will help
states take a byte out of computer crime.
Congress has recognized the importance of providing state and local
law enforcement officers with the means necessary to prevent and combat
cyber attacks and other computer crime through the FBI's Computer
Analysis and Response Team (CART) Program and the National
Infrastructure Protection Center. Our legislation would enhance that
Federal role by providing each state with much-needed resources to join
Federal law enforcement officials in collaborative efforts to fight
computer crime.
In Vermont, for instance, only half a dozen law enforcement officers
among the more than 900 officers in the state have been trained in
investigating computer crimes and analyzing cyber evidence. As
Detective Michael Schirling of the Chittenden Unit for Special
Investigations recently observed in my home state: ``The bad guys are
using computers at a rate that's exponentially greater than our ability
to respond to the problem.'' Without the necessary educational
training, technical support, and coordinated information, our law
enforcement officials will be hamstrung in their efforts to crack down
on computer crime.
Computers have ushered in a new age filled with unlimited potential
for good. But the computer age has also ushered in new challenges for
our state and local law enforcement officers. Let's provide our state
and local partners in crime fighting with the resources that they need
in the battle against computer crime.
I urge my colleagues to support the Computer Crime Enforcement Act
and its quick passage into law.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the Computer
Crime Enforcement Act be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 1314
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 ``Computer Crime Enforcement
Act''.
SEC. 2. STATE GRANT PROGRAM FOR TRAINING AND PROSECUTION OF
COMPUTER CRIMES.
(a) In General.--Subject to the availability of amounts
provided in advance in appropriations Acts, the Office of
Justice Programs shall make a grant to each State, which
shall be used by the State, in conjunction with units of
local government, State and local courts, other States, or
combinations thereof, to--
(1) assist State and local law enforcement in enforcing
State and local criminal laws relating to computer crime;
(2) assist State and local law enforcement in educating the
public to prevent and identify computer crime;
(3) assist in educating and training State and local law
enforcement officers and prosecutors to conduct
investigations and forensic analyses of evidence and
prosecutions of computer crime;
[[Page
S8088]]
(4) assist State and local law enforcement officers and
prosecutors in acquiring computer and other equipment to
conduct investigations and forensic analysis of evidence of
computer crimes; and
(5) facilitate and promote the sharing of Federal law
enforcement expertise and information about the
investigation, analysis, and prosecution of computer crimes
with State and local law enforcement officers and
prosecutors, including the use of multijurisdictional task
forces.
(b) Use of Grant Amounts.--Grants under this section may be
used to establish and develop programs to--
(1) assist State and local law enforcement in enforcing
State and local criminal laws relating to computer crime;
(2) assist State and local law enforcement in educating the
public to prevent and identify computer crime;
(3) educate and train State and local law enforcement
officers and prosecutors to conduct investigations and
forensic analyses of evidence and prosecutions of computer
crime;
(4) assist State and local law enforcement officers and
prosecutors in acquiring computer and other equipment to
conduct investigations and forensic analysis of evidence of
computer crimes; and
(5) facilitate and promote the sharing of Federal law
enforcement expertise and information about the
investigation, analysis, and prosecution of computer crimes
with State and local law enforcement officers and
prosecutors, including the use of multijurisdictional task
forces.
(c) Assurances.--To be eligible to receive a grant under
this section, a State shall provide assurances to the
Attorney General that the State--
(1) has in effect laws that penalize computer crime, such
as penal laws prohibiting--
(A) fraudulent schemes executed by means of a computer
system or network;
(B) the unlawful damaging, destroying, altering, deleting,
removing of computer software, or data contained in a
computer, computer system, computer program, or computer
network; or
(C) the unlawful interference with the operation of or
denial of access to a computer, computer program, computer
system, or computer network;
(2) an assessment of the State and local resource needs,
including criminal justice resources being devoted to the
investigation and enforcement of computer crime laws; and
(3) a plan for coordinating the programs funded under this
section with other federally funded technical assistant and
training programs, including directly funded local programs
such as the Local Law Enforcement Block Grant program
(described under the heading ``Violent Crime Reduction
Programs, State and Local Law Enforcement Assistance'' of the
Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary,
and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1998 (Public Law
105-119)).
(d) Matching Funds.--The Federal share of a grant received
under this section may not exceed 90 percent of the costs of
a program or proposal funded under this section unless the
Attorney General waives, wholly or in part, the requirements
of this subsection.
(e) Authorization of Appropriations.--
(1) In general.--There is authorized to be appropriated to
carry out this section $25,000,000 for each of fiscal years
2000 through 2003.
(2) Limitations.--Of the amount made available to carry out
this section in any fiscal year not more than 3 percent may
be used by the Attorney General for salaries and
administrative expenses.
(3) Minimum amount.--Unless all eligible applications
submitted by any State or unit of local government within
such State for a grant under this section have been funded,
such State, together with grantees within the State (other
than Indian tribes), shall be allocated in each fiscal year
under this section not less than 0.75 percent of the total
amount appropriated in the fiscal year for grants pursuant to
this section, except that the United States Virgin Islands,
American Samoa, Guam, and the Northern Mariana Islands each
shall be allocated 0.25 percent.
(f) Grants to Indian Tribes.--Notwithstanding any other
provision of this section, the Attorney General may use
amounts made available under this section to make grants to
Indian tribes for use in accordance with this section.
______
By Mr. BINGAMAN:
S. 1315. A bill to permit the leasing of oil and gas rights on
certain lands held in trust for the Navajo Nation or allotted to a
member of the Navajo Nation, in any case in which there is consent from
a specified percentage interest in the parcel of land under
consideration for lease; to the Committee on Indian Affairs.
fractionated lands
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise to talk about a bill that I have
sent to the desk. It relates to a very serious problem faced by a large
number of Navajo people in my State. The issue is referred to as
``fractionated lands.''
Around the turn of the century, the Federal Government attempted to
force Indian people to assimilate by breaking up traditional tribal
lands and allotting parcels of the land to individual tribal members.
In New Mexico, this policy created what is known as the
``checkerboard,'' because alternating tracts of land are now owned by
individual Navajos, the state, the federal government, or private
landowners. A Navajo allotment was generally 160 acres. Under the
allotment system, the Navajo owner was granted an undivided interest in
the entire parcel. The heirs of the original owner also inherit an
undivided interest, geometrically compounding--or fractionating--the
number of owners of the original 160 acres.
This allotment policy, coupled with other federal laws governing
Indian land ownership, land management, and probate, have not served
the Navajo people well during this century. I am introducing
legislation today to help address this problem.
Mr. President, I'd like to take a few minutes to illustrate why the
legislation I am proposing is needed. If a Navajo was allotted a 160-
acre parcel and had four heirs, the heirs did not inherit 40 acres each
when the original owner died. Rather, each heir inherited a 25 percent
undivided interest in the full 160-acre allotment. Going forward, when
the current four owners died, assuming again four heirs each, sixteen
heirs inherited a 6.25 percent undivided interest in the allotment. The
next generation would result in 64 heirs each with a 1.5625 percent
undivided interest. And so forth.
What makes this situation so unique is that each heir inherits an
undivided interest in the allotment. Over time, individual owners may
inherit tiny fractions in many different allotments around the
reservation. In my state, there are about 4,000 individual allotments
covering nearly 700,000 acres. At this point, these 4,000 Navajo
allotments have a total of 40,000 listed owners, and the number grows
every day. It doesn't take a Ph.D. in math to figure out what's wrong
with this policy.
Mr. President, in April I held a town meeting with Navajo allottees
in Nageezi, New Mexico, a small chapter house in the Northeast section
of the Navajo Reservation. The allottees talked about the serious
problems that fractionated ownership has caused. Over 100 members of
the Navajo Nation came from as far away as Aneth, Utah, to speak at the
meeting. As you know, the Navajo Nation extends into three states, New
Mexico, Arizona and Utah, and there are allottees living in all three
states.
Record keeping of individual land ownership has become a nightmare.
In many cases, owners can no longer be located. Also, ownership can be
clouded when an owner dies without a legal will--a common situation in
Indian Country.
Some individuals do not even realize they own one or more of these
allotments. Often, individuals are surprised to find out that they are
an heir to an allotment on another reservation.
Mr. President, we all recognize there are serious problems with BIA's
management of its trust responsibilities for allotted lands in New
Mexico. The management problems were brought out very clearly at a
joint Senate hearing in March. The hearing also revealed the extent to
which the government's allotment policy contributed to BIA's current
trust management problems.
On the Navajo reservation, a three-year pilot project is underway in
Farmington, New Mexico, to try to unravel some of the management
problems with allotted Navajo lands. This project, called the
Farmington Indian Minerals Office, or FIMO, is trying to cut through
the red tape created by three different Bureaus in the Department of
Interior, BIA, BLM, and MMS, which share responsibility for management
of allotted lands. The FIMO has worked hard to assist Navajo allottees
determine who their fellow allottees are and what land each allottee
owns. I support the efforts of FIMO. If this legislation is passed,
FIMO could accomplish even more on behalf of the Navajo allottees in
the three states.
Mr. President, over the years, Congress has tried to deal with the
problem of fractionated lands, and has failed every time. The long
history of trust management problems is not going to be corrected
quickly. Developing and implementing a comprehensive solution is going
to take time. The Indian Land Working Group is one of
[[Page
S8089]]
the leaders in this area and has submitted a proposal for Congress to
consider. I applaud the efforts of Senators Campbell and Inouye and the
members of the Indian Affairs Committee for taking on this difficult
issue. Some of the proposals include improved record keeping, probate
and estate planning programs, and new processes for consolidating
fractionated lands. I look forward to working with the Committee to
craft a comprehensive solution.
While the larger issue of fractionated ownership is being considered
by the Senate, I believe it is appropriate to consider a stop-gap
measure to help stimulate near-term economic development on
fractionated Navajo lands. There is an abundance of oil and gas beneath
the Navajo allotments, yet the allottees are unable to benefit from
this wealth because of federal laws that make it very difficult for
Indian allottees to lease their land. To illustrate, during the last 12
years, $7 million in leasing bonuses has been paid to the state and
federal government for leases in the checkerboard region of New Mexico,
while only $27,000 has been paid to owners of Navajo allotments.
The problem lies in the 1909 Mineral Leasing Act. The Act requires
all persons who have an undivided interest in any particular parcel to
consent to its lease. In the case of Navajo allottees, 100 percent of
the allottees must consent to a lease of their land. Because of the
fractionated land problem, obtaining 100 percent consent is often
impossible because many owners cannot be located. Consequently, the
Navajo allottees are precluded from the beneficial use of their land.
The bill I am introducing today will facilitate the leasing of Navajo
allotted land for oil and gas development. In the case of non-Indians,
most states already allow mineral leases with less than 100 percent
consent of the owners as long as all persons who own an interest
receive the benefits from the lease. My bill simply extends similar
benefits to Navajo allottees. The bill would authorize the Secretary of
the Interior to approve an oil or gas lease connected to Navajo
allotted land when less than 100 percent of the owners consent to such
a lease. A similar bill was passed in the 105th Congress to facilitate
mineral leasing of allotted lands on the Ft. Berthold Reservation in
North Dakota.
My bill proposes a graded system for lease approval. In situations
where there are 10 or fewer owners of an allotment, 100 percent of the
owners must consent to a lease. However, where there exists 11 to 50
owners of an allotment, only 80 percent of the owners need consent.
And, with more than 50 owners, 60 percent consent would be required.
This graded system was suggested by the Navajo allottees.
Mr. President, unemployment on the Navajo Reservation now exceeds 50
percent. The opportunities for economic development on this land are
few. It is not appropriate for the federal government to continue to
deprive the legal owners of Navajo allotted lands the option to develop
their land as they choose. This bill is a small step toward correcting
the mistakes of the past and a bigger step towards providing economic
prosperity for future generations of Navajo allottees.
The bill has the support of the Navajo Nation and the Shii Shi Keyah,
the principal Navajo Allottees' Association.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a resolution from the
Shii Shi Keyah Association and a letter from the Navajo Nation be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Shii Shi Keyah Association Resolution of the Board of Directors
Whereas, the Board of Directors of Shii Shi Keyah
Association (``SSKA''), an unincorporated association of
Navajos who have ownership interests in allotments on or near
the Navajo Reservation, generally referred to as Navajo
Indian Country, has considered a number of issues relating to
oil and gas rights and revenues which require its attention;
Whereas, United States Senator Jeff Bingaman will introduce
in the 106th Congress, 1st Session, a bill which begins ``To
permit the leasing of oil and gas rights on certain lands in
New Mexico held in trust for the Navajo Tribe or allotted to
a member of the Navajo Tribe, in any case in which there is
consent from a specified percentage interest in the parcel of
land under consideration for issue;''
Be it Resolved that SSKA will support Senator Bingaman's
bill if it is amended to include the states of Utah and
Arizona.
certification
The foregoing Resolution was adopted by the Board of
Directors of Shii Shi Keyah Association of Bloomfield, NM
with no votes against and no abstentions at a regular meeting
of the Board held on June 4, 1999.
____
The Navajo Nation,
Washington, DC, May 18, 1999.
Re: Proposed Bill to Permit the Leasing of Oil and Gas Rights
on Certain Lands in New Mexico Held in Trust for the
Navajo Tribe or Allotted to a Member of the Navajo Tribe,
in any Case in which There Is Consent from a Specified
Percentage Interest in the Parcel of Land under
Consideration for Lease
Hon. Jeff Bingaman,
U.S. Senate,
Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
Senator Bingaman: Thank you for scheduling the April 8,
1999 meeting at the Nageezi Chapter. The Navajo Nation
appreciates your interest in the problems faced by Navajo
people regarding their allotted lands in northwestern New
Mexico.
The Navajo Nation supports your efforts toward solving the
problems engendered by increasingly fractionated interests
held by Navajo individuals in allotted lands. We support the
intent of the bill, provided that it is supported by a
consensus of Navajo individuals that will be affected. In
addition, we can support most of the particulars of the bill,
although the Navajo Nation would request some minor revisions
to the bill before it is introduced, as explained below.
Initially, we are concerned whether a consensus of affected
Navajo individuals support the proposed bill. The Navajo
Nation is concerned that the Shii Shi Keyah Association
apparently opposes the bill, as indicated in a letter to you
dated March 11, 1999 from the Association's attorney, Alan R.
Taradash, copy attached. We understand that the Shii Shi
Keyah Association is a respected organization comprised of
Navajo individuals numbering in the thousands.
The approach suggested by Mr. Taradash, the conveyance of
fractionated interests into family trusts, appears to have
much to commend it. However, we are not sure that the family
trust approach and the approach reflected in the proposed
bill are mutually exclusive. The Navajo Nation
respectfully requests that your office continue to work
with affected Navajo individuals to assure that the bill
reflects the best approach or combination of approaches to
solve the problems facing those individuals. The Navajo
Nation would be happy to work with your office in this
regard, and stands ready to provide any assistance your
office may need.
