THIS SEARCH THIS DOCUMENT THIS CR ISSUE GO TO
Next Hit Forward Next Document New CR Search
Prev Hit Back Prev Document HomePage
Hit List Best Sections Daily Digest Help
Doc Contents
Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise today with renewed hope for the safety of our public roads. In 1998, 5,374 people were killed in truck-related crashes. In my State there is a strong public sense of alarm about this safety problem. And as trucks get bigger and heavier and the volume of trucks on our roads increases, the General Accounting Office (GAO) predicts that by the year 2000, over 6,000 people will be killed every year as a result of truck-related crashes. This prediction comes at a time when the Office of Motor Carriers (OMC)--the federal agency charged with overseeing truck safety--has failed in its duties to protect the American public. The Department of Transportation Inspector General, the National Transportation Safety Board, the GAO and members of this Congress have all brought to light and documented the many inadequacies of this broken agency.
I commend the leaders of the Senate Commerce Committee for pursuing this very important issue. H.R. 3419, The Motor Carrier Safety Improvement Act of 1999, addresses the numerous failings of the Office of Motor Carriers by strengthening federal motor carrier safety programs, and by creating a new Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration. Although H.R. 3419 takes a large step in the right direction, federal truck safety oversight needs a new look, with a focus dedicated to reducing truck-related fatalities and injuries, and not simply a new agency with new letterhead.
The Inspector General in his April 1999 report showed that the OMC has not maintained an ``arm's length'' relationship between itself and the industry it regulates. In fact, the report suggests OMC has developed too close a relationship with the industry it must regulate. This has limited OMC in taking the tough regulatory and enforcement actions that the accident data suggests are needed to protect public safety. One example of this problem is that the OMC has consistently awarded research contracts to the regulated industry to perform some of the most critical, and highly sensitive research on future rulemakings governing the industry. This practice appears questionable. In order to protect the American public, an independent relationship should be established by the new Federal Motor Carrier Administration.
H.R. 3419 provides us with an opportunity for real progress in improving truck safety, but only if the new Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration and its leaders commit to a new culture which truly holds safety as the highest priority. This Congress and the Department of Transportation must restore the American public's trust in federal motor carrier safety programs, and take action that produces safer results.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I have some comments on issues raised by the conference report to the Interior appropriations bill.
On the matter of contract support costs for Bureau of Indian Affairs and Indian Health Service programs operated by Native organizations under the provisions of P.L. 93-638, I am pleased that we have been able to add $10 million to BIA funding and $25 million to IHS funding over fiscal year 1999 levels to support additional payments of contract support costs for these programs. This new funding will allow BIA and IHS to bring existing programs' contract support cost payments closer to the full amount of negotiated support and will allow a limited number of new and expanded programs in both agencies to go forward.
However, I am concerned that the Tribes have been operating, in the distribution of contract support costs, under the assumption that contract support costs are an entitlement under the law. The House and Senate Committees on Appropriations have taken exception to that interpretation and have tried to persuade the IHS to change its allocation methodology and to set reasonable limits on the number and size of new and expanded contracts it executes consonant with resources made available by Congress for the payment of contract support costs. The Federal Circuits Court of Appeals in its October 27, 1999 decision in Babbitt v. Oglala Sioux Tribal Public Safety Department (1999 WL 974155 (Fed. Cir.)) has now affirmed that contract support costs are not an entitlement, but rather are subject to appropriations. Contract support cases raising similar legal issues are pending in the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals and in various Federal district courts around the country. The Federal circuit's decision was correct both in its holding and in its reasoning and should serve as precedent for other pending cases. To assume that Congress would create a system in which Tribes receive the majority of their contract support costs through funds appropriated to the Indian Health Service or Bureau of Indian Affairs and which requires Tribes to seek the balance in court through the claims and judgment fund turns logic on its ear. ``Subject to appropriations'' means what it says.
The Indian Health Service has made improvements to its distribution methodology in fiscal year 1999 but continues to distribute funds at varying rates for different contracts, compacts and annual funding agreements. More disturbing, the current IHS system pays contractors with high overhead costs (relative to program costs) at the same percentage rate as it pays contractors with low overhead rates, rewarding inefficient operators and creating an incentive to maximize overhead costs.
The bill allows the funding in fiscal year 2000 of a limited number of new and expanded contracts through the Indian Self Determination (ISD) fund of $10 million. It is expected that, once the contract support cost total (paid at an average rate not to fall above or below the average rate of payment of contract support costs to existing contractors in fiscal year 2000) for new and expanded programs has reached $10 million, IHS will not execute any further new or expanded contracts until Congress has provided funds specifically earmarked for that purpose. Existing IHS policy does not permit reduction of existing service providers' funding in order to fund new entrants into the system. This bill does not modify that policy. If funds remain in the ISD fund after all new entrants have been accommodated, those funds should be distributed equitably across existing programs, with particular emphasis on the most underfunded.