In addition, the Navajo Nation is very concerned with the
effect of section 1(b)(3)(A) of the proposed legislation,
which would appear to make the Navajo Nation a party to any
lease of oil and gas rights in allotted lands in which it
might own a minority interest. While the Navajo Nation has no
objection to any minority interest it might hold being leased
in accordance with the provisions of the bill, if that is the
approach that a consensus of affected Navajo individuals
support, the Navajo Nation must opposed being made a party to
any such lease. The Navajo Nation has very deliberate
policies and requirements regarding terms and conditions in
leases to which it is a party. In the present judicial
climate, lease terms and conditions can have a profound
effect on the sovereignty of an Indian nation. Therefore, we
must respectfully request that section 1(b)(3) of the bill be
changed to read in its entirety as follows:
``(3) Effect of approval.--On approval by the Secretary
under paragraph (1), an oil or gas lease or agreement shall
be binding upon each of the beneficial owners that have
consented in writing to the lease or agreement and upon all
other parties to the lease or agreement and shall be binding
upon the entire undivided interest in a Navajo Indian
allotted land covered under the lease or agreement.''
Finally, the Navajo Nation respectfully requests that all
references to the ``Navajo Tribe'' be changed to refer to the
``Navajo Nation,'' and that the reference be deleted in
section 1(a)(3) to the Navajo Nation as ``including the
Alamo, Ramah and Canoncito bands of Navajo Indians.'' The
Term ``Navajo Nation'' is the legal name of the Navajo
Nation, and by Navajo Nation statute is preferred over the
term ``Navajo Tribe.'' We must object to the reference to the
three bands (but not others) because of the possible negative
inference that there exists some ambiguity as to whether such
bands are constituent parts of the Navajo Nation. There is no
such ambiguity now, and we wish to avoid creating any. The
reference can safely be deleted without causing any
uncertainty in the definition.
Unfortunately, fractionated interests remains a significant
problem within the Navajo Nation, as we understand it is also
within our Indian nations. The Navajo Nation would like to
work your office and with other members of Congress on
comprehensive, long-term solution to this problem. If you
have any questions, or need additional information, please
contact the Navajo Nation Washington Office.
Sincerely,
Estelle J. Bowman,
Executive Director.
[[Page
S8090]]
______
By Mr. AKAKA (for himself, Mr. Moynihan, Mrs. Feinstein, Mr.
Wellstone, Mrs. Murray, and Mr. Lautenberg):
S. 1317. A bill to reauthorize the Welfare-to-Work program to provide
additional resources and flexibility to improve the administration of
the program; to the Committee on Finance.
welfare-to-work amendments of 1999
Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise to introduce a bill that would
continue a program vital to helping welfare recipients who face the
greatest barriers to finding and securing employment, called the
Welfare-to-Work Amendments of 1999. My bill targets resources to
families and communities with the greatest need, simplifies eligibility
criteria for participation, and helps non-custodial parents get jobs to
enable them to make child support payments. It also opens more
resources to Native Americans, the homeless, those with disabilities or
substance abuse problems, and victims of domestic violence. This is
similar to a proposal unveiled by the Clinton Administration earlier
this year and introduced as
H.R. 1482 by Representative Benjamin Cardin
of Maryland. I would also like to thank my colleagues Senators
Moynihan, Feinstein, Wellstone, Murray, and Lautenberg for joining me
as original cosponsors of my bill.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a letter which I received
from the Secretary of Labor, Alexis Herman, be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
Secretary of Labor,
Washington, July 1, 1999.
Hon. Daniel K. Akaka,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Akaka: I congratulate you on the introduction
of the ``Welfare-to-Work Amendments of 1999.'' I am pleased
that your legislation joins that introduced by Rep. Benjamin
Cardin earlier this year in the House in seeking to
accomplish the Administration's objectives in reauthorizing
the Welfare-to-Work (WtW) Grants Program. President Clinton
and I believe the Welfare-to-Work Grants Program is a key
component of the overall welfare reform effort. While welfare
caseloads have declined by nearly half over the last six
years, many individuals remaining on welfare are long-term
recipients who face significant barriers to employment. As
the President said in his April 10th radio address, ``We
can't finish the job of welfare reform without doing more to
help people who have the hardest time moving from welfare to
work--those who live in the poorest neighborhoods and have
the poorest job skills. That's why I call on Congress to pass
my plan to extend the Department of Labor's Welfare-to-Work
program.''
This legislation incorporates the President's proposal to
extend the WtW Program, reflecting key suggestions the
Administration has received from State and local service
providers since the passage of the Balanced Budget Act of
1997. The WtW program funds job creation, job placement, and
job retention efforts to help long-term welfare recipients
and non-custodial parents move into lasting, unsubsidized
employment. In addition to helping long-term welfare
recipients make the transition from welfare to work, this
bill will help more low-income fathers increase their
employment and their involvement with their children. Demand
for WtW has been great. Last year, over 1,400 applicants from
local communities across the nation applied for more than $5
billion in WtW Competitive Grants, but DOL had sufficient
resources to fund less than 10 percent of these projects. In
addition, 44 states covering 95 percent of the welfare
caseload applied for formula funds. While the fundamental
principles and features of the program are maintained
(including the focus on work, targeting resources to
individuals and communities with the greatest need, and
administration through the locally administered, business-led
workforce investment system) we are also pleased to see the
principles of the original legislation further carried out by
the addition of the following enhancements:
A simplification of eligibility criteria which continues to
focus on long-term welfare recipients but provides that at
least one, rather than two, specified barriers to employment
must be met.
The provisions of even greater flexibility to serve those
with the greatest challenges to employment by the addition of
long-term welfare recipients who are victims of domestic
violence, individuals with disabilities, or homeless as
eligible to participate.
A strong focus on the family by targeting at least 20
percent of the WtW Formula Grant funds to help noncustodial
parents (mainly fathers) with children who are on or have
exhausted Temporary Assistance to Needy Families fulfill
their responsibilities to their children by committing to
work and pay child support.
An increase in the reserve for grants to Indian tribes from
the current 1 percent of the total to 3 percent, and an
authorization for Indian tribes to apply directly to the
Department of Labor for WtW Competitive Grants.
A procedure which allows unallotted formula funds to be
used to award competitive grants in the subsequent year,
providing a preference in awarding these funds to those local
applicants and tribes from States that did not receive
formula grants.
The development of streamlined reporting requirements
through the Department of Labor.
The establishment of a one percent reserve of Fiscal Year
2000 funds for technical assistance which includes sharing of
innovative and promising practices and strategies for serving
noncustodial parents.
In addition to the changes proposed by the Administration,
the legislation also provides for:
The inclusion of children aging out of foster care as
eligible service recipients and
The addition of job skills training and vocational
educational training.
While our welfare reform efforts have resulted in some
important early successes, much remains to be done.
Reauthorizing the WtW program, together with the
Administration's proposals to provide welfare-to-work housing
vouchers, transportation funds, and employer tax credits,
will provide parents the tools they need to support their
children and succeed in the workforce. Your introduction of
the ``Welfare-to-Work Amendments of 1999'' provides
significant opportunities to hard-to-employ welfare
recipients to make the transition to stable employment and
assist noncustodial parents in making meaningful
contributions to their children's well-being. I applaud and
support your efforts.
The Office of Management and Budget advises that it has no
objection to the transmittal of this report from the
standpoint of the Administration's program.
Sincerely,
Alexis M. Herman.
Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I quote from that letter to me.
President Clinton and I believe the Welfare-to-Work Grants
Program is a key component of the overall welfare reform
efforts.
Mr. President, the Welfare-to-Work program has helped numerous
welfare parents--both custodial and non-custodial--find and keep jobs
that pay a living wage and allow them to fulfill basic obligations to
their children. Children have fundamental needs for food, shelter, and
clothing, yet many parents find themselves barely scraping by, in order
to obtain these things. Many families are unable to go much beyond the
essentials to enroll their children in sports and other activities that
build strong bodies and social skills, or to provide them with decent
school supplies, books or computers to develop strong minds. Most
families take these things for granted because they live without the
anxiety of wondering when the next paycheck or child support payment
might be coming in. They have the finances to pay for child care to
enable parents to work during the day. They have cars or other access
to transportation that will take them to work every morning. Or they
have a telephone so that they may receive calls for job interviews. The
families that cannot make ends meet continue to live in dire need and
find their children living at risk.
Mr. President, 14.5 million American children live in poverty.
Furthermore, as reported in Kids Count 1999, 32 percent of children do
not live with two parents and 19 percent live in a home where the head
of household is a high school dropout. Twenty-one percent of children
are in families with incomes below the poverty line, 28 percent are
living with a parent or parents lacking steady full-time employment,
and 15 percent do not have health insurance. It is a shame that, in the
most prosperous nation in the world, we continue to be faced with these
dismal statistics for our children--young Americans who hold the
promise of this country's future in their hands.
Many of these children were helped when the Balanced Budget Act of
1997 created the Welfare-to-Work program as a new system for providing
assistance to welfare recipients most in need. This followed on the
heels of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity
Reconciliation Act of 1996, which replaced the Aid to Families with
Dependent Children cash assistance program with the Temporary
Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program.
The 1996 welfare reform law addressed the bulk of the welfare
population but lacked a component to help the hardest to employ welfare
recipients. Thus, Welfare-to-Work was passed to assist this population
find jobs and achieve independence so they no longer
[[Page
S8091]]
would need public support. The Welfare-to-Work program became an
essential component of the Administration's welfare reform effort by
providing recipients with a good alternative to welfare.
Since 1996, the number of people in the system dropped by a record
number: forty percent from a peak of about five million families in
1994 down to three million families as of June, 1998, according to the
General Accounting Office. However, the job is not finished. Welfare-
to-Work is needed now more than ever because those remaining on the
rolls are increasing likely to have multiple barriers to employment
such as poor work experience, inadequate English or computer skills, or
substance abuse problems.
We need to invest much more to help these individuals reach self-
sufficiency than we did in those who have already left welfare-these
individuals might have already had an educational record, special
skills or significant family support behind them to help them to their
feet. In contrast, Welfare-to-Work participants are the welfare
recipients who need the most help. In addition, extending Welfare-to-
Work will become even more important when TANF recipients and their
children reach welfare time limits in 19 states by year's end and have
their benefits reduced or completely removed.
These are the hard luck cases, Mr. President. These are the people
who continue to be left out of the economic boom of the 1990s. And
these are the people whom Welfare-to-Work was designed to help. If we
let the program expire this year, even if states have three years from
the date of award to spend their program funds, we will be saying to
these people, ``We've forgotten the promises we made to you in 1996
that we would continue to help you. Now, there is no more help for
you.''
This would be particularly harmful in my state of Hawaii which has
struggled due to the Asian financial crisis and has been the only state
where welfare rolls have increased. Welfare-to-Work has assisted many
of Hawaii's welfare recipients through this period of financial
hardship for the state by helping them find unsubsidized employment.
The program must be extended so that it may help other recipients and
their families in my beleaguered state.
My bill not only extends the Welfare-to-Work program, but it also
makes a number of important improvements to the program that states,
counties, and cities have requested. Currently, most funds allocated to
Welfare-to-Work state formula grants cannot be used because of
eligibility criteria that are difficult to meet. Currently, an
individual must have been receiving assistance for at least 30 months
or must be within 12 months of reaching the maximum period for
assistance. In addition, they must have two of three characteristics,
including: lacks a high school diploma or GED and has low math or
reading skills; has a poor work history; or requires substance abuse
treatment for employment. These criteria have excluded many TANF
applicants who, for instance, may have a GED or high school diploma but
still cannot read; these criteria have proven unrealistic.
Instead, under my bill, criteria would be changed to require
participants to have one out of seven characteristics: lacks a high
school diploma or GED; has English reading writing, or computer skills
at or below the 8th grade level; has a poor work history; requires
substance abuse treatment for employment; is homeless; has a
disability; or is a victim of domestic violence. This revision in
eligibility criteria would allow the program to better match the
participant pool. It is necessary because current criteria have left
more than 90 percent of Welfare-to-Work state formula grants unspent.
In Hawaii alone, only 37 percent of our TANF recipients have been
eligible to participate in the program, and this figure would double
under my bill. Furthermore, officials of the Hawaii Department of Human
Services which administers TANF and Welfare-to-Work in my state predict
that unless the Federal law is changed, it is unlikely that they will
be able to refer clients in sufficient numbers to meet WtW
expectations. Similar situations exist in all states, and these
criteria revisions respond to State and local entities that have been
doing the work of Welfare-to-Work and want to serve as many
participants as possible. In Texas, 21,000 people would be able to
participate in the program, according to the U.S. Department of Labor.
Under my bill, figures like this could be seen across the nation, and
more people in need would be able to find employment.
A related improvement contained in my bill is that it transfers any
unallocated Welfare-to-Work formula grant funds into the competitive
grant program. This competitive grant program has been tremendously
popular.
Out of the 1400 applications submitted requesting a total of $5
billion, only 126 applications for $470 million in funds were awarded
in FY 1998. This portion of Welfare-to-Work needs more funding. Under
my bill, preference is given to grant applications submitted from
states that did not receive a formula grant.
Mr. President, my bill also provides a re-emphasis on the whole
family. This past Father's Day, I had the opportunity to celebrate with
several of my children and their families, as it was a day to celebrate
and honor the family. However, many fathers were not as fortunate as
myself and were not able to celebrate with their children because they
went through divorce and did not receive custody of the children. Even
worse, many of these fathers are dismissively labeled ``dead beat
dads'' because they are not a presence in their children's lives and do
not pay child support. What we have found, Mr. President, is that many
of these fathers do not want to abandon their children. Rather, they
are ``dead broke dads'' and face the same barriers to finding and
holding employment that many welfare mothers do. This prevents them
from fulfilling child support obligations, which many want to do. If
these fathers can provide for their children, they will be more likely
to see them more often. Hopefully, renewed financial and emotional
involvement of fathers will mean that these children's lives will
improve.
For these non-custodial fathers, my bill will make it easier for them
to participate in Welfare-to-Work. Currently, non-custodial parents
face the same problems in attempting to qualify for Welfare-to-Work as
other applicants because of the same overly-restrictive criteria. Under
my bill, the eligibility requirements for non-custodial parents will be
revised to allow them to demonstrate that they are unemployed,
underemployed, or having difficulty paying child support payments. In
addition, at least one of the following characteristics must apply to
the minor child or non-custodial parent: the child or non-custodial
parent has been on public assistance for over 30 months, or is within
12 months of becoming ineligible for TANF due to a time limit; the
child is receiving or eligible for TANF; the child has left TANF within
the past year; or the child is receiving or is eligible for
food stamps, Supplemental Security Income (SSI), Medicaid, or the
Children's Health Improvement Program (CHIP).
The bill increases funding for non-custodial parents by requiring
that at least 20 percent of state formula funds be used for this
population. The bill also provides that a non-custodial parent will
enter into an individual responsibility contract with the service
provider and state agency to say that he or she will cooperate in the
establishment of paternity and in the establishment or modification of
a child support order, make regular child support payments, and find
and hold a job. These revisions are an attempt to permit and encourage
non-custodial parents to provide for their children, become more
involved in their children's lives, and pursue better lives for
themselves and their families.
Mr. President, Native American communities will benefit from my bill
from a doubling of the Native American set-aside from $15 million to
$30 million. This funding increase in necessary because Native
Americans currently receive one percent of the total Welfare-to-Work
funds but serve 3.2 percent of total program participants, according to
a recent U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Welfare-to-Work
Evaluation. In recognition of their sovereignty, the bill also provides
Native American tribes with flexibility in designing programs that are
effective for their territories. It is a gross understatement to say
that our Native
[[Page
S8092]]
American communities have not had the chance to experience the economic
success that our nation has been enjoying. We must do what we can to
make up for this shortfall, fulfill our Federal responsibilities to
Native Americans, and help families and children in Native American
communities who face obstacles to self-sufficiency.
Mr. President, children who leave foster care at age 18 make up
another hard-to-help population that faces numerous barriers to
employment. My bill introduces new support for these individuals when
they attempt to start out on their own by allowing them to take
advantage of Welfare-to-Work programs. According to DOL, 20,000
children leave foster care annually. Of these, 32 to 40 percent receive
some type of government assistance within the first 18 months after
leaving the foster care system. This bill provides funds to help them
find alternatives to welfare as they leave their state care system.
My bill simplifies Welfare-to-Work reporting requirements so that the
program can be evaluated effectively. This evaluation will allow
Congress and DOL access to better statistics on how the program is
performing nationwide. In addition, one-percent of the funds are
provided for technical assistance so that DOL can ensure cooperation
between states, local governments, TANF and child support agencies, and
community-based organizations so that all are able to work togeth
Amendments:
Cosponsors:
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
Sponsor:
Summary:
All articles in Senate section
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
(Senate - July 01, 1999)
Text of this article available as:
TXT
PDF
[Pages S8085-
S8140]
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
By Mr. HOLLINGS:
S. 1312. A bill to ensure full and expeditious enforcement of the
provisions of the Communications Act of 1934 that seek to bring about
competition in local telecommunications markets, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
the telecommunications competition enforcement act of 1999
Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I rise to introduce,
S. 1312, the
Telecommunications Competition Enforcement Act of 1999.
The United States has a telecommunications system that is unequaled.
We have worked hard to ensure that consumers in all parts of the
country have access to this system and enjoy services at an affordable
price. Therefore, when the Bell companies asked us to allow them to
enter the long distance market, it was with great caution that we began
to develop policies that would change the existing framework. We did
not want to jeopardize existing service as we phased in competition
into local markets and allowed local phone companies to enter the long
distance market.
Bell companies worked with Congress to create the fourteen point
checklist and they celebrated the passage of the 1996 Act. They then
filed applications with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to
enter the long distance market. However, the FCC found that the Bell
companies had not opened their local markets to competition, and
therefore, under the 1996 Act, could not enter the long distance
market. Once the Bell companies realized that they were not going to
get into the long distance market before they complied with the 1996
Act, they began a strategy of litigation to delay competition into
their local markets and hold on to their monopolies. They appealed the
FCC's decisions to the Court of Appeals and challenged the
constitutionality of the Act taking their case to the Supreme Court.
Having lost in those forums they have now come to Congress seeking
changes to the Act that only three years ago they championed. As a
result bills have been introduced in the Senate and the House that
significantly amend the 1996 Act, harm competition in the local
markets, and slow the delivery of advanced, affordable services to
consumers.
Therefore, I introduce this legislation as part of a continuing
effort to promote competition in the local telecommunications markets.
I am frustrated by the broken promises of the Bell companies given that
not a single Bell company has adequately opened its local phone market
to competition since the enactment of the Telecommunications Act of
1996. According to wall street analysts, as of the end of last year new
entrants had only 2.5 percent of all access lines while Bell companies
and incumbent local exchange carriers continued to control over 97
percent of those lines into the home.
Three years ago when we passed the 1996 Act, Bell companies
proclaimed that they would open their markets immediately and begin
competing. In fact, they and their lawyers helped write the 14 point
checklist--their roadmap into the long distance market in their region.
All these companies have to do to provide long distance service in
their regions is to follow that roadmap and meet the requirements of
Section 271.
I remember the excitement by the local phone companies at the time of
the 1996 Act. On March 5, 1996, Bell South-Alabama President, Neal
Travis, stated that the ``Telecommunications Act now means that
consumers will have more choices . . . We are going full speed ahead .
. . and within a year or so we can offer [long distance] to our
residential and business wireline customers.''
And, on February 8, 1996, USWest's President of Long Distance,
Richard Coleman, issued this statement: ``The Inter-LATA long distance
potential is a tremendous business opportunity for USWest. Customers
have made it clear they want one-stop shopping for both their local and
long distance service. We are preparing to give them exactly what
they've been asking for.'' He went on to predict that USWest would meet
the 14 point checklist in a majority of its states within 12-18 months.
Ameritech's chief executive office, Richard Notebaert February 1,
1996,
[[Page
S8086]]
noted his support of the 1996 Act by stating that, ``[t]he real open
competition this bill promotes will bring customers more choices,
competitive prices and better quality services . . . [T]his bill will
rank as one of the most important and far-reaching pieces of federal
legislation passed this decade . . . It offers a comprehensive
communications policy, solidly grounded in the principles of the
competitive marketplace. It's truly a framework for the information
age.''
Those were the statements of the local phone companies in 1996. What
has happened since then? The answer is very little. In fact, rather
than meet their promises, the local phone companies were in federal
court challenging the FCC's implementation of the Act less than one
year after its enactment. In addition, only five applications for
Section 271 relief have been filed at the FCC--and none have met the
requirements of section 271. On more than one occasion, the FCC's
decision to deny a 271 application has been upheld by the D.C. Circuit
Court. One of the regional Bell companies even challenged the
constitutionality of section 271--a challenge the court of appeals
denied and the Supreme Court refused to hear. Today, there are no 271
applications on file at the FCC and not a single application has been
presented to the FCC since July 1998.
What this means for the customer is that the choice and the local
competition we tried to create with the passage of the
Telecommunications Act has been thwarted by the very companies that
promised to compete. Instead, they have chosen to litigate, complain,
and combine. Just two days ago, the Chairman of the FCC decided to
grant SBC and Ameritech approval to merge their operations. In
permitting the merger to go forward, the FCC has conditioned approval
on future performance--performance which SBC has not met in the three
years since the passage of the 1996 Act. In fact, on the same day
conditional approval of the SBC and Ameritech merger was announced, SBC
agreed to pay $1.3 million to settle disputes surrounding alleged
violations of sections of the 1996 Act dealing with the provision of
long distance service. One company will now control one-third of all
access lines in the United States even though its market is not open to
competition. Competition again becomes a casualty of the unwillingness
of Bell companies, to open their markets and let go of their
monopolies.
Today, there are companies seeking to connect to the Bell networks
and provide service to consumers. However, these companies often times
experience significant difficulties in obtaining access to these
networks. Thus, while I applaud the efforts of the competitive local
exchange carriers, long distance carriers, and the cable industry to
provide facilities-based local competition, I must express my
disappointment that not a single regional bell operating company has
sufficiently opened its markets to competition.
Since the beginning of this Congress, many of the Bell companies have
been meeting with Senators and Representatives, often accompanied by
the same lawyers who helped write the Telecommunications Act. But this
time their message is different. They are asking us to change the rules
of the game. They now want to offer lucrative high-speed data services
for long distance customers without first having to open their local
markets to competition. They maintain that they should be permitted to
continue their hold on the local customer as they provide data services
because the 1996 Act did not contemplate the provision of such
services. To state it plainly--they are wrong. The Telecommunications
Act clearly contemplated the provision of advanced services--data and
otherwise. In fact, the Act had an entire section dedicated to
promoting the development and deployment of advanced services. To quote
the Act, ``advanced telecommunications capability'' is defined as
``high-speed switched, broadband telecommunications capability that
enables users to originate and receive high-quality voice, data,
graphics, and video telecommunications using any technology.''
Regardless, nothing in the 1996 Act prevents phone companies from
providing high speed data services to consumers inside and outside
their region. They are already providing DSL service to customers
inside their region. And, under the 1996 Act, Bell companies can
provide long distance service in their region once they open their
local markets. We must hold to this principle if we want consumers to
have a choice of service providers. In fact, a number of Bell companies
are working to meet Section 271 requirements. I applaud those attempts
which, if successful, will ultimately provide new and innovative
services at low prices to consumers.
Therefore, I reject their proposed legislative solutions, and
instead, forward a different proposal. By 2001, five years will have
passed since the Telecommunications Act became law. I believe, it is
reasonable to expect Bell companies to have at least one-half of their
markets in their region open to competition by 2001 and all of their
markets in their region open to competition by 2003. The legislation
that I introduce today accomplishs just that. My bill requires the
Federal Communications Commission to assess a forfeiture penalty of
$100,000 per day if a Bell operating company has not met the section
271 checklist in at least half of the states in its region by February
8, 2001--the five year anniversary of President Clinton signing the
Telecommunications Act into law. Moreover, if the FCC finds that a Bell
operating company has not met the section 271 checklist throughout its
region by February 8, 2003, the Commission is required to order the
company to divest its telecommunications network facilities within six
months, in states in which it is not in compliance with the checklist.
With respect to non-Bell incumbent local exchange carriers with more
than 5 percent of the access lines in the nation, the Commission, upon
the petition of any interested party, is required to investigate
whether the carrier's markets are open to competition to determine
whether such carrier has complied with the interconnection requirements
of the Act. A determination that such an incumbent local exchange
company has not opened its markets shall result in a $50,000 per day
forfeiture penalty, to be imposed by the FCC, if the company does not
come into compliance within 60 days. In addition, the FCC shall order
the company to cease and desist in marketing and selling long distance
services to new customers, if it has not complied within the 60 day
grace period.
Lastly, to protect competition once the Bell companies have met the
section 271 checklist requirements, this bill provides the FCC with
additional enforcement tools. If, at some point after meeting the
checklist requirements, a Bell company fails to meet one or more
provisions of the checklist, the FCC shall impose a forfeiture penalty
of $100,000 for each day of the continuing violation. Moreover, if,
after meeting the checklist requirements, the Bell company willfully,
knowing, and repeatedly fails to meet one or more provisions of the
checklist, the FCC shall require the Bell company, within 180 days, to
divest its telecommunications network facilities in states in which the
repeated violations have occurred.
While these penalties may appear severe, severe action needs to be
taken to force dominant market providers to open their markets to
competition. During the debate over the Telecommunications Act, we did
not include such a strong approach. Rather, we settled on a rational
and reasonable set of procedures--endorsed by the local phone
monoplies--that provided incentives to open their local markets while
preserving the integrity of the premier communications networks in the
world. That approach seemed particularly palatable in light of the
statements issued at the time of enactment of the 1996 Act by the local
phone companies promising an early opening of the local phone market
pursuant to the requirements of the Section 271 checklist.
Today, our communications networks remain the envy of the world and
the development of innovative advanced services is accelerating
rapidly. Unfortunately, the rollout of those services on a competitive
basis to all Americans is being thwarted by the failure of Bell
companies to open their markets to competition. Those same monopolists
told us their markets
[[Page
S8087]]
would be open months ago. This legislation seeks to hold them to their
word.
I ask consent that a summary of the bill be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the summary was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
The Telecommunications Competition Enforcement Act of 1999
SUMMARY
A Bell Operating Company (BOC) is required to meet the
market opening requirements of the section 271 checklist of
the Telecommunications Act of 1996 for half of the states in
its region by February 8, 2001. The FCC is required to assess
a forfeiture penalty of $100,000 for each day a BOC is in
violation of this requirement.
A BOC is required to meet the market opening requirements
of the section 271 checklist of the Telecommunications Act of
1996 for all the states in its region by February 8, 2003.
The FCC is required to order a BOC to divest its
telecommunications network facilities within 180 days in
which it is in violation of this requirement.
Upon petition by any interested party, the FCC is directed
to investigate whether incumbent local exchange carriers
(ILEC) with more than 5 percent of the nation's access lines
(that are not Bell Companies) have opened their markets to
competition pursuant to Section 251(c) of the
Telecommunications Act of 1996.
Upon a determination that such ILECs are not in full
compliance with Section 251(c), the FCC shall set forth the
reasons for non-compliance and grant 60 days for the ILEC to
come into full compliance. Absent such compliance after that
60 day period, the FCC is required to assess a civil
forfeiture penalty of $50,000 for each day of the continuing
violation and order the company to cease and desist in
marketing and selling long distance services to new
customers.
If upon meeting the checklist requirements, a BOC fails to
meet one or more provisions of the checklist, the FCC shall
impose a forfeiture of $100,000 for each day of the
continuing violation. If upon meeting the checklist
requirements, the BOC knowingly, willfully, and repeatedly
fails to meet one or more provisions of the checklist, the
FCC shall require the BOC, to divest its telecommunications
network facilities, within 180 days, in states in which
repeated violations have occurred.
JUSTIFICATION
The Telecommunications Act of 1996 required Bell Operating
Companies (BOCs) to open their markets to competition. Yet,
not a single BOC has met the market opening requirements of
the Section 271 checklist. No Section 271 applications have
been filed at the FCC since July of 1998. Only five
applications have been filed since 1996--none of which
complied with Section 271.
In the three years since enactment, however, the BOCs have
pursued a strategy of stonewalling and litigation that has
delayed implementation of the critical interconnection,
unbundling, collocation, and resale requirements of the Act.
Now, BOCs are seeking legislative relief from the pro-
competitive provisions of the Telecommunications Act. They
argue that they will provide rural America with advanced
communications services, but only if they are allowed to
provide long distance service to their current customers. The
truth is that BOCs can provide advanced services today.
However, to get into the long distance market, they must open
their local markets to competition. This bill provides an
incentive for them to do just that.
By requiring a date certain by which the local phone
monopolies must open their markets, and by accompanying that
requirement with federal enforcement authority, we can be
assured that American consumers will obtain the benefits of
local competition.
______
By Mr. LEAHY (for himself, Mr. DeWINE, and Mr. ROBB):
S. 1314. A bill to establish a grant program to assist State and
local law enforcement in deterring, investigating, and prosecuting
computer crimes; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
computer crime enforcement act
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce the Computer
Crime Enforcement Act. This legislation establishes a Department of
Justice grant program to support state and local law enforcement
officers and prosecutors to prevent, investigate and prosecute computer
crime. I am pleased that Senator DeWine, with whom I worked closely and
successfully last year on the Crime Identification Technology Act, and
Senator Robb, who has long been a leader on law enforcement issues,
support this bill as original cosponsors.
Computer crime is quickly emerging as one of today's top challenges
for state and local law enforcement officials. A recent survey by the
FBI and the Computer Security Institute found that 62% of information
security professionals reported computer security breaches in the past
year. These breaches in computer security resulted in financial losses
of more than $120 million from fraud, theft of proprietary information,
sabotage, computer viruses and stolen laptops. Computer crime has
become a multi-billion dollar problem.
I am proud to report that the States, including my home state of
Vermont, are reacting to the increase in computer crime by enacted
tough computer crime control laws. For example, Vermont's new law makes
certain acts against computers illegal, such as: accessing any computer
system or data without permission; accessing a computer to commit
fraud, remove, destroy or copy data or deny access to the data;
damaging or interfering with the operation of the computer system or
data; and stealing or destroying any computer data or system. These
state laws establish a firm groundwork for electronic commerce, an
increasingly important sector of the Vermont economy and of the
nation's economy. Now all fifty states have enacted some type of
computer crime statute.
Unfortunately, too many state and local law enforcement agencies are
struggling to afford the high cost of enforcing their state computer
crime statute. The Computer Crime Enforcement Act would provide a
helping hand by authorizing a $25 million grant program to help the
states receive Federal funding for improved education, training,
enforcement and prosecution of computer crime. Our bill will help
states take a byte out of computer crime.
Congress has recognized the importance of providing state and local
law enforcement officers with the means necessary to prevent and combat
cyber attacks and other computer crime through the FBI's Computer
Analysis and Response Team (CART) Program and the National
Infrastructure Protection Center. Our legislation would enhance that
Federal role by providing each state with much-needed resources to join
Federal law enforcement officials in collaborative efforts to fight
computer crime.