The Indian Health Service should include as part of its fiscal year 2001 budget request a detailed cost estimate for new and expanded contracts so that Congress will be aware of anticipated need when it establishes a funding level for an ISD account in fiscal year 2001. Congress and the courts have made it plain that IHS can no longer enter into new and expanded contracts without regard to the level of funding provided for that purpose by Congress. Congress will be aided in its efforts to establish
[Page: S15055] GPO's PDF
IHS provides accurate estimates of anticipated need as part of the budget process.
The authorizing committees in the Senate and House are encouraged, in consultation with the Indian Health Service, the Bureau of Indian Affairs and Tribal organizations, to develop timely proposals to address the longer term issues surrounding contract support costs, including the apparent contradiction between the self-determination principles laid out in P.L. 93-638 and the legal requirement that contract support costs are subject to appropriations.
Our committees encourage the transition of employees from Federal to Tribal employment as part of self-determination contracts and self-governance compacts and strongly believe that the IHS should not provide disincentives for such transfers. We have noted that each year start-up costs from new and expanded contracts for the previous year are returned to the base for distribution to other contracts. These funds, currently estimated at $4.5 million, will be available in fiscal year 2000. With my support, the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations will soon be sending a letter to the IHS requesting that it set aside a portion of base contract support funds associated with prior year start up costs for use as a transition fund for costs associated with employees who elect to transfer from Federal employment to Tribal employment during the period after which contract support costs for individual contracts have been determined for that year. To the extent set aside funds are not needed for employee transition, they should be distributed equitably among existing contractors, with emphasis on the most underfunded contracts.
In the last fiscal year and the one we are funding now, we will have added a total of $60 million in new contract support cost funding to the IHS budget. We know that these funds are critical to the success of Indian-operated health programs and that shortfalls still remain. However, in the current environment of caps on discretionary spending, we must develop policies that support the self-determination principles embodied in P.L. 93-638 while taking into account the fiscal realities of limits on funding for these programs. I look forward to receiving recommendations from the authorizing committees, the IHS and BIA, and tribal organizations which will address these issues in time for the committees' consideration during the fiscal year 2001 appropriations cycle.
Mr. President, the conference report also includes a provision to authorize the investment of Exxon Valdez oil spill--or EVOS--settlement funds outside of the Treasury. This section is the exact language of legislation, S. 711, reported by the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee earlier this year, and represents an accord struck among many interests. The details of this accord are discussed more fully in the committee report (Senate Rpt. 106-124) accompanying S. 711. These interests include Koniag, a native regional corporation with a great interest in seeing that their native lands are valued at the level they feel appropriate given their prominence in the oil spill zone.
The continuing availability of EVOS funds for habitat conservation raises another important issue I hope can be resolved in the coming months. It regards revenue sharing payments arising from oil spill area acquisitions. New additions to refuge lands, such as those from EVOS settlement land acquisitions, qualify adjacent communities to increased Federal payments in lieu of taxes under the Revenue Sharing Act of 1935.
In 1995, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service agreed to purchase from Old Harbor, Akiok-Kaguyak and Koniag Native corporations over 160,000 acres of land within the Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge. These lands were acquired using funds derived from the consent decree in settling the United States' and State of Alaska's civil claims against Exxon, Inc. for damages caused by the Exxon Valdez oil spill in 1989.
The Exxon Valdez Trustee Council, which was formed to implement the consent decree, adopted its restoration plan in 1994 with habitat protection as a key component of the plan to recover the damages caused by the oil spill. The trustee council subsequently solicited interest from land owners throughout the spill zone and ranked the habitat based on its restoration value for the species and services injured by the spill. The council, working through State and Federal land managing agencies, commissioned land appraisals and authorized negotiations with land owners.
Negotiated agreements with land owners, resulting in significant habitat acquisitions, exceeded the appraisals approved by Federal and State appraisers. The trustee council in its resolutions authorizing these acquisitions with settlement funds made several findings, I'm advised that these findings included the following:
Biologists, scientists and other resource specialists agree that, in their best professional judgment, protection of habitat in the spill area to levels above and beyond that provided by existing laws and regulations will likely have a beneficial effect on recovery of injured resources and lost or diminished services provided by these resources.
There has been widespread public support for the acquisition of these lands, locally, within the spill zone and nationally.
It is ordinarily the Federal Government's practice to pay fair market value for the lands it acquires. However, due to the unique circumstances of this proposed acquisition, including the land's exceptional habitat for purposes of promoting recovery of natural resources injured by EVOS and the need to acquire it promptly to prevent degradation of the habitat, the trustee council believes it is appropriate in this case to pay more than fair market value for these particular parcels.
This offer is a reasonable price given the significant natural resource and service values protected; the scope and pervasiveness of the EVOS environmental disaster and the need for protection of ecosystems .....