In Vermont, for instance, only half a dozen law enforcement officers
among the more than 900 officers in the state have been trained in
investigating computer crimes and analyzing cyber evidence. As
Detective Michael Schirling of the Chittenden Unit for Special
Investigations recently observed in my home state: ``The bad guys are
using computers at a rate that's exponentially greater than our ability
to respond to the problem.'' Without the necessary educational
training, technical support, and coordinated information, our law
enforcement officials will be hamstrung in their efforts to crack down
on computer crime.
Computers have ushered in a new age filled with unlimited potential
for good. But the computer age has also ushered in new challenges for
our state and local law enforcement officers. Let's provide our state
and local partners in crime fighting with the resources that they need
in the battle against computer crime.
I urge my colleagues to support the Computer Crime Enforcement Act
and its quick passage into law.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the Computer
Crime Enforcement Act be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 1314
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 ``Computer Crime Enforcement
Act''.
SEC. 2. STATE GRANT PROGRAM FOR TRAINING AND PROSECUTION OF
COMPUTER CRIMES.
(a) In General.--Subject to the availability of amounts
provided in advance in appropriations Acts, the Office of
Justice Programs shall make a grant to each State, which
shall be used by the State, in conjunction with units of
local government, State and local courts, other States, or
combinations thereof, to--
(1) assist State and local law enforcement in enforcing
State and local criminal laws relating to computer crime;
(2) assist State and local law enforcement in educating the
public to prevent and identify computer crime;
(3) assist in educating and training State and local law
enforcement officers and prosecutors to conduct
investigations and forensic analyses of evidence and
prosecutions of computer crime;
[[Page
S8088]]
(4) assist State and local law enforcement officers and
prosecutors in acquiring computer and other equipment to
conduct investigations and forensic analysis of evidence of
computer crimes; and
(5) facilitate and promote the sharing of Federal law
enforcement expertise and information about the
investigation, analysis, and prosecution of computer crimes
with State and local law enforcement officers and
prosecutors, including the use of multijurisdictional task
forces.
(b) Use of Grant Amounts.--Grants under this section may be
used to establish and develop programs to--
(1) assist State and local law enforcement in enforcing
State and local criminal laws relating to computer crime;
(2) assist State and local law enforcement in educating the
public to prevent and identify computer crime;
(3) educate and train State and local law enforcement
officers and prosecutors to conduct investigations and
forensic analyses of evidence and prosecutions of computer
crime;
(4) assist State and local law enforcement officers and
prosecutors in acquiring computer and other equipment to
conduct investigations and forensic analysis of evidence of
computer crimes; and
(5) facilitate and promote the sharing of Federal law
enforcement expertise and information about the
investigation, analysis, and prosecution of computer crimes
with State and local law enforcement officers and
prosecutors, including the use of multijurisdictional task
forces.
(c) Assurances.--To be eligible to receive a grant under
this section, a State shall provide assurances to the
Attorney General that the State--
(1) has in effect laws that penalize computer crime, such
as penal laws prohibiting--
(A) fraudulent schemes executed by means of a computer
system or network;
(B) the unlawful damaging, destroying, altering, deleting,
removing of computer software, or data contained in a
computer, computer system, computer program, or computer
network; or
(C) the unlawful interference with the operation of or
denial of access to a computer, computer program, computer
system, or computer network;
(2) an assessment of the State and local resource needs,
including criminal justice resources being devoted to the
investigation and enforcement of computer crime laws; and
(3) a plan for coordinating the programs funded under this
section with other federally funded technical assistant and
training programs, including directly funded local programs
such as the Local Law Enforcement Block Grant program
(described under the heading ``Violent Crime Reduction
Programs, State and Local Law Enforcement Assistance'' of the
Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary,
and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1998 (Public Law
105-119)).
(d) Matching Funds.--The Federal share of a grant received
under this section may not exceed 90 percent of the costs of
a program or proposal funded under this section unless the
Attorney General waives, wholly or in part, the requirements
of this subsection.
(e) Authorization of Appropriations.--
(1) In general.--There is authorized to be appropriated to
carry out this section $25,000,000 for each of fiscal years
2000 through 2003.
(2) Limitations.--Of the amount made available to carry out
this section in any fiscal year not more than 3 percent may
be used by the Attorney General for salaries and
administrative expenses.
(3) Minimum amount.--Unless all eligible applications
submitted by any State or unit of local government within
such State for a grant under this section have been funded,
such State, together with grantees within the State (other
than Indian tribes), shall be allocated in each fiscal year
under this section not less than 0.75 percent of the total
amount appropriated in the fiscal year for grants pursuant to
this section, except that the United States Virgin Islands,
American Samoa, Guam, and the Northern Mariana Islands each
shall be allocated 0.25 percent.
(f) Grants to Indian Tribes.--Notwithstanding any other
provision of this section, the Attorney General may use
amounts made available under this section to make grants to
Indian tribes for use in accordance with this section.
______
By Mr. BINGAMAN:
S. 1315. A bill to permit the leasing of oil and gas rights on
certain lands held in trust for the Navajo Nation or allotted to a
member of the Navajo Nation, in any case in which there is consent from
a specified percentage interest in the parcel of land under
consideration for lease; to the Committee on Indian Affairs.
fractionated lands
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise to talk about a bill that I have
sent to the desk. It relates to a very serious problem faced by a large
number of Navajo people in my State. The issue is referred to as
``fractionated lands.''
Around the turn of the century, the Federal Government attempted to
force Indian people to assimilate by breaking up traditional tribal
lands and allotting parcels of the land to individual tribal members.
In New Mexico, this policy created what is known as the
``checkerboard,'' because alternating tracts of land are now owned by
individual Navajos, the state, the federal government, or private
landowners. A Navajo allotment was generally 160 acres. Under the
allotment system, the Navajo owner was granted an undivided interest in
the entire parcel. The heirs of the original owner also inherit an
undivided interest, geometrically compounding--or fractionating--the
number of owners of the original 160 acres.
This allotment policy, coupled with other federal laws governing
Indian land ownership, land management, and probate, have not served
the Navajo people well during this century. I am introducing
legislation today to help address this problem.
Mr. President, I'd like to take a few minutes to illustrate why the
legislation I am proposing is needed. If a Navajo was allotted a 160-
acre parcel and had four heirs, the heirs did not inherit 40 acres each
when the original owner died. Rather, each heir inherited a 25 percent
undivided interest in the full 160-acre allotment. Going forward, when
the current four owners died, assuming again four heirs each, sixteen
heirs inherited a 6.25 percent undivided interest in the allotment. The
next generation would result in 64 heirs each with a 1.5625 percent
undivided interest. And so forth.
What makes this situation so unique is that each heir inherits an
undivided interest in the allotment. Over time, individual owners may
inherit tiny fractions in many different allotments around the
reservation. In my state, there are about 4,000 individual allotments
covering nearly 700,000 acres. At this point, these 4,000 Navajo
allotments have a total of 40,000 listed owners, and the number grows
every day. It doesn't take a Ph.D. in math to figure out what's wrong
with this policy.
Mr. President, in April I held a town meeting with Navajo allottees
in Nageezi, New Mexico, a small chapter house in the Northeast section
of the Navajo Reservation. The allottees talked about the serious
problems that fractionated ownership has caused. Over 100 members of
the Navajo Nation came from as far away as Aneth, Utah, to speak at the
meeting. As you know, the Navajo Nation extends into three states, New
Mexico, Arizona and Utah, and there are allottees living in all three
states.
Record keeping of individual land ownership has become a nightmare.
In many cases, owners can no longer be located. Also, ownership can be
clouded when an owner dies without a legal will--a common situation in
Indian Country.
Some individuals do not even realize they own one or more of these
allotments. Often, individuals are surprised to find out that they are
an heir to an allotment on another reservation.
Mr. President, we all recognize there are serious problems with BIA's
management of its trust responsibilities for allotted lands in New
Mexico. The management problems were brought out very clearly at a
joint Senate hearing in March. The hearing also revealed the extent to
which the government's allotment policy contributed to BIA's current
trust management problems.
On the Navajo reservation, a three-year pilot project is underway in
Farmington, New Mexico, to try to unravel some of the management
problems with allotted Navajo lands. This project, called the
Farmington Indian Minerals Office, or FIMO, is trying to cut through
the red tape created by three different Bureaus in the Department of
Interior, BIA, BLM, and MMS, which share responsibility for management
of allotted lands. The FIMO has worked hard to assist Navajo allottees
determine who their fellow allottees are and what land each allottee
owns. I support the efforts of FIMO. If this legislation is passed,
FIMO could accomplish even more on behalf of the Navajo allottees in
the three states.
Mr. President, over the years, Congress has tried to deal with the
problem of fractionated lands, and has failed every time. The long
history of trust management problems is not going to be corrected
quickly. Developing and implementing a comprehensive solution is going
to take time. The Indian Land Working Group is one of
[[Page
S8089]]
the leaders in this area and has submitted a proposal for Congress to
consider. I applaud the efforts of Senators Campbell and Inouye and the
members of the Indian Affairs Committee for taking on this difficult
issue. Some of the proposals include improved record keeping, probate
and estate planning programs, and new processes for consolidating
fractionated lands. I look forward to working with the Committee to
craft a comprehensive solution.
While the larger issue of fractionated ownership is being considered
by the Senate, I believe it is appropriate to consider a stop-gap
measure to help stimulate near-term economic development on
fractionated Navajo lands. There is an abundance of oil and gas beneath
the Navajo allotments, yet the allottees are unable to benefit from
this wealth because of federal laws that make it very difficult for
Indian allottees to lease their land. To illustrate, during the last 12
years, $7 million in leasing bonuses has been paid to the state and
federal government for leases in the checkerboard region of New Mexico,
while only $27,000 has been paid to owners of Navajo allotments.
The problem lies in the 1909 Mineral Leasing Act. The Act requires
all persons who have an undivided interest in any particular parcel to
consent to its lease. In the case of Navajo allottees, 100 percent of
the allottees must consent to a lease of their land. Because of the
fractionated land problem, obtaining 100 percent consent is often
impossible because many owners cannot be located. Consequently, the
Navajo allottees are precluded from the beneficial use of their land.
The bill I am introducing today will facilitate the leasing of Navajo
allotted land for oil and gas development. In the case of non-Indians,
most states already allow mineral leases with less than 100 percent
consent of the owners as long as all persons who own an interest
receive the benefits from the lease. My bill simply extends similar
benefits to Navajo allottees. The bill would authorize the Secretary of
the Interior to approve an oil or gas lease connected to Navajo
allotted land when less than 100 percent of the owners consent to such
a lease. A similar bill was passed in the 105th Congress to facilitate
mineral leasing of allotted lands on the Ft. Berthold Reservation in
North Dakota.
My bill proposes a graded system for lease approval. In situations
where there are 10 or fewer owners of an allotment, 100 percent of the
owners must consent to a lease. However, where there exists 11 to 50
owners of an allotment, only 80 percent of the owners need consent.
And, with more than 50 owners, 60 percent consent would be required.
This graded system was suggested by the Navajo allottees.
Mr. President, unemployment on the Navajo Reservation now exceeds 50
percent. The opportunities for economic development on this land are
few. It is not appropriate for the federal government to continue to
deprive the legal owners of Navajo allotted lands the option to develop
their land as they choose. This bill is a small step toward correcting
the mistakes of the past and a bigger step towards providing economic
prosperity for future generations of Navajo allottees.
The bill has the support of the Navajo Nation and the Shii Shi Keyah,
the principal Navajo Allottees' Association.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a resolution from the
Shii Shi Keyah Association and a letter from the Navajo Nation be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Shii Shi Keyah Association Resolution of the Board of Directors
Whereas, the Board of Directors of Shii Shi Keyah
Association (``SSKA''), an unincorporated association of
Navajos who have ownership interests in allotments on or near
the Navajo Reservation, generally referred to as Navajo
Indian Country, has considered a number of issues relating to
oil and gas rights and revenues which require its attention;
Whereas, United States Senator Jeff Bingaman will introduce
in the 106th Congress, 1st Session, a bill which begins ``To
permit the leasing of oil and gas rights on certain lands in
New Mexico held in trust for the Navajo Tribe or allotted to
a member of the Navajo Tribe, in any case in which there is
consent from a specified percentage interest in the parcel of
land under consideration for issue;''
Be it Resolved that SSKA will support Senator Bingaman's
bill if it is amended to include the states of Utah and
Arizona.
certification
The foregoing Resolution was adopted by the Board of
Directors of Shii Shi Keyah Association of Bloomfield, NM
with no votes against and no abstentions at a regular meeting
of the Board held on June 4, 1999.
____
The Navajo Nation,
Washington, DC, May 18, 1999.
Re: Proposed Bill to Permit the Leasing of Oil and Gas Rights
on Certain Lands in New Mexico Held in Trust for the
Navajo Tribe or Allotted to a Member of the Navajo Tribe,
in any Case in which There Is Consent from a Specified
Percentage Interest in the Parcel of Land under
Consideration for Lease
Hon. Jeff Bingaman,
U.S. Senate,
Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
Senator Bingaman: Thank you for scheduling the April 8,
1999 meeting at the Nageezi Chapter. The Navajo Nation
appreciates your interest in the problems faced by Navajo
people regarding their allotted lands in northwestern New
Mexico.
The Navajo Nation supports your efforts toward solving the
problems engendered by increasingly fractionated interests
held by Navajo individuals in allotted lands. We support the
intent of the bill, provided that it is supported by a
consensus of Navajo individuals that will be affected. In
addition, we can support most of the particulars of the bill,
although the Navajo Nation would request some minor revisions
to the bill before it is introduced, as explained below.
Initially, we are concerned whether a consensus of affected
Navajo individuals support the proposed bill. The Navajo
Nation is concerned that the Shii Shi Keyah Association
apparently opposes the bill, as indicated in a letter to you
dated March 11, 1999 from the Association's attorney, Alan R.
Taradash, copy attached. We understand that the Shii Shi
Keyah Association is a respected organization comprised of
Navajo individuals numbering in the thousands.
The approach suggested by Mr. Taradash, the conveyance of
fractionated interests into family trusts, appears to have
much to commend it. However, we are not sure that the family
trust approach and the approach reflected in the proposed
bill are mutually exclusive. The Navajo Nation
respectfully requests that your office continue to work
with affected Navajo individuals to assure that the bill
reflects the best approach or combination of approaches to
solve the problems facing those individuals. The Navajo
Nation would be happy to work with your office in this
regard, and stands ready to provide any assistance your
office may need.
In addition, the Navajo Nation is very concerned with the
effect of section 1(b)(3)(A) of the proposed legislation,
which would appear to make the Navajo Nation a party to any
lease of oil and gas rights in allotted lands in which it
might own a minority interest. While the Navajo Nation has no
objection to any minority interest it might hold being leased
in accordance with the provisions of the bill, if that is the
approach that a consensus of affected Navajo individuals
support, the Navajo Nation must opposed being made a party to
any such lease. The Navajo Nation has very deliberate
policies and requirements regarding terms and conditions in
leases to which it is a party. In the present judicial
climate, lease terms and conditions can have a profound
effect on the sovereignty of an Indian nation. Therefore, we
must respectfully request that section 1(b)(3) of the bill be
changed to read in its entirety as follows:
``(3) Effect of approval.--On approval by the Secretary
under paragraph (1), an oil or gas lease or agreement shall
be binding upon each of the beneficial owners that have
consented in writing to the lease or agreement and upon all
other parties to the lease or agreement and shall be binding
upon the entire undivided interest in a Navajo Indian
allotted land covered under the lease or agreement.''
Finally, the Navajo Nation respectfully requests that all
references to the ``Navajo Tribe'' be changed to refer to the
``Navajo Nation,'' and that the reference be deleted in
section 1(a)(3) to the Navajo Nation as ``including the
Alamo, Ramah and Canoncito bands of Navajo Indians.'' The
Term ``Navajo Nation'' is the legal name of the Navajo
Nation, and by Navajo Nation statute is preferred over the
term ``Navajo Tribe.'' We must object to the reference to the
three bands (but not others) because of the possible negative
inference that there exists some ambiguity as to whether such
bands are constituent parts of the Navajo Nation. There is no
such ambiguity now, and we wish to avoid creating any. The
reference can safely be deleted without causing any
uncertainty in the definition.
Unfortunately, fractionated interests remains a significant
problem within the Navajo Nation, as we understand it is also
within our Indian nations. The Navajo Nation would like to
work your office and with other members of Congress on
comprehensive, long-term solution to this problem. If you
have any questions, or need additional information, please
contact the Navajo Nation Washington Office.
Sincerely,
Estelle J. Bowman,
Executive Director.
[[Page
S8090]]
______
By Mr. AKAKA (for himself, Mr. Moynihan, Mrs. Feinstein, Mr.
Wellstone, Mrs. Murray, and Mr. Lautenberg):
S. 1317. A bill to reauthorize the Welfare-to-Work program to provide
additional resources and flexibility to improve the administration of
the program; to the Committee on Finance.
welfare-to-work amendments of 1999
Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise to introduce a bill that would
continue a program vital to helping welfare recipients who face the
greatest barriers to finding and securing employment, called the
Welfare-to-Work Amendments of 1999. My bill targets resources to
families and communities with the greatest need, simplifies eligibility
criteria for participation, and helps non-custodial parents get jobs to
enable them to make child support payments. It also opens more
resources to Native Americans, the homeless, those with disabilities or
substance abuse problems, and victims of domestic violence. This is
similar to a proposal unveiled by the Clinton Administration earlier
this year and introduced as
H.R. 1482 by Representative Benjamin Cardin
of Maryland. I would also like to thank my colleagues Senators
Moynihan, Feinstein, Wellstone, Murray, and Lautenberg for joining me
as original cosponsors of my bill.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a letter which I received
from the Secretary of Labor, Alexis Herman, be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
Secretary of Labor,
Washington, July 1, 1999.
Hon. Daniel K. Akaka,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Akaka: I congratulate you on the introduction
of the ``Welfare-to-Work Amendments of 1999.'' I am pleased
that your legislation joins that introduced by Rep. Benjamin
Cardin earlier this year in the House in seeking to
accomplish the Administration's objectives in reauthorizing
the Welfare-to-Work (WtW) Grants Program. President Clinton
and I believe the Welfare-to-Work Grants Program is a key
component of the overall welfare reform effort. While welfare
caseloads have declined by nearly half over the last six
years, many individuals remaining on welfare are long-term
recipients who face significant barriers to employment. As
the President said in his April 10th radio address, ``We
can't finish the job of welfare reform without doing more to
help people who have the hardest time moving from welfare to
work--those who live in the poorest neighborhoods and have
the poorest job skills. That's why I call on Congress to pass
my plan to extend the Department of Labor's Welfare-to-Work
program.''
This legislation incorporates the President's proposal to
extend the WtW Program, reflecting key suggestions the
Administration has received from State and local service
providers since the passage of the Balanced Budget Act of
1997. The WtW program funds job creation, job placement, and
job retention efforts to help long-term welfare recipients
and non-custodial parents move into lasting, unsubsidized
employment. In addition to helping long-term welfare
recipients make the transition from welfare to work, this
bill will help more low-income fathers increase their
employment and their involvement with their children. Demand
for WtW has been great. Last year, over 1,400 applicants from
local communities across the nation applied for more than $5
billion in WtW Competitive Grants, but DOL had sufficient
resources to fund less than 10 percent of these projects. In
addition, 44 states covering 95 percent of the welfare
caseload applied for formula funds. While the fundamental
principles and features of the program are maintained
(including the focus on work, targeting resources to
individuals and communities with the greatest need, and
administration through the locally administered, business-led
workforce investment system) we are also pleased to see the
principles of the original legislation further carried out by
the addition of the following enhancements:
A simplification of eligibility criteria which continues to
focus on long-term welfare recipients but provides that at
least one, rather than two, specified barriers to employment
must be met.
The provisions of even greater flexibility to serve those
with the greatest challenges to employment by the addition of
long-term welfare recipients who are victims of domestic
violence, individuals with disabilities, or homeless as
eligible to participate.
A strong focus on the family by targeting at least 20
percent of the WtW Formula Grant funds to help noncustodial
parents (mainly fathers) with children who are on or have
exhausted Temporary Assistance to Needy Families fulfill
their responsibilities to their children by committing to
work and pay child support.
An increase in the reserve for grants to Indian tribes from
the current 1 percent of the total to 3 percent, and an
authorization for Indian tribes to apply directly to the
Department of Labor for WtW Competitive Grants.
A procedure which allows unallotted formula funds to be
used to award competitive grants in the subsequent year,
providing a preference in awarding these funds to those local
applicants and tribes from States that did not receive
formula grants.
The development of streamlined reporting requirements
through the Department of Labor.
The establishment of a one percent reserve of Fiscal Year
2000 funds for technical assistance which includes sharing of
innovative and promising practices and strategies for serving
noncustodial parents.
In addition to the changes proposed by the Administration,
the legislation also provides for:
The inclusion of children aging out of foster care as
eligible service recipients and
The addition of job skills training and vocational
educational training.
While our welfare reform efforts have resulted in some
important early successes, much remains to be done.
Reauthorizing the WtW program, together with the
Administration's proposals to provide welfare-to-work housing
vouchers, transportation funds, and employer tax credits,
will provide parents the tools they need to support their
children and succeed in the workforce. Your introduction of
the ``Welfare-to-Work Amendments of 1999'' provides
significant opportunities to hard-to-employ welfare
recipients to make the transition to stable employment and
assist noncustodial parents in making meaningful
contributions to their children's well-being. I applaud and
support your efforts.
The Office of Management and Budget advises that it has no
objection to the transmittal of this report from the
standpoint of the Administration's program.
Sincerely,
Alexis M. Herman.
Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I quote from that letter to me.
President Clinton and I believe the Welfare-to-Work Grants
Program is a key component of the overall welfare reform
efforts.
Mr. President, the Welfare-to-Work program has helped numerous
welfare parents--both custodial and non-custodial--find and keep jobs
that pay a living wage and allow them to fulfill basic obligations to
their children. Children have fundamental needs for food, shelter, and
clothing, yet many parents find themselves barely scraping by, in order
to obtain these things. Many families are unable to go much beyond the
essentials to enroll their children in sports and other activities that
build strong bodies and social skills, or to provide them with decent
school supplies, books or computers to develop strong minds. Most
families take these things for granted because they live without the
anxiety of wondering when the next paycheck or child support payment
might be coming in. They have the finances to pay for child care to
enable parents to work during the day. They have cars or other access
to transportation that will take them to work every morning. Or they
have a telephone so that they may receive calls for job interviews. The
families that cannot make ends meet continue to live in dire need and
find their children living at risk.
Mr. President, 14.5 million American children live in poverty.
Furthermore, as reported in Kids Count 1999, 32 percent of children do
not live with two parents and 19 percent live in a home where the head
of household is a high school dropout. Twenty-one percent of children
are in families with incomes below the poverty line, 28 percent are
living with a parent or parents lacking steady full-time employment,
and 15 percent do not have health insurance. It is a shame that, in the
most prosperous nation in the world, we continue to be faced with these
dismal statistics for our children--young Americans who hold the
promise of this country's future in their hands.
Many of these children were helped when the Balanced Budget Act of
1997 created the Welfare-to-Work program as a new system for providing
assistance to welfare recipients most in need. This followed on the
heels of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity
Reconciliation Act of 1996, which replaced the Aid to Families with
Dependent Children cash assistance program with the Temporary
Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program.
The 1996 welfare reform law addressed the bulk of the welfare
population but lacked a component to help the hardest to employ welfare
recipients. Thus, Welfare-to-Work was passed to assist this population
find jobs and achieve independence so they no longer
[[Page
S8091]]
would need public support. The Welfare-to-Work program became an
essential component of the Administration's welfare reform effort by
providing recipients with a good alternative to welfare.
Since 1996, the number of people in the system dropped by a record
number: forty percent from a peak of about five million families in
1994 down to three million families as of June, 1998, according to the
General Accounting Office. However, the job is not finished. Welfare-
to-Work is needed now more than ever because those remaining on the
rolls are increasing likely to have multiple barriers to employment
such as poor work experience, inadequate English or computer skills, or
substance abuse problems.
We need to invest much more to help these individuals reach self-
sufficiency than we did in those who have already left welfare-these
individuals might have already had an educational record, special
skills or significant family support behind them to help them to their
feet. In contrast, Welfare-to-Work participants are the welfare
recipients who need the most help. In addition, extending Welfare-to-
Work will become even more important when TANF recipients and their
children reach welfare time limits in 19 states by year's end and have
their benefits reduced or completely removed.
These are the hard luck cases, Mr. President. These are the people
who continue to be left out of the economic boom of the 1990s. And
these are the people whom Welfare-to-Work was designed to help. If we
let the program expire this year, even if states have three years from
the date of award to spend their program funds, we will be saying to
these people, ``We've forgotten the promises we made to you in 1996
that we would continue to help you. Now, there is no more help for
you.''
This would be particularly harmful in my state of Hawaii which has
struggled due to the Asian financial crisis and has been the only state
where welfare rolls have increased. Welfare-to-Work has assisted many
of Hawaii's welfare recipients through this period of financial
hardship for the state by helping them find unsubsidized employment.
The program must be extended so that it may help other recipients and
their families in my beleaguered state.
My bill not only extends the Welfare-to-Work program, but it also
makes a number of important improvements to the program that states,
counties, and cities have requested. Currently, most funds allocated to
Welfare-to-Work state formula grants cannot be used because of
eligibility criteria that are difficult to meet. Currently, an
individual must have been receiving assistance for at least 30 months
or must be within 12 months of reaching the maximum period for
assistance. In addition, they must have two of three characteristics,
including: lacks a high school diploma or GED and has low math or
reading skills; has a poor work history; or requires substance abuse
treatment for employment. These criteria have excluded many TANF
applicants who, for instance, may have a GED or high school diploma but
still cannot read; these criteria have proven unrealistic.
Instead, under my bill, criteria would be changed to require
participants to have one out of seven characteristics: lacks a high
school diploma or GED; has English reading writing, or computer skills
at or below the 8th grade level; has a poor work history; requires
substance abuse treatment for employment; is homeless; has a
disability; or is a victim of domestic violence. This revision in
eligibility criteria would allow the program to better match the
participant pool. It is necessary because current criteria have left
more than 90 percent of Welfare-to-Work state formula grants unspent.
In Hawaii alone, only 37 percent of our TANF recipients have been
eligible to participate in the program, and this figure would double
under my bill. Furthermore, officials of the Hawaii Department of Human
Services which administers TANF and Welfare-to-Work in my state predict
that unless the Federal law is changed, it is unlikely that they will
be able to refer clients in sufficient numbers to meet WtW
expectations. Similar situations exist in all states, and these
criteria revisions respond to State and local entities that have been
doing the work of Welfare-to-Work and want to serve as many
participants as possible. In Texas, 21,000 people would be able to
participate in the program, according to the U.S. Department of Labor.
Under my bill, figures like this could be seen across the nation, and
more people in need would be able to find employment.
A related improvement contained in my bill is that it transfers any
unallocated Welfare-to-Work formula grant funds into the competitive
grant program. This competitive grant program has been tremendously
popular.
Out of the 1400 applications submitted requesting a total of $5
billion, only 126 applications for $470 million in funds were awarded
in FY 1998. This portion of Welfare-to-Work needs more funding. Under
my bill, preference is given to grant applications submitted from
states that did not receive a formula grant.
Mr. President, my bill also provides a re-emphasis on the whole
family. This past Father's Day, I had the opportunity to celebrate with
several of my children and their families, as it was a day to celebrate
and honor the family. However, many fathers were not as fortunate as
myself and were not able to celebrate with their children because they
went through divorce and did not receive custody of the children. Even
worse, many of these fathers are dismissively labeled ``dead beat
dads'' because they are not a presence in their children's lives and do
not pay child support. What we have found, Mr. President, is that many
of these fathers do not want to abandon their children. Rather, they
are ``dead broke dads'' and face the same barriers to finding and
holding employment that many welfare mothers do. This prevents them
from fulfilling child support obligations, which many want to do. If
these fathers can provide for their children, they will be more likely
to see them more often. Hopefully, renewed financial and emotional
involvement of fathers will mean that these children's lives will
improve.
For these non-custodial fathers, my bill will make it easier for them
to participate in Welfare-to-Work. Currently, non-custodial parents
face the same problems in attempting to qualify for Welfare-to-Work as
other applicants because of the same overly-restrictive criteria. Under
my bill, the eligibility requirements for non-custodial parents will be
revised to allow them to demonstrate that they are unemployed,
underemployed, or having difficulty paying child support payments. In
addition, at least one of the following characteristics must apply to
the minor child or non-custodial parent: the child or non-custodial
parent has been on public assistance for over 30 months, or is within
12 months of becoming ineligible for TANF due to a time limit; the
child is receiving or eligible for TANF; the child has left TANF within
the past year; or the child is receiving or is eligible for
food stamps, Supplemental Security Income (SSI), Medicaid, or the
Children's Health Improvement Program (CHIP).
The bill increases funding for non-custodial parents by requiring
that at least 20 percent of state formula funds be used for this
population. The bill also provides that a non-custodial parent will
enter into an individual responsibility contract with the service
provider and state agency to say that he or she will cooperate in the
establishment of paternity and in the establishment or modification of
a child support order, make regular child support payments, and find
and hold a job. These revisions are an attempt to permit and encourage
non-custodial parents to provide for their children, become more
involved in their children's lives, and pursue better lives for
themselves and their families.
Mr. President, Native American communities will benefit from my bill
from a doubling of the Native American set-aside from $15 million to
$30 million. This funding increase in necessary because Native
Americans currently receive one percent of the total Welfare-to-Work
funds but serve 3.2 percent of total program participants, according to
a recent U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Welfare-to-Work
Evaluation. In recognition of their sovereignty, the bill also provides
Native American tribes with flexibility in designing programs that are
effective for their territories. It is a gross understatement to say
that our Native
[[Page
S8092]]
American communities have not had the chance to experience the economic
success that our nation has been enjoying. We must do what we can to
make up for this shortfall, fulfill our Federal responsibilities to
Native Americans, and help families and children in Native American
communities who face obstacles to self-sufficiency.
Mr. President, children who leave foster care at age 18 make up
another hard-to-help population that faces numerous barriers to
employment. My bill introduces new support for these individuals when
they attempt to start out on their own by allowing them to take
advantage of Welfare-to-Work programs. According to DOL, 20,000
children leave foster care annually. Of these, 32 to 40 percent receive
some type of government assistance within the first 18 months after
leaving the foster care system. This bill provides funds to help them
find alternatives to welfare as they leave their state care system.