The trustee council-commissioned appraisals--which were performed in accordance with Federal regulations--for the three large parcels acquired within Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge are estimates of fair market value. However, they varied substantially from the landowners' appraisals and what they believe to be their fair market value. The land owners rejected the initial offers made by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to purchase the lands based on the trustee council's commissioned appraisals.
The estimates of fair market value based on the Federal appraisals are below the prices actually paid for the various parcels of land, and they do not consider the purchase price paid in these and other governmental acquisitions in Alaska. The trustee council, through its public process, difficult negotiations and subsequent findings determined that the price paid for the lands was ``a reasonable price'' for a variety of reasons including past Federal large-scale acquisitions.
The acquisition in fee of these three large parcels within Kodiak NWR now requires the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to make payments in lieu of taxes to the Kodiak Island borough in accordance with the Revenue Sharing Act of 1935. The act directs the agency to make such payments based on the fair market value of acquired lands.
The service is currently using the federally approved appraisals estimating fair market value of these three large parcels as the basis for computing the revenue sharing payment to the borough. The borough has rightly challenged the Service's determination of fair market value based on the unique circumstances of these acquisitions
and the findings made by the trustee council in approving funds for these acquisitions.
A plain reading of the Revenue Sharing Act (which authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to make refuge revenue sharing payments) requires that the determinations of fair market value be made in a manner that ``The Secretary considers to be equitable and in the public interest.'' Clearly, the public interest associated with these unique acquisitions has been well documented in the findings of the trustee council.
The Revenue Sharing Act imposes no legal impediment for the Secretary to make a determination of fair market value that incorporates the unique circumstances of these acquisitions and the specific findings and actions taken by the trustee council. Thus, I urge the Secretary to review the Kodiak Island Borough's appeal to the Service's determinations for making revenue sharing payments and do what is fair and equitable as called for by the act.
[Page: S15056] GPO's PDF
These are unique circumstances that exist nowhere else in the United States and are limited to Alaska to lands acquired in the Exxon Valdez spill zone with settlement funds. Thus, there should be no consequences for how revenue sharing payments are computed for service acquired lands in other parts of Alaska or throughout the rest of the country.
At this opportunity, upon the passage of another year's funding for the Federal and Indian land management agencies, I must call to the attention of my colleagues and to the attention of the President of the United States, an issue that troubles me deeply. Over the years, our Government has made commitments to Native Americans which it has not kept. Many Americans thought that practice ended with the new, more enlightened self-determination approach to Indian policy. But as one of Alaska's Representatives in the Senate, members of the President's staff made personal promises to me just last fall on behalf of the Native people of the Chugach region which have not been kept.
In 1971 Congress passed the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA). The act cleared the way for Alaska Native people, including the Chugach Natives, to receive title to a small portion of their traditional lands as settlement of their aboriginal land claims. The act also cleared the way for the addition of millions of acres to our national parks, wildlife refuges forests, and wilderness areas. Allowing Native people to develop their lands freed them from economic bondage to the Federal Government. No longer would they have to depend exclusively on the benevolence of the Federal Government for hand-outs. They could create their own jobs, generate their own income, and determine their own destiny. But only if they had access to their lands.
Both the administration and the Congress recognized the lands would be virtually valueless if there was no way to get to them. The Claims Act recognized that Native lands were to be used for both traditional and economic development purposes. Alaska Natives were guaranteed a right of access, under law, to their lands across the vast new parks, refuges, and forests that would be created.
In 1971 and again in 1982, under the terms of the Chugach Native Inc. settlement agreement, the Federal Government made a solemn vow to ensure the Chugach people had access to their aboriginal lands. Now a quarter of a century later, that commitment has not been fulfilled. Many of the Native leaders who worked with me to achieve the landmark Native Land Claims Settlement Act have died after waiting for decades without seeing that promise honored.
Last year, Congressman DON YOUNG, Chairman of the House Resources Committee, added a provision to the House Interior Appropriations bill that required, by a date certain, the Federal Government to live up to the access promises it made to the Chugach Natives decades ago. In the conference last fall on the Omnibus appropriations bill, the
administration spoke passionately and repeatedly against the provision.
Why? They fully admitted the obligation to grant an access easement exists. They acknowledged further that access delayed is access denied and that further delays were harmful to the Chugach people. They opposed the provision on the grounds that it was not necessary since they were going to move with all due haste to finalize the easement before the end of 1998. Katie McGinty, then head of the President's Council on Environmental Quality sat across from me, looked me in the eye, and promised me they would fulfill this long overdue promise before the end of the year.
THIS SEARCH THIS DOCUMENT THIS CR ISSUE GO TO
Next Hit Forward Next Document New CR Search
Prev Hit Back Prev Document HomePage
Hit List Best Sections Daily Digest Help
Doc Contents