My bill simplifies Welfare-to-Work reporting requirements so that the
program can be evaluated effectively. This evaluation will allow
Congress and DOL access to better statistics on how the program is
performing nationwide. In addition, one-percent of the funds are
provided for technical assistance so that DOL can ensure cooperation
between states, local governments, TANF and child support agencies, and
community-based organizations so
Major Actions:
All articles in Senate section
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
(Senate - July 01, 1999)
Text of this article available as:
TXT
PDF
[Pages S8085-
S8140]
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
By Mr. HOLLINGS:
S. 1312. A bill to ensure full and expeditious enforcement of the
provisions of the Communications Act of 1934 that seek to bring about
competition in local telecommunications markets, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
the telecommunications competition enforcement act of 1999
Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I rise to introduce,
S. 1312, the
Telecommunications Competition Enforcement Act of 1999.
The United States has a telecommunications system that is unequaled.
We have worked hard to ensure that consumers in all parts of the
country have access to this system and enjoy services at an affordable
price. Therefore, when the Bell companies asked us to allow them to
enter the long distance market, it was with great caution that we began
to develop policies that would change the existing framework. We did
not want to jeopardize existing service as we phased in competition
into local markets and allowed local phone companies to enter the long
distance market.
Bell companies worked with Congress to create the fourteen point
checklist and they celebrated the passage of the 1996 Act. They then
filed applications with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to
enter the long distance market. However, the FCC found that the Bell
companies had not opened their local markets to competition, and
therefore, under the 1996 Act, could not enter the long distance
market. Once the Bell companies realized that they were not going to
get into the long distance market before they complied with the 1996
Act, they began a strategy of litigation to delay competition into
their local markets and hold on to their monopolies. They appealed the
FCC's decisions to the Court of Appeals and challenged the
constitutionality of the Act taking their case to the Supreme Court.
Having lost in those forums they have now come to Congress seeking
changes to the Act that only three years ago they championed. As a
result bills have been introduced in the Senate and the House that
significantly amend the 1996 Act, harm competition in the local
markets, and slow the delivery of advanced, affordable services to
consumers.
Therefore, I introduce this legislation as part of a continuing
effort to promote competition in the local telecommunications markets.
I am frustrated by the broken promises of the Bell companies given that
not a single Bell company has adequately opened its local phone market
to competition since the enactment of the Telecommunications Act of
1996. According to wall street analysts, as of the end of last year new
entrants had only 2.5 percent of all access lines while Bell companies
and incumbent local exchange carriers continued to control over 97
percent of those lines into the home.
Three years ago when we passed the 1996 Act, Bell companies
proclaimed that they would open their markets immediately and begin
competing. In fact, they and their lawyers helped write the 14 point
checklist--their roadmap into the long distance market in their region.
All these companies have to do to provide long distance service in
their regions is to follow that roadmap and meet the requirements of
Section 271.
I remember the excitement by the local phone companies at the time of
the 1996 Act. On March 5, 1996, Bell South-Alabama President, Neal
Travis, stated that the ``Telecommunications Act now means that
consumers will have more choices . . . We are going full speed ahead .
. . and within a year or so we can offer [long distance] to our
residential and business wireline customers.''
And, on February 8, 1996, USWest's President of Long Distance,
Richard Coleman, issued this statement: ``The Inter-LATA long distance
potential is a tremendous business opportunity for USWest. Customers
have made it clear they want one-stop shopping for both their local and
long distance service. We are preparing to give them exactly what
they've been asking for.'' He went on to predict that USWest would meet
the 14 point checklist in a majority of its states within 12-18 months.
Ameritech's chief executive office, Richard Notebaert February 1,
1996,
[[Page
S8086]]
noted his support of the 1996 Act by stating that, ``[t]he real open
competition this bill promotes will bring customers more choices,
competitive prices and better quality services . . . [T]his bill will
rank as one of the most important and far-reaching pieces of federal
legislation passed this decade . . . It offers a comprehensive
communications policy, solidly grounded in the principles of the
competitive marketplace. It's truly a framework for the information
age.''
Those were the statements of the local phone companies in 1996. What
has happened since then? The answer is very little. In fact, rather
than meet their promises, the local phone companies were in federal
court challenging the FCC's implementation of the Act less than one
year after its enactment. In addition, only five applications for
Section 271 relief have been filed at the FCC--and none have met the
requirements of section 271. On more than one occasion, the FCC's
decision to deny a 271 application has been upheld by the D.C. Circuit
Court. One of the regional Bell companies even challenged the
constitutionality of section 271--a challenge the court of appeals
denied and the Supreme Court refused to hear. Today, there are no 271
applications on file at the FCC and not a single application has been
presented to the FCC since July 1998.
What this means for the customer is that the choice and the local
competition we tried to create with the passage of the
Telecommunications Act has been thwarted by the very companies that
promised to compete. Instead, they have chosen to litigate, complain,
and combine. Just two days ago, the Chairman of the FCC decided to
grant SBC and Ameritech approval to merge their operations. In
permitting the merger to go forward, the FCC has conditioned approval
on future performance--performance which SBC has not met in the three
years since the passage of the 1996 Act. In fact, on the same day
conditional approval of the SBC and Ameritech merger was announced, SBC
agreed to pay $1.3 million to settle disputes surrounding alleged
violations of sections of the 1996 Act dealing with the provision of
long distance service. One company will now control one-third of all
access lines in the United States even though its market is not open to
competition. Competition again becomes a casualty of the unwillingness
of Bell companies, to open their markets and let go of their
monopolies.
Today, there are companies seeking to connect to the Bell networks
and provide service to consumers. However, these companies often times
experience significant difficulties in obtaining access to these
networks. Thus, while I applaud the efforts of the competitive local
exchange carriers, long distance carriers, and the cable industry to
provide facilities-based local competition, I must express my
disappointment that not a single regional bell operating company has
sufficiently opened its markets to competition.
Since the beginning of this Congress, many of the Bell companies have
been meeting with Senators and Representatives, often accompanied by
the same lawyers who helped write the Telecommunications Act. But this
time their message is different. They are asking us to change the rules
of the game. They now want to offer lucrative high-speed data services
for long distance customers without first having to open their local
markets to competition. They maintain that they should be permitted to
continue their hold on the local customer as they provide data services
because the 1996 Act did not contemplate the provision of such
services. To state it plainly--they are wrong. The Telecommunications
Act clearly contemplated the provision of advanced services--data and
otherwise. In fact, the Act had an entire section dedicated to
promoting the development and deployment of advanced services. To quote
the Act, ``advanced telecommunications capability'' is defined as
``high-speed switched, broadband telecommunications capability that
enables users to originate and receive high-quality voice, data,
graphics, and video telecommunications using any technology.''
Regardless, nothing in the 1996 Act prevents phone companies from
providing high speed data services to consumers inside and outside
their region. They are already providing DSL service to customers
inside their region. And, under the 1996 Act, Bell companies can
provide long distance service in their region once they open their
local markets. We must hold to this principle if we want consumers to
have a choice of service providers. In fact, a number of Bell companies
are working to meet Section 271 requirements. I applaud those attempts
which, if successful, will ultimately provide new and innovative
services at low prices to consumers.
Therefore, I reject their proposed legislative solutions, and
instead, forward a different proposal. By 2001, five years will have
passed since the Telecommunications Act became law. I believe, it is
reasonable to expect Bell companies to have at least one-half of their
markets in their region open to competition by 2001 and all of their
markets in their region open to competition by 2003. The legislation
that I introduce today accomplishs just that. My bill requires the
Federal Communications Commission to assess a forfeiture penalty of
$100,000 per day if a Bell operating company has not met the section
271 checklist in at least half of the states in its region by February
8, 2001--the five year anniversary of President Clinton signing the
Telecommunications Act into law. Moreover, if the FCC finds that a Bell
operating company has not met the section 271 checklist throughout its
region by February 8, 2003, the Commission is required to order the
company to divest its telecommunications network facilities within six
months, in states in which it is not in compliance with the checklist.
With respect to non-Bell incumbent local exchange carriers with more
than 5 percent of the access lines in the nation, the Commission, upon
the petition of any interested party, is required to investigate
whether the carrier's markets are open to competition to determine
whether such carrier has complied with the interconnection requirements
of the Act. A determination that such an incumbent local exchange
company has not opened its markets shall result in a $50,000 per day
forfeiture penalty, to be imposed by the FCC, if the company does not
come into compliance within 60 days. In addition, the FCC shall order
the company to cease and desist in marketing and selling long distance
services to new customers, if it has not complied within the 60 day
grace period.
Lastly, to protect competition once the Bell companies have met the
section 271 checklist requirements, this bill provides the FCC with
additional enforcement tools. If, at some point after meeting the
checklist requirements, a Bell company fails to meet one or more
provisions of the checklist, the FCC shall impose a forfeiture penalty
of $100,000 for each day of the continuing violation. Moreover, if,
after meeting the checklist requirements, the Bell company willfully,
knowing, and repeatedly fails to meet one or more provisions of the
checklist, the FCC shall require the Bell company, within 180 days, to
divest its telecommunications network facilities in states in which the
repeated violations have occurred.
While these penalties may appear severe, severe action needs to be
taken to force dominant market providers to open their markets to
competition. During the debate over the Telecommunications Act, we did
not include such a strong approach. Rather, we settled on a rational
and reasonable set of procedures--endorsed by the local phone
monoplies--that provided incentives to open their local markets while
preserving the integrity of the premier communications networks in the
world. That approach seemed particularly palatable in light of the
statements issued at the time of enactment of the 1996 Act by the local
phone companies promising an early opening of the local phone market
pursuant to the requirements of the Section 271 checklist.
Today, our communications networks remain the envy of the world and
the development of innovative advanced services is accelerating
rapidly. Unfortunately, the rollout of those services on a competitive
basis to all Americans is being thwarted by the failure of Bell
companies to open their markets to competition. Those same monopolists
told us their markets
[[Page
S8087]]
would be open months ago. This legislation seeks to hold them to their
word.
I ask consent that a summary of the bill be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the summary was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
The Telecommunications Competition Enforcement Act of 1999
SUMMARY
A Bell Operating Company (BOC) is required to meet the
market opening requirements of the section 271 checklist of
the Telecommunications Act of 1996 for half of the states in
its region by February 8, 2001. The FCC is required to assess
a forfeiture penalty of $100,000 for each day a BOC is in
violation of this requirement.
A BOC is required to meet the market opening requirements
of the section 271 checklist of the Telecommunications Act of
1996 for all the states in its region by February 8, 2003.
The FCC is required to order a BOC to divest its
telecommunications network facilities within 180 days in
which it is in violation of this requirement.
Upon petition by any interested party, the FCC is directed
to investigate whether incumbent local exchange carriers
(ILEC) with more than 5 percent of the nation's access lines
(that are not Bell Companies) have opened their markets to
competition pursuant to Section 251(c) of the
Telecommunications Act of 1996.
Upon a determination that such ILECs are not in full
compliance with Section 251(c), the FCC shall set forth the
reasons for non-compliance and grant 60 days for the ILEC to
come into full compliance. Absent such compliance after that
60 day period, the FCC is required to assess a civil
forfeiture penalty of $50,000 for each day of the continuing
violation and order the company to cease and desist in
marketing and selling long distance services to new
customers.
If upon meeting the checklist requirements, a BOC fails to
meet one or more provisions of the checklist, the FCC shall
impose a forfeiture of $100,000 for each day of the
continuing violation. If upon meeting the checklist
requirements, the BOC knowingly, willfully, and repeatedly
fails to meet one or more provisions of the checklist, the
FCC shall require the BOC, to divest its telecommunications
network facilities, within 180 days, in states in which
repeated violations have occurred.
JUSTIFICATION
The Telecommunications Act of 1996 required Bell Operating
Companies (BOCs) to open their markets to competition. Yet,
not a single BOC has met the market opening requirements of
the Section 271 checklist. No Section 271 applications have
been filed at the FCC since July of 1998. Only five
applications have been filed since 1996--none of which
complied with Section 271.
In the three years since enactment, however, the BOCs have
pursued a strategy of stonewalling and litigation that has
delayed implementation of the critical interconnection,
unbundling, collocation, and resale requirements of the Act.
Now, BOCs are seeking legislative relief from the pro-
competitive provisions of the Telecommunications Act. They
argue that they will provide rural America with advanced
communications services, but only if they are allowed to
provide long distance service to their current customers. The
truth is that BOCs can provide advanced services today.
However, to get into the long distance market, they must open
their local markets to competition. This bill provides an
incentive for them to do just that.
By requiring a date certain by which the local phone
monopolies must open their markets, and by accompanying that
requirement with federal enforcement authority, we can be
assured that American consumers will obtain the benefits of
local competition.
______
By Mr. LEAHY (for himself, Mr. DeWINE, and Mr. ROBB):
S. 1314. A bill to establish a grant program to assist State and
local law enforcement in deterring, investigating, and prosecuting
computer crimes; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
computer crime enforcement act
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce the Computer
Crime Enforcement Act. This legislation establishes a Department of
Justice grant program to support state and local law enforcement
officers and prosecutors to prevent, investigate and prosecute computer
crime. I am pleased that Senator DeWine, with whom I worked closely and
successfully last year on the Crime Identification Technology Act, and
Senator Robb, who has long been a leader on law enforcement issues,
support this bill as original cosponsors.
Computer crime is quickly emerging as one of today's top challenges
for state and local law enforcement officials. A recent survey by the
FBI and the Computer Security Institute found that 62% of information
security professionals reported computer security breaches in the past
year. These breaches in computer security resulted in financial losses
of more than $120 million from fraud, theft of proprietary information,
sabotage, computer viruses and stolen laptops. Computer crime has
become a multi-billion dollar problem.
I am proud to report that the States, including my home state of
Vermont, are reacting to the increase in computer crime by enacted
tough computer crime control laws. For example, Vermont's new law makes
certain acts against computers illegal, such as: accessing any computer
system or data without permission; accessing a computer to commit
fraud, remove, destroy or copy data or deny access to the data;
damaging or interfering with the operation of the computer system or
data; and stealing or destroying any computer data or system. These
state laws establish a firm groundwork for electronic commerce, an
increasingly important sector of the Vermont economy and of the
nation's economy. Now all fifty states have enacted some type of
computer crime statute.
Unfortunately, too many state and local law enforcement agencies are
struggling to afford the high cost of enforcing their state computer
crime statute. The Computer Crime Enforcement Act would provide a
helping hand by authorizing a $25 million grant program to help the
states receive Federal funding for improved education, training,
enforcement and prosecution of computer crime. Our bill will help
states take a byte out of computer crime.
Congress has recognized the importance of providing state and local
law enforcement officers with the means necessary to prevent and combat
cyber attacks and other computer crime through the FBI's Computer
Analysis and Response Team (CART) Program and the National
Infrastructure Protection Center. Our legislation would enhance that
Federal role by providing each state with much-needed resources to join
Federal law enforcement officials in collaborative efforts to fight
computer crime.
In Vermont, for instance, only half a dozen law enforcement officers
among the more than 900 officers in the state have been trained in
investigating computer crimes and analyzing cyber evidence. As
Detective Michael Schirling of the Chittenden Unit for Special
Investigations recently observed in my home state: ``The bad guys are
using computers at a rate that's exponentially greater than our ability
to respond to the problem.'' Without the necessary educational
training, technical support, and coordinated information, our law
enforcement officials will be hamstrung in their efforts to crack down
on computer crime.
Computers have ushered in a new age filled with unlimited potential
for good. But the computer age has also ushered in new challenges for
our state and local law enforcement officers. Let's provide our state
and local partners in crime fighting with the resources that they need
in the battle against computer crime.
I urge my colleagues to support the Computer Crime Enforcement Act
and its quick passage into law.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the Computer
Crime Enforcement Act be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 1314
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 ``Computer Crime Enforcement
Act''.
SEC. 2. STATE GRANT PROGRAM FOR TRAINING AND PROSECUTION OF
COMPUTER CRIMES.
(a) In General.--Subject to the availability of amounts
provided in advance in appropriations Acts, the Office of
Justice Programs shall make a grant to each State, which
shall be used by the State, in conjunction with units of
local government, State and local courts, other States, or
combinations thereof, to--
(1) assist State and local law enforcement in enforcing
State and local criminal laws relating to computer crime;
(2) assist State and local law enforcement in educating the
public to prevent and identify computer crime;
(3) assist in educating and training State and local law
enforcement officers and prosecutors to conduct
investigations and forensic analyses of evidence and
prosecutions of computer crime;
[[Page
S8088]]
(4) assist State and local law enforcement officers and
prosecutors in acquiring computer and other equipment to
conduct investigations and forensic analysis of evidence of
computer crimes; and
(5) facilitate and promote the sharing of Federal law
enforcement expertise and information about the
investigation, analysis, and prosecution of computer crimes
with State and local law enforcement officers and
prosecutors, including the use of multijurisdictional task
forces.
(b) Use of Grant Amounts.--Grants under this section may be
used to establish and develop programs to--
(1) assist State and local law enforcement in enforcing
State and local criminal laws relating to computer crime;
(2) assist State and local law enforcement in educating the
public to prevent and identify computer crime;
(3) educate and train State and local law enforcement
officers and prosecutors to conduct investigations and
forensic analyses of evidence and prosecutions of computer
crime;
(4) assist State and local law enforcement officers and
prosecutors in acquiring computer and other equipment to
conduct investigations and forensic analysis of evidence of
computer crimes; and
(5) facilitate and promote the sharing of Federal law
enforcement expertise and information about the
investigation, analysis, and prosecution of computer crimes
with State and local law enforcement officers and
prosecutors, including the use of multijurisdictional task
forces.
(c) Assurances.--To be eligible to receive a grant under
this section, a State shall provide assurances to the
Attorney General that the State--
(1) has in effect laws that penalize computer crime, such
as penal laws prohibiting--
(A) fraudulent schemes executed by means of a computer
system or network;
(B) the unlawful damaging, destroying, altering, deleting,
removing of computer software, or data contained in a
computer, computer system, computer program, or computer
network; or
(C) the unlawful interference with the operation of or
denial of access to a computer, computer program, computer
system, or computer network;
(2) an assessment of the State and local resource needs,
including criminal justice resources being devoted to the
investigation and enforcement of computer crime laws; and
(3) a plan for coordinating the programs funded under this
section with other federally funded technical assistant and
training programs, including directly funded local programs
such as the Local Law Enforcement Block Grant program
(described under the heading ``Violent Crime Reduction
Programs, State and Local Law Enforcement Assistance'' of the
Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary,
and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1998 (Public Law
105-119)).
(d) Matching Funds.--The Federal share of a grant received
under this section may not exceed 90 percent of the costs of
a program or proposal funded under this section unless the
Attorney General waives, wholly or in part, the requirements
of this subsection.
(e) Authorization of Appropriations.--
(1) In general.--There is authorized to be appropriated to
carry out this section $25,000,000 for each of fiscal years
2000 through 2003.
(2) Limitations.--Of the amount made available to carry out
this section in any fiscal year not more than 3 percent may
be used by the Attorney General for salaries and
administrative expenses.
(3) Minimum amount.--Unless all eligible applications
submitted by any State or unit of local government within
such State for a grant under this section have been funded,
such State, together with grantees within the State (other
than Indian tribes), shall be allocated in each fiscal year
under this section not less than 0.75 percent of the total
amount appropriated in the fiscal year for grants pursuant to
this section, except that the United States Virgin Islands,
American Samoa, Guam, and the Northern Mariana Islands each
shall be allocated 0.25 percent.
(f) Grants to Indian Tribes.--Notwithstanding any other
provision of this section, the Attorney General may use
amounts made available under this section to make grants to
Indian tribes for use in accordance with this section.
______
By Mr. BINGAMAN:
S. 1315. A bill to permit the leasing of oil and gas rights on
certain lands held in trust for the Navajo Nation or allotted to a
member of the Navajo Nation, in any case in which there is consent from
a specified percentage interest in the parcel of land under
consideration for lease; to the Committee on Indian Affairs.
fractionated lands
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise to talk about a bill that I have
sent to the desk. It relates to a very serious problem faced by a large
number of Navajo people in my State. The issue is referred to as
``fractionated lands.''
Around the turn of the century, the Federal Government attempted to
force Indian people to assimilate by breaking up traditional tribal
lands and allotting parcels of the land to individual tribal members.
In New Mexico, this policy created what is known as the
``checkerboard,'' because alternating tracts of land are now owned by
individual Navajos, the state, the federal government, or private
landowners. A Navajo allotment was generally 160 acres. Under the
allotment system, the Navajo owner was granted an undivided interest in
the entire parcel. The heirs of the original owner also inherit an
undivided interest, geometrically compounding--or fractionating--the
number of owners of the original 160 acres.
This allotment policy, coupled with other federal laws governing
Indian land ownership, land management, and probate, have not served
the Navajo people well during this century. I am introducing
legislation today to help address this problem.
Mr. President, I'd like to take a few minutes to illustrate why the
legislation I am proposing is needed. If a Navajo was allotted a 160-
acre parcel and had four heirs, the heirs did not inherit 40 acres each
when the original owner died. Rather, each heir inherited a 25 percent
undivided interest in the full 160-acre allotment. Going forward, when
the current four owners died, assuming again four heirs each, sixteen
heirs inherited a 6.25 percent undivided interest in the allotment. The
next generation would result in 64 heirs each with a 1.5625 percent
undivided interest. And so forth.
What makes this situation so unique is that each heir inherits an
undivided interest in the allotment. Over time, individual owners may
inherit tiny fractions in many different allotments around the
reservation. In my state, there are about 4,000 individual allotments
covering nearly 700,000 acres. At this point, these 4,000 Navajo
allotments have a total of 40,000 listed owners, and the number grows
every day. It doesn't take a Ph.D. in math to figure out what's wrong
with this policy.
Mr. President, in April I held a town meeting with Navajo allottees
in Nageezi, New Mexico, a small chapter house in the Northeast section
of the Navajo Reservation. The allottees talked about the serious
problems that fractionated ownership has caused. Over 100 members of
the Navajo Nation came from as far away as Aneth, Utah, to speak at the
meeting. As you know, the Navajo Nation extends into three states, New
Mexico, Arizona and Utah, and there are allottees living in all three
states.
Record keeping of individual land ownership has become a nightmare.
In many cases, owners can no longer be located. Also, ownership can be
clouded when an owner dies without a legal will--a common situation in
Indian Country.
Some individuals do not even realize they own one or more of these
allotments. Often, individuals are surprised to find out that they are
an heir to an allotment on another reservation.
Mr. President, we all recognize there are serious problems with BIA's
management of its trust responsibilities for allotted lands in New
Mexico. The management problems were brought out very clearly at a
joint Senate hearing in March. The hearing also revealed the extent to
which the government's allotment policy contributed to BIA's current
trust management problems.
On the Navajo reservation, a three-year pilot project is underway in
Farmington, New Mexico, to try to unravel some of the management
problems with allotted Navajo lands. This project, called the
Farmington Indian Minerals Office, or FIMO, is trying to cut through
the red tape created by three different Bureaus in the Department of
Interior, BIA, BLM, and MMS, which share responsibility for management
of allotted lands. The FIMO has worked hard to assist Navajo allottees
determine who their fellow allottees are and what land each allottee
owns. I support the efforts of FIMO. If this legislation is passed,
FIMO could accomplish even more on behalf of the Navajo allottees in
the three states.
Mr. President, over the years, Congress has tried to deal with the
problem of fractionated lands, and has failed every time. The long
history of trust management problems is not going to be corrected
quickly. Developing and implementing a comprehensive solution is going
to take time. The Indian Land Working Group is one of
[[Page
S8089]]
the leaders in this area and has submitted a proposal for Congress to
consider. I applaud the efforts of Senators Campbell and Inouye and the
members of the Indian Affairs Committee for taking on this difficult
issue. Some of the proposals include improved record keeping, probate
and estate planning programs, and new processes for consolidating
fractionated lands. I look forward to working with the Committee to
craft a comprehensive solution.
While the larger issue of fractionated ownership is being considered
by the Senate, I believe it is appropriate to consider a stop-gap
measure to help stimulate near-term economic development on
fractionated Navajo lands. There is an abundance of oil and gas beneath
the Navajo allotments, yet the allottees are unable to benefit from
this wealth because of federal laws that make it very difficult for
Indian allottees to lease their land. To illustrate, during the last 12
years, $7 million in leasing bonuses has been paid to the state and
federal government for leases in the checkerboard region of New Mexico,
while only $27,000 has been paid to owners of Navajo allotments.
The problem lies in the 1909 Mineral Leasing Act. The Act requires
all persons who have an undivided interest in any particular parcel to
consent to its lease. In the case of Navajo allottees, 100 percent of
the allottees must consent to a lease of their land. Because of the
fractionated land problem, obtaining 100 percent consent is often
impossible because many owners cannot be located. Consequently, the
Navajo allottees are precluded from the beneficial use of their land.
The bill I am introducing today will facilitate the leasing of Navajo
allotted land for oil and gas development. In the case of non-Indians,
most states already allow mineral leases with less than 100 percent
consent of the owners as long as all persons who own an interest
receive the benefits from the lease. My bill simply extends similar
benefits to Navajo allottees. The bill would authorize the Secretary of
the Interior to approve an oil or gas lease connected to Navajo
allotted land when less than 100 percent of the owners consent to such
a lease. A similar bill was passed in the 105th Congress to facilitate
mineral leasing of allotted lands on the Ft. Berthold Reservation in
North Dakota.
My bill proposes a graded system for lease approval. In situations
where there are 10 or fewer owners of an allotment, 100 percent of the
owners must consent to a lease. However, where there exists 11 to 50
owners of an allotment, only 80 percent of the owners need consent.
And, with more than 50 owners, 60 percent consent would be required.
This graded system was suggested by the Navajo allottees.
Mr. President, unemployment on the Navajo Reservation now exceeds 50
percent. The opportunities for economic development on this land are
few. It is not appropriate for the federal government to continue to
deprive the legal owners of Navajo allotted lands the option to develop
their land as they choose. This bill is a small step toward correcting
the mistakes of the past and a bigger step towards providing economic
prosperity for future generations of Navajo allottees.
The bill has the support of the Navajo Nation and the Shii Shi Keyah,
the principal Navajo Allottees' Association.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a resolution from the
Shii Shi Keyah Association and a letter from the Navajo Nation be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Shii Shi Keyah Association Resolution of the Board of Directors
Whereas, the Board of Directors of Shii Shi Keyah
Association (``SSKA''), an unincorporated association of
Navajos who have ownership interests in allotments on or near
the Navajo Reservation, generally referred to as Navajo
Indian Country, has considered a number of issues relating to
oil and gas rights and revenues which require its attention;
Whereas, United States Senator Jeff Bingaman will introduce
in the 106th Congress, 1st Session, a bill which begins ``To
permit the leasing of oil and gas rights on certain lands in
New Mexico held in trust for the Navajo Tribe or allotted to
a member of the Navajo Tribe, in any case in which there is
consent from a specified percentage interest in the parcel of
land under consideration for issue;''
Be it Resolved that SSKA will support Senator Bingaman's
bill if it is amended to include the states of Utah and
Arizona.
certification
The foregoing Resolution was adopted by the Board of
Directors of Shii Shi Keyah Association of Bloomfield, NM
with no votes against and no abstentions at a regular meeting
of the Board held on June 4, 1999.
____
The Navajo Nation,
Washington, DC, May 18, 1999.
Re: Proposed Bill to Permit the Leasing of Oil and Gas Rights
on Certain Lands in New Mexico Held in Trust for the
Navajo Tribe or Allotted to a Member of the Navajo Tribe,
in any Case in which There Is Consent from a Specified
Percentage Interest in the Parcel of Land under
Consideration for Lease
Hon. Jeff Bingaman,
U.S. Senate,
Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
Senator Bingaman: Thank you for scheduling the April 8,
1999 meeting at the Nageezi Chapter. The Navajo Nation
appreciates your interest in the problems faced by Navajo
people regarding their allotted lands in northwestern New
Mexico.
The Navajo Nation supports your efforts toward solving the
problems engendered by increasingly fractionated interests
held by Navajo individuals in allotted lands. We support the
intent of the bill, provided that it is supported by a
consensus of Navajo individuals that will be affected. In
addition, we can support most of the particulars of the bill,
although the Navajo Nation would request some minor revisions
to the bill before it is introduced, as explained below.
Initially, we are concerned whether a consensus of affected
Navajo individuals support the proposed bill. The Navajo
Nation is concerned that the Shii Shi Keyah Association
apparently opposes the bill, as indicated in a letter to you
dated March 11, 1999 from the Association's attorney, Alan R.
Taradash, copy attached. We understand that the Shii Shi
Keyah Association is a respected organization comprised of
Navajo individuals numbering in the thousands.
The approach suggested by Mr. Taradash, the conveyance of
fractionated interests into family trusts, appears to have
much to commend it. However, we are not sure that the family
trust approach and the approach reflected in the proposed
bill are mutually exclusive. The Navajo Nation
respectfully requests that your office continue to work
with affected Navajo individuals to assure that the bill
reflects the best approach or combination of approaches to
solve the problems facing those individuals. The Navajo
Nation would be happy to work with your office in this
regard, and stands ready to provide any assistance your
office may need.
In addition, the Navajo Nation is very concerned with the
effect of section 1(b)(3)(A) of the proposed legislation,
which would appear to make the Navajo Nation a party to any
lease of oil and gas rights in allotted lands in which it
might own a minority interest. While the Navajo Nation has no
objection to any minority interest it might hold being leased
in accordance with the provisions of the bill, if that is the
approach that a consensus of affected Navajo individuals
support, the Navajo Nation must opposed being made a party to
any such lease. The Navajo Nation has very deliberate
policies and requirements regarding terms and conditions in
leases to which it is a party. In the present judicial
climate, lease terms and conditions can have a profound
effect on the sovereignty of an Indian nation. Therefore, we
must respectfully request that section 1(b)(3) of the bill be
changed to read in its entirety as follows:
``(3) Effect of approval.--On approval by the Secretary
under paragraph (1), an oil or gas lease or agreement shall
be binding upon each of the beneficial owners that have
consented in writing to the lease or agreement and upon all
other parties to the lease or agreement and shall be binding
upon the entire undivided interest in a Navajo Indian
allotted land covered under the lease or agreement.''
Finally, the Navajo Nation respectfully requests that all
references to the ``Navajo Tribe'' be changed to refer to the
``Navajo Nation,'' and that the reference be deleted in
section 1(a)(3) to the Navajo Nation as ``including the
Alamo, Ramah and Canoncito bands of Navajo Indians.'' The
Term ``Navajo Nation'' is the legal name of the Navajo
Nation, and by Navajo Nation statute is preferred over the
term ``Navajo Tribe.'' We must object to the reference to the
three bands (but not others) because of the possible negative
inference that there exists some ambiguity as to whether such
bands are constituent parts of the Navajo Nation. There is no
such ambiguity now, and we wish to avoid creating any. The
reference can safely be deleted without causing any
uncertainty in the definition.
Unfortunately, fractionated interests remains a significant
problem within the Navajo Nation, as we understand it is also
within our Indian nations. The Navajo Nation would like to
work your office and with other members of Congress on
comprehensive, long-term solution to this problem. If you
have any questions, or need additional information, please
contact the Navajo Nation Washington Office.
Sincerely,
Estelle J. Bowman,
Executive Director.
[[Page
S8090]]
______
By Mr. AKAKA (for himself, Mr. Moynihan, Mrs. Feinstein, Mr.
Wellstone, Mrs. Murray, and Mr. Lautenberg):
S. 1317. A bill to reauthorize the Welfare-to-Work program to provide
additional resources and flexibility to improve the administration of
the program; to the Committee on Finance.
welfare-to-work amendments of 1999
Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise to introduce a bill that would
continue a program vital to helping welfare recipients who face the
greatest barriers to finding and securing employment, called the
Welfare-to-Work Amendments of 1999. My bill targets resources to
families and communities with the greatest need, simplifies eligibility
criteria for participation, and helps non-custodial parents get jobs to
enable them to make child support payments. It also opens more
resources to Native Americans, the homeless, those with disabilities or
substance abuse problems, and victims of domestic violence. This is
similar to a proposal unveiled by the Clinton Administration earlier
this year and introduced as
H.R. 1482 by Representative Benjamin Cardin
of Maryland. I would also like to thank my colleagues Senators
Moynihan, Feinstein, Wellstone, Murray, and Lautenberg for joining me
as original cosponsors of my bill.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a letter which I received
from the Secretary of Labor, Alexis Herman, be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
Secretary of Labor,
Washington, July 1, 1999.
Hon. Daniel K. Akaka,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Akaka: I congratulate you on the introduction
of the ``Welfare-to-Work Amendments of 1999.'' I am pleased
that your legislation joins that introduced by Rep. Benjamin
Cardin earlier this year in the House in seeking to
accomplish the Administration's objectives in reauthorizing
the Welfare-to-Work (WtW) Grants Program. President Clinton
and I believe the Welfare-to-Work Grants Program is a key
component of the overall welfare reform effort. While welfare
caseloads have declined by nearly half over the last six
years, many individuals remaining on welfare are long-term
recipients who face significant barriers to employment. As
the President said in his April 10th radio address, ``We
can't finish the job of welfare reform without doing more to
help people who have the hardest time moving from welfare to
work--those who live in the poorest neighborhoods and have
the poorest job skills. That's why I call on Congress to pass
my plan to extend the Department of Labor's Welfare-to-Work
program.''
This legislation incorporates the President's proposal to
extend the WtW Program, reflecting key suggestions the
Administration has received from State and local service
providers since the passage of the Balanced Budget Act of
1997. The WtW program funds job creation, job placement, and
job retention efforts to help long-term welfare recipients
and non-custodial parents move into lasting, unsubsidized
employment. In addition to helping long-term welfare
recipients make the transition from welfare to work, this
bill will help more low-income fathers increase their
employment and their involvement with their children. Demand
for WtW has been great. Last year, over 1,400 applicants from
local communities across the nation applied for more than $5
billion in WtW Competitive Grants, but DOL had sufficient
resources to fund less than 10 percent of these projects. In
addition, 44 states covering 95 percent of the welfare
caseload applied for formula funds. While the fundamental
principles and features of the program are maintained
(including the focus on work, targeting resources to
individuals and communities with the greatest need, and
administration through the locally administered, business-led
workforce investment system) we are also pleased to see the
principles of the original legislation further carried out by
the addition of the following enhancements:
A simplification of eligibility criteria which continues to
focus on long-term welfare recipients but provides that at
least one, rather than two, specified barriers to employment
must be met.
The provisions of even greater flexibility to serve those
with the greatest challenges to employment by the addition of
long-term welfare recipients who are victims of domestic
violence, individuals with disabilities, or homeless as
eligible to participate.
A strong focus on the family by targeting at least 20
percent of the WtW Formula Grant funds to help noncustodial
parents (mainly fathers) with children who are on or have
exhausted Temporary Assistance to Needy Families fulfill
their responsibilities to their children by committing to
work and pay child support.
An increase in the reserve for grants to Indian tribes from
the current 1 percent of the total to 3 percent, and an
authorization for Indian tribes to apply directly to the
Department of Labor for WtW Competitive Grants.
A procedure which allows unallotted formula funds to be
used to award competitive grants in the subsequent year,
providing a preference in awarding these funds to those local
applicants and tribes from States that did not receive
formula grants.
The development of streamlined reporting requirements
through the Department of Labor.
The establishment of a one percent reserve of Fiscal Year
2000 funds for technical assistance which includes sharing of
innovative and promising practices and strategies for serving
noncustodial parents.
In addition to the changes proposed by the Administration,
the legislation also provides for:
The inclusion of children aging out of foster care as
eligible service recipients and
The addition of job skills training and vocational
educational training.
While our welfare reform efforts have resulted in some
important early successes, much remains to be done.
Reauthorizing the WtW program, together with the
Administration's proposals to provide welfare-to-work housing
vouchers, transportation funds, and employer tax credits,
will provide parents the tools they need to support their
children and succeed in the workforce. Your introduction of
the ``Welfare-to-Work Amendments of 1999'' provides
significant opportunities to hard-to-employ welfare
recipients to make the transition to stable employment and
assist noncustodial parents in making meaningful
contributions to their children's well-being. I applaud and
support your efforts.
The Office of Management and Budget advises that it has no
objection to the transmittal of this report from the
standpoint of the Administration's program.
Sincerely,
Alexis M. Herman.
Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I quote from that letter to me.
President Clinton and I believe the Welfare-to-Work Grants
Program is a key component of the overall welfare reform
efforts.
Mr. President, the Welfare-to-Work program has helped numerous
welfare parents--both custodial and non-custodial--find and keep jobs
that pay a living wage and allow them to fulfill basic obligations to
their children. Children have fundamental needs for food, shelter, and
clothing, yet many parents find themselves barely scraping by, in order
to obtain these things. Many families are unable to go much beyond the
essentials to enroll their children in sports and other activities that
build strong bodies and social skills, or to provide them with decent
school supplies, books or computers to develop strong minds. Most
families take these things for granted because they live without the
anxiety of wondering when the next paycheck or child support payment
might be coming in. They have the finances to pay for child care to
enable parents to work during the day. They have cars or other access
to transportation that will take them to work every morning. Or they
have a telephone so that they may receive calls for job interviews. The
families that cannot make ends meet continue to live in dire need and
find their children living at risk.
Mr. President, 14.5 million American children live in poverty.
Furthermore, as reported in Kids Count 1999, 32 percent of children do
not live with two parents and 19 percent live in a home where the head
of household is a high school dropout. Twenty-one percent of children
are in families with incomes below the poverty line, 28 percent are
living with a parent or parents lacking steady full-time employment,
and 15 percent do not have health insurance. It is a shame that, in the
most prosperous nation in the world, we continue to be faced with these
dismal statistics for our children--young Americans who hold the
promise of this country's future in their hands.
Many of these children were helped when the Balanced Budget Act of
1997 created the Welfare-to-Work program as a new system for providing
assistance to welfare recipients most in need. This followed on the
heels of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity
Reconciliation Act of 1996, which replaced the Aid to Families with
Dependent Children cash assistance program with the Temporary
Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program.
The 1996 welfare reform law addressed the bulk of the welfare
population but lacked a component to help the hardest to employ welfare
recipients. Thus, Welfare-to-Work was passed to assist this population
find jobs and achieve independence so they no longer
[[Page
S8091]]
would need public support. The Welfare-to-Work program became an
essential component of the Administration's welfare reform effort by
providing recipients with a good alternative to welfare.
Since 1996, the number of people in the system dropped by a record
number: forty percent from a peak of about five million families in
1994 down to three million families as of June, 1998, according to the
General Accounting Office. However, the job is not finished. Welfare-
to-Work is needed now more than ever because those remaining on the
rolls are increasing likely to have multiple barriers to employment
such as poor work experience, inadequate English or computer skills, or
substance abuse problems.
We need to invest much more to help these individuals reach self-
sufficiency than we did in those who have already left welfare-these
individuals might have already had an educational record, special
skills or significant family support behind them to help them to their
feet. In contrast, Welfare-to-Work participants are the welfare
recipients who need the most help. In addition, extending Welfare-to-
Work will become even more important when TANF recipients and their
children reach welfare time limits in 19 states by year's end and have
their benefits reduced or completely removed.
These are the hard luck cases, Mr. President. These are the people
who continue to be left out of the economic boom of the 1990s. And
these are the people whom Welfare-to-Work was designed to help. If we
let the program expire this year, even if states have three years from
the date of award to spend their program funds, we will be saying to
these people, ``We've forgotten the promises we made to you in 1996
that we would continue to help you. Now, there is no more help for
you.''
This would be particularly harmful in my state of Hawaii which has
struggled due to the Asian financial crisis and has been the only state
where welfare rolls have increased. Welfare-to-Work has assisted many
of Hawaii's welfare recipients through this period of financial
hardship for the state by helping them find unsubsidized employment.
The program must be extended so that it may help other recipients and
their families in my beleaguered state.
My bill not only extends the Welfare-to-Work program, but it also
makes a number of important improvements to the program that states,
counties, and cities have requested. Currently, most funds allocated to
Welfare-to-Work state formula grants cannot be used because of
eligibility criteria that are difficult to meet. Currently, an
individual must have been receiving assistance for at least 30 months
or must be within 12 months of reaching the maximum period for
assistance. In addition, they must have two of three characteristics,
including: lacks a high school diploma or GED and has low math or
reading skills; has a poor work history; or requires substance abuse
treatment for employment. These criteria have excluded many TANF
applicants who, for instance, may have a GED or high school diploma but
still cannot read; these criteria have proven unrealistic.
Instead, under my bill, criteria would be changed to require
participants to have one out of seven characteristics: lacks a high
school diploma or GED; has English reading writing, or computer skills
at or below the 8th grade level; has a poor work history; requires
substance abuse treatment for employment; is homeless; has a
disability; or is a victim of domestic violence. This revision in
eligibility criteria would allow the program to better match the
participant pool. It is necessary because current criteria have left
more than 90 percent of Welfare-to-Work state formula grants unspent.
In Hawaii alone, only 37 percent of our TANF recipients have been
eligible to participate in the program, and this figure would double
under my bill. Furthermore, officials of the Hawaii Department of Human
Services which administers TANF and Welfare-to-Work in my state predict
that unless the Federal law is changed, it is unlikely that they will
be able to refer clients in sufficient numbers to meet WtW
expectations. Similar situations exist in all states, and these
criteria revisions respond to State and local entities that have been
doing the work of Welfare-to-Work and want to serve as many
participants as possible. In Texas, 21,000 people would be able to
participate in the program, according to the U.S. Department of Labor.
Under my bill, figures like this could be seen across the nation, and
more people in need would be able to find employment.
A related improvement contained in my bill is that it transfers any
unallocated Welfare-to-Work formula grant funds into the competitive
grant program. This competitive grant program has been tremendously
popular.
Out of the 1400 applications submitted requesting a total of $5
billion, only 126 applications for $470 million in funds were awarded
in FY 1998. This portion of Welfare-to-Work needs more funding. Under
my bill, preference is given to grant applications submitted from
states that did not receive a formula grant.
Mr. President, my bill also provides a re-emphasis on the whole
family. This past Father's Day, I had the opportunity to celebrate with
several of my children and their families, as it was a day to celebrate
and honor the family. However, many fathers were not as fortunate as
myself and were not able to celebrate with their children because they
went through divorce and did not receive custody of the children. Even
worse, many of these fathers are dismissively labeled ``dead beat
dads'' because they are not a presence in their children's lives and do
not pay child support. What we have found, Mr. President, is that many
of these fathers do not want to abandon their children. Rather, they
are ``dead broke dads'' and face the same barriers to finding and
holding employment that many welfare mothers do. This prevents them
from fulfilling child support obligations, which many want to do. If
these fathers can provide for their children, they will be more likely
to see them more often. Hopefully, renewed financial and emotional
involvement of fathers will mean that these children's lives will
improve.
For these non-custodial fathers, my bill will make it easier for them
to participate in Welfare-to-Work. Currently, non-custodial parents
face the same problems in attempting to qualify for Welfare-to-Work as
other applicants because of the same overly-restrictive criteria. Under
my bill, the eligibility requirements for non-custodial parents will be
revised to allow them to demonstrate that they are unemployed,
underemployed, or having difficulty paying child support payments. In
addition, at least one of the following characteristics must apply to
the minor child or non-custodial parent: the child or non-custodial
parent has been on public assistance for over 30 months, or is within
12 months of becoming ineligible for TANF due to a time limit; the
child is receiving or eligible for TANF; the child has left TANF within
the past year; or the child is receiving or is eligible for
food stamps, Supplemental Security Income (SSI), Medicaid, or the
Children's Health Improvement Program (CHIP).
The bill increases funding for non-custodial parents by requiring
that at least 20 percent of state formula funds be used for this
population. The bill also provides that a non-custodial parent will
enter into an individual responsibility contract with the service
provider and state agency to say that he or she will cooperate in the
establishment of paternity and in the establishment or modification of
a child support order, make regular child support payments, and find
and hold a job. These revisions are an attempt to permit and encourage
non-custodial parents to provide for their children, become more
involved in their children's lives, and pursue better lives for
themselves and their families.
Mr. President, Native American communities will benefit from my bill
from a doubling of the Native American set-aside from $15 million to
$30 million. This funding increase in necessary because Native
Americans currently receive one percent of the total Welfare-to-Work
funds but serve 3.2 percent of total program participants, according to
a recent U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Welfare-to-Work
Evaluation. In recognition of their sovereignty, the bill also provides
Native American tribes with flexibility in designing programs that are
effective for their territories. It is a gross understatement to say
that our Native
[[Page
S8092]]
American communities have not had the chance to experience the economic
success that our nation has been enjoying. We must do what we can to
make up for this shortfall, fulfill our Federal responsibilities to
Native Americans, and help families and children in Native American
communities who face obstacles to self-sufficiency.
Mr. President, children who leave foster care at age 18 make up
another hard-to-help population that faces numerous barriers to
employment. My bill introduces new support for these individuals when
they attempt to start out on their own by allowing them to take
advantage of Welfare-to-Work programs. According to DOL, 20,000
children leave foster care annually. Of these, 32 to 40 percent receive
some type of government assistance within the first 18 months after
leaving the foster care system. This bill provides funds to help them
find alternatives to welfare as they leave their state care system.
My bill simplifies Welfare-to-Work reporting requirements so that the
program can be evaluated effectively. This evaluation will allow
Congress and DOL access to better statistics on how the program is
performing nationwide. In addition, one-percent of the funds are
provided for technical assistance so that DOL can ensure cooperation
between states, local governments, TANF and child support agencies, and
community-based organizations so that all are able to work togeth
Amendments:
Cosponsors:
