Congressional Record, Volume 144 Issue 104 (Wednesday, July 29, 1998)

[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 104 (Wednesday, July 29, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S9181-S9211]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

RECESS UNTIL 2:15

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will now
stand in recess until the hour of 2:15 p.m.
Thereupon, the Senate, at 12:40 p.m., recessed until 2:15 p.m.;
whereupon, the Senate reassembled when called to order by the Presiding
Officer [Mr. Roberts].
Mr. CAMPBELL addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado is recognized.
Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, we have some housekeeping things before
we go to the next amendment.

Amendment No. 3363

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask
for its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Colorado [Mr. Campbell], for Mr. Mack,
proposes an amendment numbered 3363.

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of
the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:

At the appropriate place in title IV, insert:

SEC. __. LAND CONVEYANCE, UNITED STATES NAVAL OBSERVATORY/
ALTERNATE TIME SERVICE LABORATORY, FLORIDA.

(a) Conveyance Authorized.--If the Secretary of the Navy
reports to the Administrator of General Services that the
property described in subsection (b) is excess property of
the Department of the Navy under section 202(b) of the
Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949 (40
U.S.C. 483(b)), and if the Administrator of General Services
determines that such property is surplus property under that
Act, then the Administrator may convey to the University of
Miami, by negotiated sale or negotiated land exchange within
one year after the date of the determination by the
Administrator, all right, title, and interest of the United
States in and to the property.
(b) Covered Property.--The property referred to in
subsection (a) is real property in Miami-Dade County,
Florida, including improvements thereon, comprising the
Federal facility known as the United States Naval
Observatory/Alternate Time Service Laboratory, consisting of
approximately 76 acres. The exact acreage and legal
description of the property shall be determined by a survey
that is satisfactory to the Administrator.
(c) Condition Regarding Use.--Any conveyance under
subsection (a) shall be subject to the condition that during
the 10-year period beginning on the date of the conveyance,
the University shall use the property, or provide for use of
the property, only for--
(1) a research, education, and training facility
complementary to longstanding national research missions,
subject to such incidental exceptions as may be approved by
the Administrator;
(2) research-related purposes other than the use specified
in paragraph (1), under an agreement entered into by the
Administrator and the University; or
(3) a combination of uses described in paragraph (1) and
paragraph (2), respectively.
(d) Reversion.--If the Administrator determines at any time
that the property conveyed under subsection (a) is not being
used in accordance with this section, all right, title, and
interest in and to the property, including any improvements
thereon, shall revert to the United States, and the United
States shall have the right of immediate entry thereon.
(e) Additional Terms and Conditions.--The Administrator may
require such additional terms and conditions in connection
with the conveyance under subsection (a) as the Administrator
considers appropriate to protect the interests of the United
States.

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, this amendment encourages GSA to convey
property in Miami, should the Secretary of the Navy choose to access
it. It is my understanding it has been accepted on both sides.
Mr. KOHL. We accept that. That is fine.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no further debate, without
objection, the amendment is agreed to.
The amendment (No. 3363) was agreed to.

Amendment No. 3364

(Purpose: To establish requirements for the provision of child care in
Federal facilities)

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask
for its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Colorado [Mr. Campbell], for Mr. Jeffords,
for himself, Ms. Landrieu, Mr. Dodd, and Mr. Kohl, proposes
an amendment numbered 3364.

[[Page S9182]]

which the federal child care center is located. The child care provider
would not be required to obtain a state or local license, although that
is an option open to them. The Government Services Administration would
be responsible for establishing the rules and regulations necessary to
ensure that each child care facility in a federal building meets the
same level of standards applicable to other child care services in the
community.
In 1987, Congress passed the ``Trible amendment'' which permitted
executive, legislative, and judicial branch agencies to utilize a
portion of federally-owned or leased space for the provision of child
care services for federal employees. The General Services
Administration (GSA) was given the authority to provide guidance,
assistance, and oversight to federal agencies for the development of
child care centers. In the decade since the Trible amendment was
passed, hundreds of federal facilities throughout the nation have
established on-site child care centers which are a tremendous help to
our employees.
The General Services Administration has done an excellent job of
helping agencies develop child care centers and have adopted strong
standards for those centers located in GSA-leased or -owned space.
However, there are over 100 child care centers located in federal
facilities that are not subject to the GSA standards or any other laws,
rules, or regulations to ensure that the facilities are safe places for
our children. Most parents, placing their children in a federal child
care center, assume that some standards are in place--assume that the
centers must minimally meet state and local child care licensing rules
and regulations. They assume that the centers are subject to
independent oversight and monitoring to continually ensure the safety
of the premises.
Yet, that is not the case. In one case a federal employee had strong
reason to suspect the sexual abuse of her child by an employee of child
care center located in a federal facility. Local child protective
services and law enforcement personnel were denied access to the
premises and were prohibited from investigating the incident. Another
employee's child was repeatedly injured because the child care
providers under contract with a federal agency to provide on-site child
care services failed to ensure that age-appropriate health and safety
measures were taken--current law says they were not required to do so,
even after the problems were identified and injuries had occurred.
In addition, I believe that the federal government can and should
lead by example. Federal facilities should always try to meet the
highest possible standards. In fact, the GSA has required national
accreditation in GSA-owned and leased facilities, and has stated that
its centers are either in compliance or are strenuously working to get
there. This is the kind of tough standard we should strive for in all
of our federal child care facilities.

For that reason, this amendment requires that within five years, all
child care services located within federal facilities must become
accredited by a professionally recognized child care accreditation
entity. While state and local child care requirements generally ensure
that those services meet the basic health and safety needs, child care
credentialling entities go further. Accreditation also includes
requirements that developmentally appropriate activities are an
integral part of the program, that staff is trained, and that the
program is a positive environment that contributes to the healthy
development of children receiving child care services.
There are several child care accreditation entities providing these
services around the country. The National Council for Private School
Accreditation is a coalition of 13 entities providing private school
accreditation, many of which issue credentials to child care service
providers. The Council on Accreditation of Services for Families and
Children, Inc. has developed standards and guidelines that are used by
several child care accreditation entities to ensure a high quality of
care for children. The National Association for the Education of Young
Children provides accreditation for child care centers throughout the
country. The Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod has been accrediting child
care services longer than any other entity.
Child care providers in federally-owned and leased facilities will be
able to choose which child care accreditation they will obtain. In
addition, the General Services Administration is permitted to develop a
child care accreditation process to add to the choices already
available to programs in federal facilities.
Federal child care should mean something more than simply a location
in a federal facility. The federal government has an obligation to
provide safe care for the children of its employees, and it has a
responsibility for making sure that those standards are monitored and
enforced. Some federal employees receive this guarantee. Many do not.
We can and must do better.
Senators Landrieu and Dodd are original co-sponsors of this
amendment. I urge my colleagues to help ensure high quality child care
in federally owned and leased facilities by supporting this amendment.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, it is my pleasure today to join my colleague
from Vermont, Senator Jeffords and my colleague from Louisiana, Senator
Mary Landrieu, in cosponsoring an amendment to require federal child
care facilities to lead by example when it comes to child care quality.
Up to this point Mr. President, we in the federal government have not
shown strong leadership when it comes to child care quality.
Many parents of children in federal child care facilities have been
surprised to discover that these facilities are exempt from the state
and local quality standards that apply to non-federal centers. Many
parents have been surprised to find that the federal government does
not require its centers to be accredited.
With this amendment, for the first time, the more than 200 federal,
non-military, child care centers would be required to meet all state
licensing standards. For the first time, these centers would be
required to demonstrate that they provide high quality child care by
becoming accredited by a nationally recognized accrediting body.
Child care shouldn't be like going to Las Vegas--where you roll the
dice and hope for the best. Parents should be confident that when they
are not able to be with their children, their children will still be
well cared for. We shouldn't be gambling with our children's health and
safety.
This legislation will go a long way toward giving parents of children
in federal facilities peace of mind.
I should point out, Mr. President, that many of the child centers run
by the federal government provide an invaluable service and excellent
care to the children of federal workers and other families in the
community. Many federal centers have even received accreditation from
the National Association for the Education of Young Children--an
outstanding private, non-profit accrediting entity.
But this excellence is not uniform. In some federal agencies, only a
minority of child care centers are accredited. Too many centers are
falling through the cracks. And too many children are unnecessarily
being placed at risk.
Mr. President, at a time when we are asking our states and
communities to take notice of the important research about brain
development in young children--at a time when we all acknowledge how
critical high quality child care is to helping children achieve their
potential--shouldn't we, as federal government lead the way when it
comes to providing the best care possible for our children?
Mr. President, this legislation enjoys broad bipartisan support. It
was incorporated into the CIDCARE bill that I co-sponsored with Senator
Jeffords and was a part of the Child Care ACCESS Act that I offered
with 27 of my Democratic colleagues earlier this year.
This is an important step in improving the quality of our Nation's
child care. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, this amendment relates to Federal child
care facilities. This amendment has been cleared by both sides of the
aisle. I ask for its adoption.
Mr. KOHL. We accept the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?

[[Page S9183]]

Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
The amendment (No. 3364) was agreed to.
Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I yield the floor.
Mr. SESSIONS addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The distinguished Senator from Alabama is
recognized.

Amendment No. 3362

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I would like to make a few remarks on
the family impact statement amendment offered by Senator Spencer
Abraham earlier today. It is an amendment that I supported last year. I
think it is a very, very important signal and an important event for
this Government.
I rise today in strong support of this important amendment and to
voice my complete disagreement with antifamily action taken by
President Clinton.
In 1997, President Ronald Reagan, recognizing the importance of the
American family and the need to be aware of the negative impact that
Federal laws and regulations can have on the family, signed Executive
Order 12-606. The purpose was to ensure that the rights of the family
are considered in the construction and carrying out of policies by
executive departments and agencies of this Government.
Mr. President, even though we are faced with a staggering increase in
out-of-wedlock births, rising rates of divorce, and increases in the
number of child abuse cases, apparently President Clinton does not
believe that considering the impact of regulations on families is good
policy.
Much to my dismay, on April 21, 1997, President Clinton signed
Executive Order 13045, thus stripping from the American family any
existing protection from harm in the formulation and application of
Federal policies.
President Reagan's Executive Order 12606, placed special emphasis on
the relationship between the family and the Federal Government.
President Reagan directed every Federal agency to asses all regulatory
and statutory provisions ``that may have significant potential negative
impact on the family well-being. * * *'' Before implementing any
Federal policy, agency directors had to make certain that the programs
they managed and the regulations they issued met certain family-
friendly criteria. Specifically, they had to ask:
Does this action strengthen or erode the authority and rights of
parents in educating, nurturing, and supervising their children?
Does it strengthen or erode the stability of the family, particularly
the marital commitment?
Does it help the family perform its function, or does it substitute
government activity for that function?
Does it increase or decrease family earnings, and do the proposed
benefits justify the impact on the family budget?
Can the activity be carried out by a lower level of government or by
the family itself?
What message, intended or otherwise, does this program send
concerning the status of the family?
What message does it send to young people concerning the relationship
between their behavior, their personal responsibility, and the norms of
our society?
The elimination of President Reagan's Executive Order 12606 is just
the latest in a series of decisions that indicates the Clinton
administration's very different approach to family issues. From the
outset of President Clinton's first term, it became clear that his
administration intended to pursue policies sharply at odds with
traditional American moral principles. White House actions have ranged
from the incorporation of homosexuals into the military to the
protection of partial-birth abortion procedures, to opposing parental
consent in cases involving abortion for minors.
Mr. President, many have suggested it is community villages, in other
words government, that raise children. But really it's families that
raise children. Families are the ones who are there night and day to
love, to care for, and to nurture children.
Many bureaucratic regulations produce little benefit, but can have
unintended consequences. The examples are too numerous to mention.
What our amendment will do is to require the ``regulators'' to stop
and take a moment to think through their regulations to make sure that,
the most fundamental institution in civilization--the family, is not
damaged by their actions. This is a reasonable and wise policy.
Mr. President, I find it very odd that of all the Executive orders
that exist, President Clinton would reach down and lift this one up for
elimination. This body should speak out forcefully on this subject and
I am confident we will. The families of America deserve no less.
This amendment is a sound and reasonable piece of legislation which
will restore a valuable pro-family policy that had been established for
10 years.
I urge all my colleagues to stand united, Republicans and Democrats,
to show that the preservation of the family is not a partisan issue.
Our voices united will send a loud and certain message to the President
and this Nation that we consider family protection to be one of
America's most important issues and we will not accept decisions that
mark a retreat from our steadfast commitment to our Nation's families.
Mr. President, I strongly believe that American families must be
considered when the Federal Government develops and implements policies
and regulations that affect families. Therefore, I am honored to be an
original cosponsor for this amendment, which will reinstate the
Executive order of President Reagan.
I would like to thank my colleagues, Senators Abraham, Faircloth,
Hutchinson, for their dedicated work and help on this issue.
As we know, there is some dispute and controversy and concern in this
body concerning the President's proclivity to utilize executive
regulations to carry out various policies that he wants to carry out.
He eliminated this regulation of President Reagan by his own Executive
Order, and in fact has stated and reflected his view that the American
family is not at times jeopardized by the actions of this Government,
and special watch and attention is not necessary to that.
I just want to say this. Governmental policy in this country ought to
consider what is good, wholesome, and healthy. The American family
represents the finest opportunity to affect the growth, health, well-
being, the mental attitude, and the lawfulness of a young person.
Healthy families tend to raise healthy children. It is not always so.
It is not always so. Families that have trouble raise good kids a lot
of time, and families that are personally good have troubled children.
But fundamentally and historically we know, and there has been much
data in recent months and years--you remember the article, ``Dan Quayle
Was Right.'' So we know that there is a general consensus today that a
healthy family is important.
I think it was a bad signal. I think it is sad that in this entire
monumental bureaucracy of this Federal Government that involves $1.7
trillion in expenditures every year, you don't have to give special
concern to your actions with regard to how they might impact the
American family.
I think in that regard the President made a serious error, and he
sent a signal to this great Government and those who work for him
within the executive branch that they don't have to give special
scrutiny to it. I believe it was a mistake. Senator Abraham's amendment
would restore that.
I thank Senator Campbell for his interest and concern on these issues
and for giving me a few moments to make these remarks.
Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.
Mr. DASCHLE addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The distinguished Democratic leader is
recognized.

Amendment No. 3365

(Purpose: To provide for marriage tax penalty relief)

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that we lay aside
the Abraham amendment, and I send an amendment to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from South Dakota [Mr. Daschle] proposes an
amendment numbered 3365.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of
the amendment be dispensed with.

[[Page S9184]]

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. (The text
of the amendment is printed in today's Record under ``Amendments
Submitted.'')
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The distinguished Senator from South Dakota,
Mr. Daschle, is recognized.
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I thank the Presiding Officer.
Mr. President, as I noted this morning, Democrats have supported and
continue to support tax relief for working families. In 1993, we
supported tax cuts for millions of working families making less than
$30,000 per year through an expansion of the earned income tax credit.
Last year, we supported major tax relief proposals, including a $500-
per-child tax credit, a $1,500 HOPE education tax credit, a 20-percent
lifetime learning credit, the reinstatement of student loan deductions,
full deductibility of health insurance premiums for the self-employed,
a cut in capital gains taxes for investors and small businesses, and an
expansion of estate tax relief for family farms and businesses. All of
these tax cuts for working families had one thing in common. They were
consistent with a balanced budget; they were fully paid for.
Democrats continue to have an ambitious agenda of tax relief for
working families. But we also continue to insist that tax cuts be
consistent with fiscal responsibility. This is because we understand
that fiscal responsibility equals economic growth, and economic growth
equals more jobs and higher wages.
Part of our continuing agenda to provide working families with tax
cuts is to provide them with substantial relief from the marriage
penalty. In many families, married couples pay more in income taxes
than if they had remained single. Democrats would like to remedy this
undesirable aspect of our tax system.
The amendment that I have just offered would let families deduct 20
percent of the income of the lesser-earning spouse. This deduction
would be phased out for families making between $50,000 and $60,000 a
year. The 20-percent deduction would be an ``above-the-line''
deduction, ensuring that that everyone could claim it, regardless of
whether they chose the ``EZ'' form or itemized their deductions on a
more complicated tax form. Also, the deduction would be factored into
the earned income tax credit calculation; that is, it would help people
making less than $30,000 who may have no income tax liability against
which to take the deduction.
But, Mr. President, perhaps most important, contrary to the amendment
offered this morning, this amendment is fully offset. The offsets
include a number of proposals from the President's budget that have
attracted broad support. Most of them would terminate unwarranted tax
loopholes for corporations and investors. Because the amendment is
fully offset, it is in keeping with the tradition and the practice that
we have maintained all through the tax debate this year and previous
years.
To summarize, unlike the Brownback-Ashcroft amendment offered this
morning, the Democratic amendment, first, focuses roughly 90 percent of
its tax cut on families who are actually penalized., compared with
about 40 percent to 45 percent for the Brownback amendment offered this
morning.
Second, it is fully offset. Its gross cost is $7 billion over 5 years
and $21 billion over 10; but its net effect on the budget is zero. By
contrast, the Brownback-Ashcroft amendment would have drained the
Treasury and the Social Security trust fund by about $125 billion over
5 years and $300 billion over 10 years.
Therefore, if Senators are interested in delivering meaningful
marriage penalty tax relief rather than simply grandstanding about it,
they will want to support our amendment. Here are two examples of just
how much tax relief our amendment would provide:
First, a couple making $35,000, split $20,000 and $15,000 between two
spouses. With our 20-percent, second-earner deduction, this couple
would receive an additional deduction of $3,000, or 20 percent of the
$15,000 income of the second earner. That translates into an annual
family tax cut of about $450.
Second, a couple making $50,000, in this case split $25,000 each
between the two spouses. Under our 20-percent, second-earner deduction,
the couple would receive an extra $5,000 deduction, or about $1,400 in
actual cash-in-the-pocket tax relief.
Mr. President, my amendment provides Senators with an opportunity to
help hard-working married couples without busting the budget or
endangering our efforts next year to restore the Social Security system
to solvency for future generations.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
Mr. KOHL. Mr. President. I want to take a moment to explain my
support for the Daschle amendment on marriage tax relief. As you know,
earlier today I opposed the Ashcroft-Brownback amendment on the same
subject. My concerns related to the wisdom of attaching such a
substantial tax policy change to an appropriations bill. Also, the
Brownback amendment was not offset--it would have thrown the budget off
balance by approximately $125 billion. The marriage tax debate belongs
within the context of a balanced budget and a comprehensive tax bill.
And let me again state my hope that we will approve such a tax bill
later this year.
However, it's clear that today's debate is primarily about political
messages and maneuvering. And, in that case, the record should
demonstrate that my voice and vote definitely stands with those calling
for the elimination of the marriage penalty. Our tax code should be
family friendly. Couples who want to get married should not be
discouraged from doing so based on how much they will owe in taxes. And
tax policy changes should be fully offset and respect the principles of
a balanced budget. For these reasons, I intend to support the Daschle
marriage penalty amendment.
Mr. CAMPBELL addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The distinguished Senator from Colorado is
recognized.
Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, we spent almost 2 hours on the Ashcroft
amendment. I assume that much of the debate that we have already gone
through will be repeated.
I don't think there is anyone on this floor who doesn't want to do
something about the marriage penalty. We are all very comfortable with
the fact that it is punitive, and I think all of us want to get rid of
it, if we can. The question really has been, What is the vehicle to be
able to do that?
I ask the minority leader, since we have spent so much time on this
already in the previous debate, if he would be interested in trying to
work out some kind of a time agreement, because we have about 56
amendments that we haven't cleared yet. It looks like it is going to be
a long night, and a long day tomorrow, if we don't get some withdrawn,
or some agreement on some of them.
I ask the minority leader if he would be interested in a time
agreement.
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I think the distinguished Senator from
Colorado makes a very good point, and our desire is certainly not to
complicate his efforts and the efforts of the distinguished ranking
member to complete action on this bill. I know there are some Senators
who wish to be heard on this particular version of the amendment, but I
do believe that we can accommodate those Senators. I would be willing
to enter into a time agreement of 30 minutes, if we could assume that
there isn't going to be a great deal of debate on the other side. I am
not sure we have to equally divide it. I propose we ask unanimous
consent the vote on this amendment occur no later than 3 o'clock.
Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I concur with that, but we have not
checked with the majority leader yet. So if I could perhaps ask for a
quorum call until we confer with him? I appreciate the Senator's offer
to limit that time to 30 minutes equally divided.
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, Senator DeWine has been patiently
waiting for a while to make a statement

[[Page S9185]]

and possibly offer an amendment. I ask unanimous consent at the
conclusion of his comments, I be allowed to suggest the absence of a
quorum at that time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? The Senator from Ohio is
recognized.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, will the Senator from Ohio yield?
Mr. DeWINE. I certainly would.
Mr. HATCH. If the Senator will yield to allow me this opportunity to
call up the reauthorization of the Office of National Drug Control
Policy? I ask unanimous consent I be allowed to do so.
Let me withhold.
Mr. DeWINE. I will be more than happy to yield the floor for the
Senator from Utah.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio is recognized and
retains the floor.
Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask
for its immediate consideration.
Mr. HATCH. Will the Senator yield again?
Mr. DeWINE. I will be happy to yield to the Senator from Utah.
Mr. HATCH. Will the Senator withhold on the amendment? As I
understand, we can do it at this time and it will only take a minute.
I ask unanimous consent the pending Daschle amendment be set aside
with the understanding we will immediately come back to it after my
amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Hearing none, it is so
ordered.

Amendment No. 3367

(Purpose: To extend the authorization for the Office of National Drug
Control Policy until September 30, 2002, and to expand the
responsibilities and powers of the Director of National Drug Control
Policy, and for other purposes)

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for
its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Utah [Mr. Hatch], for himself and Mr.
Biden, proposes an amendment numbered 3367.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the
amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(The text of the amendment is printed in today's Record under
``Amendments Submitted.'')
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, this is the reauthorization of the office
of the drug czar, National Drug Control Policy. I do believe it has
been accepted by both sides. It is critical that we have this amendment
agreed to at this time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection--the Chair will observe the
Chair is having difficulty hearing the Senator. Perhaps, if the Senator
could speak up, it would be very helpful.
Mr. HATCH. This is an amendment to reauthorize the Office of the
National Drug Control Policy.
In this era of passivity and neglect toward what I believe should
remain a vigorous war on drugs, we as Americans must refuse to give up
the fight against a youth drug plague that is threatening to erode the
very core of our society. To do this, we must mount an unflappable
effort against this drug scourge that continues to tighten its grip on
our nation's children.
Faced with such an ominous task, it is essential that the Office of
National Drug Control Policy be maintained as the principal clearing
house for the formulation and implementation of our nation's
comprehensive counter-drug strategy. As a nation we simply cannot
continue to turn our backs while drug abuse continues to run rampant
among our youth.
For this reason I implore each of my colleagues to support the Hatch/
Biden amendment, a substitute to H.R. 2610. This amendment truly
represents a bipartisan effort to craft legislation that gives the
office a meaningful reauthorization period and strengthens ONDCP's
authority over drug control program agencies. In an effort to erase
this Administration's abdication of its responsibilities to the
Congress, the bill requires enhanced reporting requirements on the
effectiveness of the National Drug Control strategy thus imposing far
greater accountability to the Congress. It also disposes with an annual
strategy that, under the Clinton administration, simply has served as
an opportunity to grandstand in an effort to show that the President
was going to take the drug war seriously in the future to make up for
his past disinterest. Instead, the bill recognizes the comprehensive
long term strategy drafted last year, and further requires an annual
report that requires each administration to report on the success or
failures of its strategy in the previous year.
This substitute differs principally from the House bill in that it
calls for a 4-year versus a 2-year reauthorization period; and, in that
it does not statutorily mandate ``hard targets'' that must be achieved
by 2001. Rather, consistent with ONDCP's previous authorization, it
requires that ONDCP establish annual measurable objectives and long
term goals. In addition, the legislation also officially authorizes
ONDCP's Performance Measurement System which will provide the Congress
and the American people with the specific data needed to ascertain
whether the strategy is working and where changes are necessary.
The legislation also provides flexibility in the event of a change in
Presidents or ONDCP Directors. In such case, the incoming President or
Director has the option of either adopting and continuing with the
current strategy, or abandoning it in favor of an entirely new
strategy. In addition, at any time upon a finding by the President that
the current strategy, or certain policies therein, are found not to be
sufficiently effective, the President may submit a revised strategy.
We have worked with ONDCP, the Armed Services Committee, and Senator
Biden to resolve a significant disagreement concerning ONDCP's
involvement in, and authority over, the development of budgets of other
agencies. We have crafted a process which allows ONDCP to have input at
all stages of the budget drafting process and to decertify budgets
which are inadequate to fulfill the responsibilities given to that
agency. It also allows agencies who are forced to alter their budgets
at the direction of ONDCP to submit an ``impact statement'' describing
how such changes might affect the ability of that agency to fulfill its
other responsibilities.

I oppose a proposal by the administration to disband the office of
``Supply Reduction'' headed by a deputy director, which was established
to coordinate all law enforcement and interdiction programs, both
domestic and international. As recognized by the legislation recently
introduced by Senator DeWine, which I cosponsored, supply reduction is
an integral part of our anti-drug efforts, and we need a deputy
director specifically responsible for these efforts. We have, however,
incorporated significant reorganizations of the leadership of ONDCP,
including the new position of Deputy Director and a Deputy Director for
State and Local Affairs.
We have also strengthened the ONDCP office in many respects,
including: (1) Clarifying the Director's authority by adding to his
responsibilities that he shall represent the administration before the
Congress on all issues relating to the National Drug Control Program,
and that he shall serve as the administration's primary spokesperson on
drug issues; (2) Requiring the U.S. Department of Agriculture to give
ONDCP an annual assessment of the acreage of illegal domestic drug
cultivation; and (3) In order to strengthen ONDCP's ability to obtain
information from its program agencies, adding provisions that require,
upon the request of the Director, heads of departments and agencies
under the National Drug Control Program to provide ONDCP with
statistics, studies, reports, and other information pertaining to
Federal drug abuse programs.
I might also point out that the definition of ``drug control'' has
been modified in the reauthorization to include underage use of alcohol
and tobacco. This change codifies ONDCP policy begun under Republican
administrations.
While I recognize that there remain some concerns over reauthorizing
this office in light of the Clinton administration's abysmal record on
drugs, it is my belief that we must employ every possible weapon that
is available to fight the drug war, including the authorization of a
national drug office with teeth, which will be held accountable to take
real action in combating illegal drug abuse. This bill achieves

[[Page S9186]]

that goal. For this reason, I urge each of my colleagues to support
this amendment, and to work in a bipartisan manner to address
legitimate concerns as we go to conference.
Let me highlight why this issue is so pressing. Drug use by teenagers
is one of the most serious domestic problems facing our nation today:
In my mind, it may be the most crucial issue for our nation's ability
to craft productive and law-abiding citizens. The worsening problem of
drug abuse among our children and teens wreaks havoc on the lives and
potential of thousands of young people each year. If we do not act
decisively, we will pay a heavy price.
According to the highly respected Monitoring the Future study
published by the University of Michigan, drug use among young people
began a steady decline in the early 1980's which continued until 1992.
Survey after survey demonstrated that we were on the right track in
raising children free from drug abuse.
These declines, which I believe were largely the result of the strong
leadership of Presidents Reagan and Bush, are not just statistics. The
1980's and early 1990's produced a generation of young adults with low
rates of substance abuse. We reap the benefits of that fact every day
as those young men and women succeed in the workforce and build their
families and communities. We see the benefits of our work in the 1980's
and early 1990's in the lower drug abuse rates and declining crime
rates we find among adults today.
But just as we are realizing some benefit today from the hard work of
the last decade, we will pay the price for the failures of the 1990's.
Young people are being raised in an environment lacking in definition
of moral leadership. As I saw these trends developing, I spoke out and
demanded that this administration reverse course: I particularly
recall, in 1993, President Clinton's first drug czar--Lee Brown--saying
that drug control was no longer ``at the top of the agenda'' for the
administration. Indeed, the administration's first drug control
strategy in 1993 noted that there was developing ``a loss of public
focus which has also allowed the voices of those who would promote
legalization to ring more loudly.'' Mr. Brown's concerns regarding
legalization, as we all know, were realized in some States. I feared
then that the blame for this loss of public focus on the drug war would
be laid at the feet of the Clinton administration. The Committee's
warnings were frank, continuous, and bipartisan. In recent years, under
the leadership of General Barry McCaffrey, we have seen some efforts to
make up for the years of neglect. Yet, notwithstanding his efforts I
believe drug control--and ONDCP--lack the full backing of President
Clinton and the results are indisputable.
The steady downward trends of the 1980's and early 1990's were
tragically reversed. Remember that each percentage point we discuss
represents thousands of teens who are much more likely to become bigger
problems for society as they become adults.
As measured by use in the past month, drug abuse by high school
seniors jumped 27 percent in 1993, 20 percent in 1994, and an
additional 9 percent in 1995. Past-monthly abuse by 10th graders
skyrocketed by 27 percent in 1993. The 1996 National Household Survey
on Drug Abuse published by Health and Human Services, published last
year, shows that between 1992 and 1996 the number of 12- to 17-year-
olds having used marijuana in the past year more than doubled--from 1.4
million to 2.9 million.
The annual use of any illicit drug among high school students has
dramatically increased since 1991--from 11 percent to 24 percent in
1996 for 8th graders, from 21 percent to 38 percent for 10th graders,
and from 29 percent to 40 percent for 12th graders.
Lifetime use statistics show a similar trend--from 19 percent in 1991
up to 31 percent in 1996 for 8th graders, from 31 percent up to 45
percent for 10th graders, and from 44 percent to 51 percent for 12th
graders.
As for marijuana use for 8th graders, it is clear that marijuana use
shot from 10 percent in 1991 to 23 percent in 1997.

Although marijuana is still the most readily available drug across
the United States, teenagers can obtain just about any drug they desire
with little problem. Today, illegal drugs are more easily obtained than
alcohol or tobacco.
To those who suggested that marijuana does not serve as a gateway to
even more harmful drug use, there are very few instances that I am
aware of where the first drug a child ever tried was heroin or
methamphetamine. Most teens tell you that they first experimented with
marijuana. Studies show that if kids smoke marijuana, they have an 85
times greater propensity to move on to experiment with harder drugs.
General Barry McCaffrey should be commended for his personal leadership
in fighting the trends towards tolerance for marijuana use.
While marijuana use increasing, the use of other drugs--harder
drugs--is growing at a dramatic rate. The use of methamphetamine has
skyrocketed in the Western half of the country. Easy manufacturing and
the increasing market have helped make methamphetamine cheaper and more
available to kids.
What is the reason behind this surge in teen drug consumption? I
believe several things. First, in recent years there has been a decline
in anti-drug messages from elected leaders--like President Clinton--and
similar messages in homes, schools, and the media, Second, the debate
over the legalization of marijuana and the glorification of drugs in
popular culture has caused confusion in our young people. Third,
disapproval of drugs and perception of risk has declined among young
people. The percent of 8th, 10th, and 12th graders who ``disapproved''
or ``strongly disapproved'' of use of various drugs declined steadily
from 1991 to 1995. In 1992, 92 percent of 8th graders, 90 percent of
10th graders, and 89 percent of 12th graders disapproved of people who
smoked marijuana regularly. By 1996, however, those figures had dropped
significantly.
Previous administrations recognized that education and treatment
programs were only effective if coupled with tough criminal deterrence
and effective interdiction. Statistics clearly show that as the
interdiction dollars go down, drugs use goes up.
I was recently pleased to hold a hearing on teen drug use. We heard
from a teenager named Rachel who recounted her personal experience with
drug addiction. We also heard testimony from two physicians, Dr. Nancy
Auer and Dr. Sushma Jani who have seen in our emergency rooms and
hospitals the devastating effects that drug abuse has had on our
nation's youth. Lastly, we heard from Chris, an individual who works as
an undercover officer in high schools in Ohio--to protect his continued
ability to provide this valuable service, his identity was shielded
during the hearing.
In conclusion, I think it is clear that the rates of youth drug abuse
are neither stable nor acceptable, but are instead rising sharply. I
was therefore very surprised to hear President Clinton claim on the
world stage in his recent speech before the United Nations that ``drug
use by our young people is stabilizing, and in some categories,
declining.'' I believe that we are in the middle of a crisis and that
the time for action long since passed.
Passage of this legislation will be a crucial part of that action.
As I understand it, this is acceptable to both managers of the bill.
So I urge its adoption.
Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I am pleased to offer this amendment with
Senator Hatch to reauthorize the Drug Director's Office. Senator Hatch
and I have been assisted by several other Senators in this effort, and
I would just note that the reauthorization bill reported by the
Judiciary Committee last year was cosponsored by Senators Thurmond,
DeWine, Coverdell, and Feinstein.
I would also note that since then, we have worked closely with
Senator McCain to meet some concerns that he had raised relating to the
Drug Director's budget certification powers. And, the language we have
negotiated with Senator McCain is incorporated into the text offered
in this amendment.
This bipartisan legislation will, I hope, result in speedy action to
keep the Drug Director's Office in place--no matter what perspective
any of us have on any specific drug policy, this legislation is about
whether we will have a

[[Page S9187]]

Drug Director and Drug Office to be responsible for--and accountable
to--a national drug policy.
In 1987, before my legislation creating the Drug Office finally
became law, There was no official in charge of the administration's
drug effort; and, because there was no Cabinet official in charge,
every Cabinet official could duck responsibility to talk about tough
drug policy issues--and, guess what, that meant no administration
talked about drugs and no administration was accountable on drugs.
Just as with my original drug czar legislation, the Hatch-Biden
amendment retains its central goal--holding every administration and
every President accountable on the drug issue.
The Hatch-Biden amendment does so in several ways:
First, and this was one of Chairman Hatch's top priorities, Hatch-
Biden requires the Clinton administration to identify measurable
objectives for the National Drug Strategy, and provide on February 1,
1999, specific answers about whether these objectives have been met;
Second, Hatch-Biden retains the current law about the administration
submitting a detailed annual drug budget--every line of which is
reviewed and changed in the annual congressional appropriations
process.
To this, Hatch-Biden adds a requirement--called for by General
McCaffrey--for budget projections covering the next 4 years. In other
words, this prevents any ``pie-in-the-sky'' promises, which are not
backed up by specific budget projections.
Third, and this is the major change proposed by General McCaffrey and
included in Hatch-Biden, instead of the overall drug strategy, it
requires a detailed annual report which will focus the administration
and the Congress on the ``nuts and bolts'' of implementing the
strategy.
As Senator Hatch points out--instead of a strategy in which an
administration tells us what it is going to do about drugs; this report
will force any administration to tell us what they have accomplished
against drugs.
Hatch-Biden includes specific language requiring:
That the annual report include any necessary modifications of the
drug strategy;
A whole new strategy if the current strategy proves ineffective;
An annual assessment of the progress on the specific, measurable
goals identified in the drug strategy;
Goals that are required by law to address--current drug use;
availability of cocaine, heroin, methamphetamine, marijuana; drug
prices, and purity among many others; and
That any new President or new Drug Director submit a new drug
strategy.
Finally, the key addition of the annual report included in Hatch-
Biden is the ``performance measurement system''--which would add nearly
100 detailed measures, each with a definite timetable.
These measures are all about holding the 50 drug agencies and offices
accountable to the drug policy goals of the administration--the one
task that all Drug Directors have found exceedingly difficult to
actually implement.
Just to identify a few of these specific measures:
Increase asset seized from drug traffickers by 15 percent; increase
drug trafficking organizations dismantled by 20 percent in high
intensity drug trafficking areas; and reduce worldwide coca cultivation
by at least 40 percent.
Of course, we would all like each of these measures to be achieved
immediately--but, even if we could do this efficiently, the costs would
be staggering--an additional $60-$90 billion over just the next 3
years. So, achieving these goals will take time.
One final point on the general's performance measurement system--if
we are to give him a fighting chance to increase the accountability of
all the drug agencies, we have to put this system in law. For, if we do
not, mark my words, the general will be defeated by all the career
officials in all the drug agencies who want to stop this increased
accountability.
Another element of General McCaffrey's proposal which has been
included in Hatch-Biden is to require that the No. 2 official in the
office--the Deputy Director--have to come before the Senator for
confirmation just like the demand deputy, supply deputy and State and
local deputy.
I favor this because the hearing, committee, and floor votes on the
Deputy Director would give the Senate another important opportunity to
hold any administration accountable on drugs.
In addition, the key mission of the Drug Office--holding the nearly
50 agencies and offices with drug policy responsibilities accountable--
requires having officials with the credentials of Senate confirmation.
The Hatch-Biden amendment also includes specific language calling for
``scientific, educational, or professional'' credentials for whomever
is nominated for the demand deputy job.
This is an issue that Senators Grassley and Moynihan have really been
the leaders on--and I just acknowledge their key role in this aspect of
Hatch-Biden.
I also note that, at the chairman's insistence, the length of time of
this reauthorization has been drastically shortened.
While the general initially proposed to authorize the office for 12
years, Hatch-Biden reauthorizes for 4 years through September 30, 2002.
In closing, I would point out that this legislation has been through
a long process here in the Senate and that this process has resulted in
a strong, bipartisan bill.
I understand that the two managers of the bill, Senators Campbell and
Kohl, are willing to accept this amendment. I appreciate their support,
and the support of the full Senate for the reauthorization of the Drug
Director.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado.
Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I might add this amendment is acceptable
to both sides. It is a very, very important program. It is basically
the drug czar's program. We know we have spent an awful lot of money on
this program in the last few years, but clearly it is having an effect
on reducing teenage drug use in particular. I just wanted to add my
comments to those of the Senator from Utah that this is a good
amendment.
I urge the adoption of the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Hearing none, the
amendment is agreed to.
The amendment (No. 3367) was agreed to.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote and move to
lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. DeWINE addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio is recognized.

Amendment No. 3354

(Purpose: To prohibit the use of funds to pay for an abortion or to pay
for the administrative expenses in connection with certain health plans
that provide coverage for abortions)

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I believe my amendment is already at the
desk. I call up my amendment in regard to Federal employees.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment of the
Senator from South Dakota is set aside, and the clerk will report the
amendment of the Senator from Ohio.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Ohio [Mr. DeWine], for himself, Mr.
Abraham, Mr. Sessions, Mr. Brownback and Mr. Santorum,
proposes an amendment numbered 3354.

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading
of the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:

At the end of title VI, add the following:
Sec. . No funds appropriated by this Act shall be
available to pay for an abortion, or the administrative
expenses in connection with any health plan under the Federal
employees health benefit program which provides any benefits
or coverage for abortions.
Sec. . The provision of section ___ shall not apply where
the life of the mother would be endangered if the fetus were
carried to term, or the pregnancy is the result of an act of
rape or incest.

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I rise this afternoon to offer an
amendment on behalf of myself, Senator Abraham, Senator Sessions,
Senator Brownback, and Senator Santorum.
This is an amendment that would maintain in force--and let me
emphasize that--would maintain in force the current law, the status
quo. This amendment would remain and keep in force the current Federal
law restricting Federal employee health insurance

[[Page S9188]]

coverage for abortions except in cases of rape, incest, or to save the
life of a mother.
This is the same amendment that was accepted by voice vote during the
debate for fiscal year 1998, the Treasury-Postal appropriations. This
is the same amendment that was accepted by this body during the debate
for fiscal year 1996. And, in fact, this is the same language that has
been consistently supported by a bipartisan group of Senators and
Representatives from 1983 to 1998, with the exception of only 2 years.
So from 1983 to 1998, that has been the law of the land with the
exception of only 2 years.
Mr. President, I mention this to you and to my colleagues to make it
clear that this amendment stakes out no new ground. It merely confirms
what the status quo is today, what this body and what the other body
have consistently voted in favor of.
The principle that we are dealing with today is a very simple one,
one that goes beyond the conventional pro-life, pro-choice boundaries.
I think everyone in this Chamber knows that I am pro-life and,
therefore, wish to promote the value of protecting innocent human life.
I point out that the vast majority of Americans on both sides of the
abortion issue--on both sides of the abortion issue--strongly agree
that they should not pay for someone else's abortion, and that is what
we are talking about today. Fairly stated, this amendment is not about
abortion, it is not about the morality of abortion, or the right of
women to choose abortions. This is a narrowly focused amendment that
answers a key question: Should taxpayers pay for these abortions?
Mr. President, Congress has consistently agreed that we should not
ask the taxpayers to promote a policy, in essence, of paying for
abortion on demand for a Federal employee.
Again, this amendment would maintain the status quo. It limits
Federal employee health plans to cover abortions only in the case of
rape, incest, or threats to the life of the mother.
The vast majority of Americans oppose subsidizing abortions. That is
clear. Employers, as a general principle, determine the health benefits
their employees receive. Taxpayers are the employers of our Federal
workforce, and a large majority of taxpayers simply do not want their
tax dollars to pay for these abortions. Taxpayers provide a substantial
majority share of the funds to purchase health insurance for the
Federal civilian workforce. Over three-quarters of that premium on an
average is paid for by taxpayers.
This amendment addresses the same core issue. It simply says that the
Federal Government is not in the business of funding abortions.
Abortion is a contentious issue, and we simply should not ask taxpayers
to pay for them.
Mr. President, this issue has been debated time and time and time
again on this floor. I will say the identical language has been debated
time and time and time again.
Everyone in this Chamber has voted on this issue. Current law limits
abortion availability in Federal employee health care plans to cases,
again, of rape, incest, and to save the life of the mother. That is set
in law. This has been the bipartisan position of the Senate and the
bipartisan position of the House, and it has been approved by the
President last year and the year before. We should not voluntarily take
the money of many Americans who find abortion wrong to pay for those
abortions. We should not go against the will of the people of this
country. We should uphold the current law, and that is what this
amendment would simply do.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I thank my good friend from Ohio,
Senator DeWine, for offering this important amendment.
This amendment will maintain in force the current law restricting
Federal funding for abortions to cases of rape, incest, or life of the
mother.
This amendment would leave in place the restriction on Federal
Employee Health Benefit Plans which prevents those plans from paying
for abortions except in the case of rape or incest, and when the life
of the mother is in danger.
The principle here is simple: Should the taxpayers, regardless of
whether they are pro-life or not, be forced to pay for abortions?
Make no mistake about it, abortions provided under the Federal
Employee Health Benefits Program would be subsidized by the taxpayers.
Although employees are charged for the health plan they elect, a
significant portion of the cost of those plans is offset by the
Government using taxpayer dollars.
Therefore, by participating in a health plan, employees who oppose
abortion are effectively subsidizing abortions when they pay their
health insurance premiums. If the major health plans all fall in line
and start paying for abortions, employees who are morally opposed to
abortion are put in a very difficult position.
There are millions of Americans, myself included, who feel very
strongly that abortion is the taking of an innocent human life. It is
unconscionable to ask taxpayers to subsidize elective abortions.
Whatever your position on abortion is, this is one point we should
all be able to agree on.
Congress has consistently agreed that we should not ask taxpayers to
promote a policy, in essence, of paying for abortion on demand by a
Federal employee.
This is the same amendment that was accepted by voice vote during the
debate for fiscal year 1998 Treasury-Postal Appropriations; accepted by
this body during the debate for fiscal year 1996; and in fact, this is
the same language that has been supported by a bipartisan group of
Senators and Representatives from 1983 to 1998.
Madam President, I will just say this. People in this country can
disagree about the sensitive issue of abortion. The laws are as they
are. Some people like them, some people don't like them. But with
regard to the question of whether or not taxpayers ought to be required
to fund abortions, this country and the law and the vote of almost
every State and this Congress has been not to fund that, and not to
take taxpayers' money from individuals who feel very, very deeply and
personally about this issue and expend that money to eliminate life.
That is not a choice that we believe this Congress ought to make. We
ought to prohibit it as part of this legislation. Maybe we won't even
need a vote on it. But if we do, so be it. I think it will pass again
this year, as it has.
Again, I appreciate the work of the Senator from Ohio for
reestablishing this year this important principle.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise in strong opposition to the DeWine
amendment which would prohibit female federal employees from accessing
affordable, safe and legal abortion related services as part of their
health insurance benefits.
I am always tempted to say, ``here we go again.'' Another assault on
women's health and another barrier for women to safe, affordable
reproductive health services. For some of my colleagues, the 1973
landmark Roe versus Wade decision was not clear enough or they continue
to attempt to restrict a women's right guarantee in this decision.
Instead of standing up and arguing that a woman should not have
choices or that women should not be allowed to access safe, affordable
reproductive health services, some of my colleagues hide behind the
issue of federal funding.
Health benefits have been, and always will be for the benefit of the
federal employee. It is a form of compensation. Every worker knows that
health insurance is part of their compensation package, not a gift, not
a loan, but something that they have earned. Health benefits are part
of one's salary. This is no different for a federal employee or an
employee of Boeing.
We would never see an amendment on the floor of the Senate dictating
to federal employees how they spend their salary. As long as the
employee spends this compensation on a legal commodity, we cannot
restrict his or her decisions. Simply because they are employed by the
American taxpayer does not mean that we can dictate how they spend
their salary.
However, some of my colleagues are proposing to do just that. We are
telling female federal employees how they can or cannot spend their
health insurance benefits. In addition to denying federal employees the
basic constitutional rights afforded every other

[[Page S9189]]

woman, we are proposing to dictate how they spend their compensation.
Not only are health benefits considered employee compensation earned
by the employee, federal employees are also responsible for up to 40
percent of the cost of the premiums as well as any deductibles or
copays. So in fact we are telling female federal employees how to spend
their take home pay as well.
If a federal employee uses his or her own salary to purchase a
firearm is this federal funding of handguns? I would argue no. Even
though there are federal taxpayers who oppose handguns, we do not
restrict the right of federal employees to use their federal salary to
purchase one. But, telling female federal employees how they can spend
their insurance benefits is just as offensive. Only in this case it is
probably more detrimental as it denies female federal employees access
to safe, affordable reproductive health service.
One could argue that female federal employees should pay out of
pocket for certain reproductive health services and not depend on her
health benefits to cover or provide this protection. I would like to
point out that federal employees by and large are not well paid CEOs.
They live pay check to pay check and many are single mothers. Covering
a $600 or $1,000 health care bill is just not possible. Economic
barriers are just as solid as legal or social barriers. Denying health
insurance coverage for a full range of reproductive health services, is
denying access to these services for many female federal employees.
I urge my colleagues to oppose efforts to make second class citizens
of female federal employees. They deserve our support and they deserve
to be treated with dignity and respect. Instead of attacking a woman's
right to make her own personal health decisions let's work to prevent
unintentional pregnancies. I urge my colleagues to support federal
family planning programs and contraceptive equity. The Supreme Court
has already said that abortion with some restrictions is a legal right
afforded all Americans. Let's not force federal employees to pay the
price of political football, but rather let's do more to improve access
to safe, affordable family planning benefits.
Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise in strong opposition to the
amendment offered by Senator DeWine.
The bill reported by the Senate Appropriations Committee would enable
federal employees, whose health insurance is provided under the Federal
Employees Health Benefits Plan, to receive coverage for abortion
services.
The DeWine amendment would prohibit coverage for abortion, except in
cases of life endangerment, rape or incest. It would continue a ban
which has prevented federal employees from receiving a health care
service which is widely available for private sector employees.
I oppose this amendment for two reasons. First of all, it is an
assault on the earned benefits of federal employees. Secondly, it is
part of a continuing assault on women's reproductive rights and would
endanger women's health.
We have seen vote after vote designed to roll back the clock on
women's reproductive rights. Since 1995, there have been over 81 votes
in the House and Senate on abortion-related issues. It's clear that
this unprecedented assault on a woman's right to decide for herself
whether or not to have a child is continuing, as this amendment
demonstrates.
Well, I support the right to choose. And I support federal employees.
And that is why I strenuously oppose this amendment.
Let me speak first about our federal employees. Some 280,000 federal
employees live in the State of Maryland. I am proud to represent them.
They are the people who make sure that the Social Security checks go
out on time. They make sure that our nation's veterans receive their
disability checks. At NIH, they are doing vital research on finding
cures and better treatments for diseases like cancer, Parkinson's and
Alzheimers. There is no American whose life is not touched in some way
by the hard work of a federal employee. They deserve our thanks and our
support.
Instead, federal employees have suffered one assault after another in
recent years. They have faced tremendous employment insecurity, as
government has downsized, and eliminated over 200,000 federal jobs.
Their COLA's and their retirement benefits have been threatened. They
have faced the indignity and economic hardship of three government
shutdowns. Federal employees have been vilified as what is wrong with
government, when they should be thanked and valued for the tremendous
service they provide to our country and to all Americans.
I view this amendment as yet another assault on these faithful public
servants. It goes directly after the earned benefits of federal
employees. Health insurance is part of the compensation package to
which all federal employees are entitled. The costs of insurance
coverage are shared by the federal government and the employee.
I know that proponents of continuing the ban on abortion coverage for
federal employees say that they are only trying to prevent taxpayer
funding of abortion. But that is not what this debate is about.
If we were to extend the logic of the argument of those who favor the
ban, we would prohibit federal employees from obtaining abortions using
their own paychecks. After all, those funds also come from the
taxpayers.
But no one is seriously suggesting that federal employees ought not
to have the right to do whatever they want with their own paychecks.
And we should not be placing unfair restrictions on the type of health
insurance federal employees can purchase under the Federal Employee
Health Benefit Plan.
About 1.2 million women of reproductive age depend on the FEHBP for
their medical care. We know that access to reproductive health services
is essential to women's health. We know that restrictions that make it
more difficult for women to obtain early abortions increase the
likelihood that women will put their health at risk by being forced to
continue a high-risk pregnancy.
If we continue the ban on abortion services, and provide exemptions
only in cases of life endangerment, rape or incest, the 1.2 million
women of reproductive health age who depend on the FEHBP will not have
access to abortion even when their health is seriously threatened. We
will be replacing the informed judgement of medical care givers with
that of politicians.
Decisions on abortion should be made by the woman in close
consultation with her physician. These decisions should be made on the
basis of medical judgement, not on the basis of political judgements.
Only a woman and her physician can weigh her unique circumstances and
make the decision that is right for that particular woman's life and
health.
It is wrong for the Congress to try to issue a blanket prohibition on
insuring a legal medical procedure with no allowance for the particular
set of circumstances that an individual woman may face. I deeply
believe that women's health will suffer if we do so.
I believe it is time to quit attacking federal employees and their
benefits. I believe we need to quit treating federal employees as
second class citizens. I believe federal employees should be able to
receive the same quality and range of health care services as their
private sector counterparts.
Because I believe in the right to choose and because I support
federal employees, I urge my colleagues to join me in defeating the
DeWine amendment.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I oppose the DeWine amendment, which will
curb the rights of women who work for the federal government to obtain
abortion services through their health insurance. I strongly urge my
colleagues to vote against this amendment.
Over one million women of reproductive age rely on the Federal
Employees Health Benefits Program for their medical coverage. This
amendment will stop them from using their own insurance to exercise
their right to choose an abortion. The exceptions in this ban are
inadequate to protect the rights of women.
Women who are employed by the Federal Government work hard. They pay
for their health premiums out of their own pockets. They deserve the
same, full range of reproductive health benefits as women who work in
the private sector.
The question is: Should female federal employees or their dependents
be treated the same as other women in the work force, or should they be
treated differently, singled out, with their rights taken away from
them?

[[Page S9190]]

In 1993 and 1994, Congress voted to permit federal employees to
choose a health care plan that covered abortion. Unfortunately, this
Republican Congress over-turned that right.
This bill provides funding for the full range of health benefits
through the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program. We should ensure
that these benefits remain in the bill by opposing this amendment.
Anti-choice forces are chipping away at the right of women in this
country to obtain safe, legal abortions. They are making a woman's
ability to exercise that choice dependent on the amount of her paycheck
and the employer who signs it. It's simply unjust.
If there were an amendment to stop a man who happens to work for the
Federal Government from getting a perfectly legal medical procedure,
one that might protect his health, there would be an uproar on this
floor. People would say, how dare you do that to the men of this
country? Why not treat the men who work for the Federal Government the
same way we treat men who work in the private sector?
Decisions about health care--including reproductive health care--
should be made by patients and their doctors--not by HMO bureaucrats or
politicians. Decisions about abortion are tough, personal, and private.
We need to trust women to make that choice.
Let's ensure that all federal employees have the rights, the
protections, and the healthcare coverage they deserve. I urge my
colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment.
Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to this amendment. I am
truly sorry we have to address it every year.
The bill we passed out of the Senate Appropriations Committee treats
federal employees just as private employees with health insurance
coverage are treated: they are permitted to join a health care plan
that covers a full range of reproductive health services, including
abortion. The bill returns us to the policy that was in place before
November of 1995. Currently, two-thirds of private fee-for-service
health plans and 70% of HMOs provide abortion coverage.
Like so many of my colleagues, I support a woman's right to choose,
and I support policies that will keep abortions legal, safe, and rare.
I also support anyone's right not to participate in a health plan that
covers abortion, and federal employees can choose such plans under the
bill as we passed it out of Committee.
Adding this amendment, and continuing the unfair policy of the past
few years, will impose real consequences, and real pain for government
workers.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record
two letters that tell what these consequences were for two families of
federal workers.
There being no objection, the letters were ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

Compounding A Tragedy: Congress Gives Medical Advice

September 6, 1996.
Dear Senator: I've been a federal employee for 13 years. My
husband and I were elated this summer when I became pregnant.
At age 36, I was in the ``advanced maternal age'' category,
so my insurance company, Kaiser Permanete offered us genetic
screening as routine pre-natal care. They didn't mention that
Congress had erased the option to terminate a pregnancy, even
on the advice of my physician.
I was scheduled for a sonogram at 14 weeks to make sure
we'd correctly estimated how far along I was. My husband, my
mother and my sister accompanied me to the ultrasound waiting
room because seeing this baby was a big event.
I realized something was odd when both the sonogram
technician and the radiologist spent so much time looking at
my baby's head. The radiologist had detected abnormalities
and recommended that only my husband be allowed in to see the
sonogram. The radiologist termed it severe hydrocephalus--we
saw an empty skull. A week later, the perinatologist at
Fairfax Hospital's Antenatal Testing Center gave an even
colder picture. She called it holoprosencephaly and said the
fetal development was incompatible with life. All of the
doctors I saw agreed there was no hope for the fetus, and
recommended terminating as soon as possible.
We were devastated. To compound the tragedy came the news
that as of January this year, companies insuring federal
workers are prohibited from covering abortions. I have since
learned that federal employees are the exception--coverage
for medically necessary abortions is provided for others by
my insurance company. In the end, we paid a very high fee to
have the abortion because the fetal anomaly made the
procedure more complicated.
My husband and I question whether Congress is implying we
were immoral for aborting this fetus and hoping to get
pregnancy with a healthy child. Our decision was no wanton or
frivolous; it was heartbreaking. My abortion was the day
before my 37th birthday, and each year I face a higher
probability of having to terminate another pregnancy because
of a genetic problem. Yet, we really want to raise a family
and will keep trying.
Sincerely,

Susan Alexander and

Christopher Durr,
Alexandria, VA.
____

September 10, 1997.
Dear Representative: My name is Kim Mathis.I live in
Talladega, Alabama with my husband who works at the Federal
prison in town. We are both covered under my husband's health
insurance plan for federal employees and their families.
In February of last year, we learned that I was pregnant.
During a routine appointment my doctor performed a standard
A.F.P. test. This is a test that they offer to check for
neural tube defects and other problems. About a month later,
my doctor told me that the test came back positive and he
wanted me to go to a specialist for more tests.
I immediately scheduled an appointment with the specialist.
During my exam, they performed an ultrasound and found that
my A.F.P. test results were elevated because I was carrying
twins.
My next appointment was in May. This time the doctor
studies the ultrasound for almost and hour. After the doctor
was finished, he wanted to talk with us privately. It was at
that time that I knew that something was wrong. He told us
that was an unusually rare pregnancy. He told me that my
twins, which were boys, suffered from Twin-to-Twin
Transfusion Syndrome. Both babies shared the same blood
vessels. Because of this, the baby on top was giving his
blood and water to the baby on the bottom. The smaller twin
was about one month smaller in size than the larger twin. The
doctor said the larger twin was growing too fast. He also
told us that the smaller twin did not have kidneys and his
heartbeat was very slow. At that time, he gave us a 20%
chance of one of the twins surviving the pregnancy.
After consulting with the doctor, my husband and I decided
that the best thing to do would be to end the pregnancy.It
was the hardest decision of my life.
After we made our decision our doctor asked us what kind of
insurance we had. My husband told him and the doctor informed
us that he had never had a problem with their coverage. When
we arrived home that evening, we looked in my husband's
benefit plan book for 1996 which plainly stated that ``legal
abortions'' were covered.
A few weeks after the termination we received the first
letter from our insurance company. The letter stated that our
claims were denied. After further inquiries we learned that
they denied our claims because Public Law 104-52 was enacted
on November 19, 1995 which limited federal employees health
benefits plans coverage of abortion.
By this time, the hospital was harassing us. They turned
our accout over to collections agency. We received countless
threating letters and telephone calls at work. In the
October, my husband and I were forced to file bankruptcy. Our
lives and financial future have been ruined.
I am writing this letter so you will know what happened to
us and so that you can change this law. Families like ours
should not have to go bankrupt in order to receive
appropriate medical care.
Sincerely,
Kim Mathis.

Mr. KOHL. One had to abort a fetus with no brain. Not only did they
have the heartbreak of a failed pregnancy, but they also faced the high
financial burden of a major operation not covered by insurance. The
second letter tells of a family that had to abort non-viable twins. The
cost of this complicated and necessary abortion bankrupted them.
I understand and respect the deeply held convictions of both sides in
the abortion debate. But it is not fair to allow our heated political
debate to do real harm to the people who work for the government. I
urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment.
Mr. CAMPBELL addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado is recognized.
Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, before the Senator from Ohio came to the
floor, we were in the process of trying to get a time agreement on the
Daschle amendment. I ask the Senator if he would mind laying his
amendment aside so we might finish the Daschle amendment as soon as we
hear from the majority leader.
Mr. DeWINE. No objection.
Mr. CAMPBELL. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.

[[Page S9191]]

Mr. LOTT. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Collins). Without objection, it is so
ordered.

Amendment No. 3365

Mr. LOTT. Madam President, I call for the regular order with respect
to the Daschle amendment and ask that there be 20 minutes, equally
divided, prior to the motion to table, and I then be recognized to make
the motion to table and with no second-degree amendments in order prior
to the vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. LOTT. For the next 20 minutes, the floor would be open for
discussion on the pending amendment, or Senators could speak on other
issues.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time on the amendment?
Mr. CAMPBELL. Madam President, while we are waiting, we are making
progress in reaching agreements on other amendments.

Amendment No. 3368

(Purpose: To provide for the adjustment of status of certain Haitian
nationals)

Mr. CAMPBELL. Madam President, I send an amendment to the desk and
ask for its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The bill clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Colorado [Mr. Campbell], for Mr. Graham,
for himself, Mr. Mack, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Moynihan, Mrs.
Feinstein, Ms. Moseley-Braun, Mr. Kerry, and Mr. Durbin,
proposes an amendment numbered 3368.

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of
the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(The text of the amendment is printed in today's Record under
``Amendments Submitted.'')
Mr. GRAHAM. Madam President, I rise today to offer an amendment to
the Treasury-Postal appropriations bill that will bring justice to
thousands of Haitian nationals who fought for democracy and freedom
against the greatest odds.
Last November, Congress passed the Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central
American Relief Act to protect those who fled Communism and oppression
in Central America during the 1980s.
But while that legislation was a monumental step forward for
fairness, it left one deserving group completely unprotected.
Just as brave Central Americans resisted tyranny in their native
countries, Haitians struggled to free themselves from oppression.
In fact, many Haitians seeking asylum in our country are here because
they challenged a regime that was wantonly violating basic human
freedoms.
Mr. President, these brave Haitians have suffered greatly for the
causes of freedom and democracy.
They should not be forced to endure serious disruptions in their life
once again.
Even though conditions in Haiti have improved greatly since 1994,
Amnesty International reports that human rights abuses still occur.
As people who contribute mightily to the strength of our communities,
the Haitians living in the United States should not be forced to risk
returning to the scene of their prior persecution . . . to face the
possibility that it might happen again.
This amendment is a bipartisan effort. Senators Mack and I--along
with the cosponsors of the bill I introduced last year, Senators
Kennedy, Abraham, Moseley-Braun, D'Amato, Moynihan, Feinstein, Kerry of
Massachusetts, Durbin, and Lautenberg--have joined together to ensure
that the Haitian people who have sought fairness and justice for so
long receive it in 1998.
We have the bipartisan support of leaders ranging from President
Clinton to Republicans like Jack Kemp and my Florida colleagues Ileana
Ros-Lehtinen and Lincoln Diaz Balart.
Mr. President, we have left no stone unturned in crafting this
legislation. We've asked for input from all sources.
Senator Abraham held a hearing on this bill in December of 1997. The
bill was marked up and passed out of the Senate Judiciary Committee on
April 23, 1998.
I have personally met with Senator Lott and explained the importance
of this legislation to my state of Florida.
Now we ask our Senate colleagues to take action. The 40,000 Haitian
nationals in the United States face deportation in December if Congress
does not act.
Our nation was built as a bastion of freedom and a haven for those
fleeing oppression around the world. We embrace that heritage in this
legislation.
Specifically, our bill helps three groups of individuals--a total of
40,000--adjust their status to legal residency.
Those who were paroled into the United States from Guantanamo Bay,
after careful screening by immigration personnel.
These individuals were flow to the United States for review because
their asylum cases were deemed to be valid and credible.
Our bill also helps those who were not paroled from Guantanamo, but
who came to our nation and filed an application for asylum before
December of 1995.
Finally, it reaches out to a small group of unaccompanied or orphaned
Haitian children.
The members of each of these three groups are legally here in our
country.
They have followed all the laws of our land. This legislation will
give them the chance to continue working here. It will help them as
they build small businesses. It will keep their U.S. citizen children
in school.
Most importantly, it will keep their vibrant spirit and determined
work ethic alive in our cities and communities.
During our field hearing, I saw the problem that Haitians face
through the eyes of a bright, young student. She couldn't come to the
hearing because she was working at one of the two jobs she holds to pay
her community college tuition. Alexandra Charles is eighteen years old.
She is an orphan who came to the United States when she was ten years
old--after her mother was brutally murdered by Haitian military
officials.
She has over a dozen relatives in the United States who are legal
residents, but who are not closely related enough to be sponsors.
She has virtually no relatives left alive in Haiti.
Like many individuals in similar circumstances, Ms. Charles was
granted a suspension of deportation.
But this relief was withdrawn after the Board of Immigration Appeals
ruled that the 1996 immigration law retroactively affected cases like
hers.
Alexandra's future in the United States looks bright.
She is a hard worker and a model student.
But without this legislation, our nation will lose the benefit of her
special skills and her dedication to our community.
Alexandra is just one of the thousands of law-abiding, hard working
individuals who will not be allowed to pursue their valid asylum claims
due to the retroactive nature of our 1996 immigration law.
I ask for your help in this fight for justice and fairness.
Let us prove once again that our nation values those who put their
lives on the line in the struggle for freedom and democracy.
Mr. MACK. Madam President, I rise today in support of the Graham/Mack
immigration amendment to the Treasury/Postal Appropriations bill. I
strongly believe that this amendment is the right thing to do for the
Haitian community and that it is consistent with our treatment of
similarly-situated immigrant groups.
I would like to provide the Senate with some background information
on what has led Senator Graham and me to introduce this amendment, a
brief explanation of the amendment, and the policy rationale behind the
amendment.
First of all, some legislative history on events leading up to the
introduction of this amendment. Last year, Senator Graham and I
introduced legislation which was intended to ease the transition into
implementation of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant
Responsibility Act of 1996, otherwise known as IRAIRA. Our bill simply
clarified that immigrants who were in the administrative pipeline for
suspension of deportation when IRAIRA was enacted would have their
cases for suspension considered under the rules in

[[Page S9192]]

place when they applied for suspension, not the new rules contemplated
by IRAIRA. I was concerned with the unfairness of changing the rules on
people midstream.
While this bill was under consideration in the Senate, an agreement
was reached in the House of Representatives which gave even greater
relief to the Nicaraguan community--the ability to adjust to legal
permanent resident status.
Once it was apparent that Nicaraguans would be granted the
opportunity to adjust to legal permanent resident status, the Haitian
community made an attempt to be included in the relief. Although they,
too, had a compelling case, it was not possible to include them in the
final bill at that point in the negotiations. However, Senator Graham
and I made a commitment to seek appropriate relief for the Haitians
this Congress, and received assurances from the Administration that
they would defer potential deportation decisions of the affected
Haitians until after Congress had an opportunity to consider
legislative relief.
This amendment, identical in text to Senate bill 1504, which was
reported favorably out of the Judiciary Committee, would provide
permanent resident status to certain Haitians who fled Haiti after the
Aristide regime was toppled in a brutal military coup in 1991 and were
either paroled into the country or applied for asylum by December 31,
1995.
This amendment is more narrow than the legislation passed last year
which gave permanent resident status to Nicaraguans, since the scope
and number of people covered is much smaller. Under last year's bill,
nearly every Nicaraguan in the United States before December 1, 1995
was made eligible to adjust their status, approximately 150,000 people.
Our amendment helps only a limited class of Haitians, estimated at
30,000-40,000, who have sought the help of the United States in fleeing
persecution. Let me emphasize that point again--this amendment is for
those who have actively sought U.S. help, not those who came illegally
and sought to evade detection.
There are two different categories of Haitians involved. The first
category are those paroled into the country after being identified as
having a credible fear of persecution. Nearly all in this category,
approximately 11,000 Haitians, were pre-screened at Guantanamo Bay and
found to meet a credible fear of persecution test. These 11,000
Haitians represent approximately 25% of those screened at Guantanamo,
the other 75% were returned to Haiti. The second category are those
Haitians who have applied for asylum by December 31, 1995. In the case
of those in the second category, they are people who have been caught
in an asylum backlog not under their control and may have a difficult
time now, due to the passage of time, demonstrating a credible fear of
persecution. In the meantime, they have put down roots in this country
and are making positive contributions to their communities.
I am talking about a twenty-five year old woman, Nestilia Robergeau,
who fled Haiti, where she had been beaten and raped and her brother was
murdered. Even though she was screened into this country through
Guantanamo in 1992, she is still waiting for an asylum interview. In
the meantime, she has graduated from high school and hopes to attend
college to become a nurse. She works most days from 7 a.m. to 10 p.m.
to support herself and her teenage brother.
And then there is a little fourth grade girl in Miami, Florida,
Louiciana Miclisse. Both of her parents were shot and killed in Haiti,
and the only relative she has now is her Aunt Nadia, who came with her
from Haiti. She wants to grow up to be a doctor. She has applied for
asylum, but her case has still not been considered. Do we really want
to send this child back to Haiti where she has no family? Is that what
this country is all about? I believe we are more compassionate than
that.
It's also important to mention that conditions in Haiti are not safe
for the return of these people. At an immigration subcommittee field
hearing last December, the committee was informed that the Haitian
government has not yet established the civil institutions necessary to
protect these refugees from further retribution by those who
perpetrated human rights crimes. In fact, it appears that these
criminals continue to operate with impunity.
As I mentioned at the outset, this amendment is consistent with our
treatment of similarly-situated immigrant groups. As Grover Joseph
Rees, former General Counsel of INS under President Bush, testified at
the subcommittee field hearing last December, it has been the rule
rather than the exception that when a human rights emergency has led to
the admission of large numbers of parolees from a particular country,
such refugees and others similarly situated have been subsequently
granted permanent residency through Congressional action. Congress has
granted permanent residence on this basis in the past to Hungarians,
Poles, Soviets, Vietnamese, Chinese, Cambodians, Laotians, Cubans, and,
most recently, Nicaraguans. This action for the Haitians is entirely
consistent with our past treatment of similarly-situated groups from
other countries.
This amendment is the right thing to do, and this is the right time
to do it. The Haitians who are affected by this situation have been
left in limbo far too long. I urge my colleagues to support the Graham/
Mack amendment.
Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, it is a privilege to join Senator
Graham, Senator Mack, Senator Abraham and our other distinguished
colleagues in supporting legislation to provide permanent residence to
Haitian refugees. Last year Congress enacted the Nicaraguan Adjustment
and Central American Relief Act, which enabled Nicaraguan and Cuban
refugees to remain permanently in the United States as immigrants. That
legislation also enables Salvadorans, Guatemalans, Eastern Europeans
and nationals from the former Soviet Union to seek similar relief on a
case-by-case basis.
Haitian refugees deserve no less.
Haitians have seen their relatives, friends and neighbors jailed, or
murdered, or abducted in the middle of the night and never seen again.
Like other refugees, they have fled from decades of violence and brutal
repression by the Ton Ton Macoutes, and later the military regime which
overthrew the first democratically elected president of Haiti.
The Bush and Clinton Administrations found that the vast majority of
these refugees were fleeing from political persecution in Haiti.
Thousands of these Haitians were paroled into the United States after
establishing a credible fear of persecution. Many others filed bona
fide applications for asylum upon arrival in the United States.
This legislation also includes a significant number of unaccompanied
children and orphans who did not have the capacity to apply for asylum
for themselves. Senator Abraham and I proposed an amendment which was
approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee to include these deserving
children in this legislation.
This legislation concerns basic fairness. The United States has a
long and noble tradition of providing safe haven to refugees. Over the
years, we have enacted legislation to provide Hungarians, Cubans,
Yugoslavs, Vietnamese, Laotians, Cambodians, Poles, Chinese, and many
other refugees with permanent protection from being returned to
unstable or repressive regimes.
Last year, we adopted legislation to protect Nicaraguans, Cubans and
others, but, the Haitians were unfairly excluded from that bill. The
time has come for Congress to remedy this flagrant omission and add
Haitians to the list of deserving refugees.
By approving this legislation, we can finally bring to an end the
shameful decades of unjust treatment to Haitians. Throughout the 1980s,
less than 2 percent of Haitians fleeing the atrocities committed by the
Duvalier regimes were granted asylum. Yet, other refugee groups had
approval rates as high as 75 percent. Haitian asylum seekers were
detained by the Immigration and Naturalization Service, while asylum
seekers from other countries were routinely released while their asylum
applications were processed. Until recently, Haitians have been the
only group intercepted on the high seas and forcibly returned to their
home country, without even the opportunity to seek asylum.
Like other political refugees, Haitians have come to our country with
a strong love of freedom and a strong

[[Page S9193]]

commitment to democracy. They have settled in many parts of the United
States. They have established deep roots in their communities, and
their children born here are U.S. citizens. Wherever they have settled,
they have made lasting contributions to the economic vitality and
diversity of our communities and the nation.
This legislation has strong bipartisan support. It is also supported
by a range of nation-wide organizations, including the U.S. Catholic
Conference, the Church World Service, the American Baptist Churches,
the Mennonite Central Committee, the Council of Jewish Federations, the
Lutheran Immigration Refugee Service, the United Methodist General
Board of Church and Society, the Presbyterian Church (USA) and many,
many more.
We should do all we can to end this current flagrant discrimination
under the immigration laws. Haitians refugees deserve too--the same
protection we gave to Nicaraguans and Cubans last year. We need to pay
more than lip service to the fundamental principle of equal protection
of the laws.
Finally, the amendment has been modified to resolve a budget problem,
deeming approximately 1000 Haitians ineligible for Supplemental
Security Income and Medicaid. A similar budget concern was not raised
last year when the Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central American Relief
Act was considered. I am hopeful that this new injustice can be
remedied as the Haitian legislation moves forward. I urge the Senate to
accept this amendment.
Mr. CAMPBELL. This amendment is acceptable to both sides. I urge its
adoption.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no further debate, without
objection, the amendment is agreed to.
The amendment (No. 3368) was agreed to.

Amendment No. 3369

(Purpose: To express the sense of Congress that a postage stamp should
be issued honoring Oskar Schindler.)

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask
for its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The bill clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Colorado [Mr. Campbell], for Mr.
Lautenberg, proposes an amendment numbered 3369.

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of
the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
At the appropriate place, add the following:
Since during the Nazi occupation of Poland, Oskar Schindler
personally risked his life and that of his wife to provide
food and medical care and saved the lives of over 1,000 Jews
from death, many of whom later made their homes in the United
States.
Since Oskar Schindler also rescued about 100 Jewish men and
women from the Golezow concentration camp, who lay trapped
and partly frozen in 2 sealed train cars stranded near
Brunnlitz;
Since millions of Americans have been made aware of the
story of Schindler's bravery;
Since on April 28, 1962, Oskar Schindler was named a
``Righteous Gentile'' by Yad Vashem; and
Since Oskar Schindler is a true hero and humanitarian
deserving of honor by the United States Government:
It is the sense of the Congress that the Postal Service
should issue a stamp honoring the life of Oskar Schindler.

Mr. CAMPBELL. Madam President, this amendment has been cleared by
both sides. I urge its immediate adoption.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment?
Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
The amendment (No. 3369) was agreed to.
Mr. CAMPBELL. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. REID. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Daschle
amendment be temporarily set aside.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Amendment No. 3370

(Purpose: To improve access to FDA-approved prescription contraceptives
or devices)

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for
its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The bill clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Nevada [Mr. Reid], for Ms. Snowe, for
herself and Mr. Reid, proposes an amendment numbered 3370.

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the
amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:

At the appropriate place in the bill, insert the following:
Sec. __. (a) None of the funds appropriated by this Act may
be expended by the Office of Personnel Management to enter
into or renew any contract under section 8902 of title 5,
United States Code, for a health benefits plan--
(1) which provides coverage for prescription drugs, unless
such plan also provides equivalent coverage for all
prescription contraceptive drugs or devices approved by the
Food and Drug Administration, or generic equivalents approved
as substitutable by the Food and Drug Administration; or
(2) which provides benefits for outpatient services
provided by a health care professional, unless such plan also
provides equivalent benefits for outpatient contraceptive
services.
(b) Nothing in this section shall apply to a contract with
any of the following religious plans:
(1) SelectCare.
(2) PersonalCare's HMO.
(3) Care Choices.
(4) OSF Health Plans, Inc.
(5) Yellowstone Community Health Plan.
(6) and any other existing or future religious based plan
whose religious tenets are in conflict with the requirements
in this Act.
(c) For purposes of this section--
(1) the term ``contraceptive drug or device'' means a drug
or device intended for preventing pregnancy; and
(2) the term ``outpatient contraceptive services'' means
consultations, examinations, procedures, and medical
services, provided on an outpatient basis and related to the
use of contraceptive methods (including natural family
planning) to prevent pregnancy.

Ms. SNOWE. Madam President, I rise today, along with my colleague
Senator Reid, to offer an amendment to the Treasury-Postal
appropriations bill that will produce two critical results: It will
provide women who work for the federal government the equality in
health care and the affordable access to prescription contraception
coverage they need and deserve; and it will help reduce the number of
unintended pregnancies and abortions in this country.
The Snowe-Reid amendment says that if a health plan in the Federal
Employees Health Benefits Program, or FEHBP, provides coverage of
prescription drugs and devices, they must also cover FDA-approved
prescription contraceptives. It also provides that plans which already
cover outpatient services also cover medical and counseling services to
promote the effective use of those contraceptives.
That's it, Madam President. That's the extent and scope of the Snowe-
Reid amendment. It only prevents health plans in the FEHBP from carving
out exceptions for FDA-approved prescription contraceptives that
prevent pregnancy.
It does not cover abortion in any way, shape or form. It does not
cover abortion related services such as counseling a woman to seek an
abortion. And it does not require coverage of RU-486, because RU-486 is
not a method of contraception. Let me repeat, this amendment does not
require coverage of RU-486.
The Snowe-Reid amendment also respects the rights of religious plans
that, as a matter of conscience, choose not to cover contraceptives.
Again, I want to make it clear that this amendment clearly exempts such
plans.
Finally, the Snowe-Reid plan isn't going to break the bank or burden
American taxpayers. In fact, CBO has estimated that the cost to the
federal government would be less than $500,000, and under CBO's
practice of scoring bills to the nearest million dollars, CBO stated:
``this provision would have no effect on the budget totals in FY
1999.''
So the Snowe-Reid amendment is a practical, common sense, cost
effective approach to effecting the kind of public health policy that
should set an example for the rest of the nation's insurers to follow.

[[Page S9194]]

The need for this visionary measure is clear. Today, nearly 9 million
Federal employees, retirees, and their dependents participate in the
FEHBP. Fully 1.2 million are women of reproductive age who rely on
FEHBP for all their medical needs. Unfortunately, the vast majority of
these women are currently denied access to the broad range of safe and
effective methods of contraception.
In fact, according to the Office of Personnel Management, which
administers the FEHBP, 81 percent of plans do not cover all five of the
most basic and widely used methods of contraception and 10 percent of
these plans do not cover any type of contraception at all.
The ramifications of this are dramatic. When 8 out of 10 women
enrolled in the FEHBP aren't covered for the leading methods of
contraception, their choices are unfairly limited. Who are we to pick
and choose what method works best--or is most medically suited--for
each individual woman?
The fact is, different women require different methods of
contraception due to a variety of factors. If there is only one method
of contraception her plan offers, where does that leave her? And even
more to the point, why do we leave this decision to her health care
plan, instead of her health care provider?
Across America, this lack of equitable coverage for prescription
contraceptives contributes to the fact that women today spend 68
percent more than men in health care costs. That's 68 percent. And this
gap in coverage translates into $7,000 to $10,000 over a woman's
reproductive lifetime.
So I ask my colleagues: with 25 percent of all Federal employees
earning less than $25,000--and nearly 18,000 Federal employees having
incomes below or slightly above the Federal poverty level--what do you
think is the likely effect of these tremendous added costs for these
Federal employees?
Well, I'll tell you the effect it has: many of them simply stop using
contraceptives, or will never use them in the first place, because they
simply can't afford to. And the impact of those decisions on these
individuals and this nation is a lasting and profound one.
Women spend more than 90 percent of their reproductive life avoiding
pregnancy, and a woman who doesn't use contraception is 15 times more
likely to become pregnant than women who do. Fifteen times. And of the
3.6 million unintended pregnancies in the United States, half of them
will end in abortion.
I can't think of anyone I know, no matter their ideology, party, or
gender, who doesn't want to see the instances of abortion in this
nation reduced. Well, imagine if I told you we could do something about
it, and do it at almost no cost to the federal government.
That is what the Snowe-Reid amendment does. When the Alan Guttmacher
Institute estimates that the use of birth control lowers the likelihood
of abortion by a remarkable 85 percent, how can we ignore a provision
like the Snowe-Reid amendment that will make the use of birth control
more affordable to our Federal employees, and do so with negligible
cost to the Federal government?
And yet, as thoughtful an approach as the Snowe-Reid amendment may
seem, I know that there will still be some in this body who will argue
against it. Well, I believe these arguments do not withstand scrutiny,
and I would like to take just a few minutes to explain why.
Some may voice concern that the Snowe-Reid amendment requires
coverage of abortion of drugs that induce abortion, such as RU-486. To
which I will reiterate, the Snowe-Reid amendment only requires coverage
of FDA-approved methods of contraception--that means contraception to
prevent pregnancy.
It is important to make it clear that we are only talking about
methods of contraception under this amendment. And I might add, methods
of contraception which will reduce the number of abortions in this
country--so the fact is--if you want to see fewer abortions performed
in the United States, you should support this amendment.
When it comes to the incredibly personal issue of abortion we should
be celebrating common ground, not condemning it. This amendment
achieves that goal. It does not pretend to settle the issue of abortion
in America--far from it. It does, however, provide a rallying point for
those who want to see abortions reduced--all of us, I would think--and
that's the reason people like Senator Reid who is prolife, support it
on one side of the abortion debate and people like me on the other.
Some opponents may say that pregnancy isn't really a medical
condition, and therefore we shouldn't be requiring its coverage in the
FEHBP. Obviously, anyone who says this hasn't been through pregnancy or
childbirth. If pregnancy isn't a medical condition, then I'd like to
know what is!
And in this day and age when prevention is the buzzword--as it should
be--how is it we can support prescription coverage to treat a variety
of biological conditions but not to prevent one of the most dramatic
and life-altering conditions of all?
Still others may argue, ``Pregnancy is a lifestyle choice, and
shouldn't be covered like diseases that are not''. Such an argument
simply ignores reality as well as the facts.
As Luella Klein, the director of women's health issues at ACOG, put
it: ``There's nothing `optional' about contraception. It is a medical
necessity for woman during 30 years of their lifespan. To ignore the
health benefits of contraception is to say that the alternative of 12
to 15 pregnancies during a woman's lifetime is medically acceptible.''
Of course, we shouldn't be too surprised at the attitude of our
opponents. Indeed, it wasn't until 1978--only twenty years ago--that
Congress passed a law requiring that maternity benefits be covered like
any other medical care. Before we passed the Pregnancy Discrimination
Act, 43 percent of insurance policies didn't include coverage of
maternity care. Sound familiar?
So here we are, twenty years later, battling some of the same
insurance companies that in 1978 didn't want to provide the same
coverage we now take for granted. How can they still not cover the
means to prevent what they already acknowledge through existing
coverage as a medical condition?
The fact is, all methods of contraception are cost effective when
compared to the cost of unintended pregnancy. And with unplanned
pregnancies linked to higher rates of premature and low-birth weight
babies, costs can rise even above and beyond those associated with
healthy births.
As the American Journal of Public Health estimates, the cost under
managed care for a year's dose of birth control pills is less than one-
tenth of what it would cost for prenatal care and delivery.
So the question, then, is not ``How can we afford to expand coverage
to prescription contraceptives?'' but ``How can we afford not to?''
No, the cost argument doesn't hold water, Mr. President, and neither
do any of the other arguments. The bottom line is, the Snowe-Reid
amendment makes sense from a standpoint of fairness, from the
standpoint of compassion, from the standpoint of cost effectiveness and
from the standpoint of good public health policy.
Maybe that's why the concept is supported by such diverse groups as
the American Medical Association, the American Academy of Family
Physicians, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American College of
Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the American Society for Reproductive
Medicine, the American Medical Women's Association, and the Society for
Adolescent Medicine.
Whatever the reason, as an employer and model for the rest of the
nation, the federal government should provide equal access to this most
basic health benefit for women. This amendment would allow federal
employees to have that option, one already provided an option for
contraceptives through the Medicaid program. Why shouldn't the same
federal commitment be extended to women employed by the federal
government?
In closing, Madam President, let me say that if we, as a nation, are
truly committed to reducing abortion rates and increasing the quality
of life for all Americans, then we need to begin focusing our attention
on how to prevent unintended pregnancies. The Snowe-Reid amendment is a
significant step in the right direction, and I urge my colleagues to
join me in supporting it.
Ms. MIKULSKI. Madam President, I want to thank Senators Snowe and

[[Page S9195]]

Reid, for offering this important amendment today. I am proud to be a
cosponsor of the Snowe amendment. I am also proud to be an original
cosponsor of the Snowe-Reid bill on which this amendment is based.
This amendment is about two things--it's about equity and it's about
women's health.
The Snowe amendment would help to narrow the gender gap for women in
insurance plans. What it does it really is quite simple. It requires
that any health plan for federal employees that covers prescription
drugs must also cover prescription contraceptives.
Federal Employee Health Benefit plans routinely cover prescription
drugs. But they routinely discriminate against women by not including
prescription contraceptives. In fact, 81% of the plans under FEHBP fail
to cover all five of the leading types of contraceptives. Ten percent
offer no coverage at all.
Mr. President, I am a strong supporter of our federal employees. I am
proud that so many of them call Maryland their home. They work hard in
the service of our country. And I work hard for them. Whether it's
fighting for fair COLAs, against disruptive and harmful shutdowns of
the federal government, or fighting to prevent unwise schemes to
privatize important services our federal workforce provide, they can
count on me.
Today, I am fighting for equity in health insurance coverage for
federal employee women. The failure of the majority of federal health
plans to cover all forms of prescription contraceptions results in
unfair physical and financial burdens for women. It forces women of
reproductive age to spend 68% more for out-of-pocket health care costs
than men.
This amendment would help to correct that inequity. That is one
reason why I so strongly support it.
I also support the Snowe amendment because it will help to safeguard
women's health. As a member of the Committee on Labor and Human
Resources, I have worked hard for women's health. Whether it was
establishing the Office of Women's Health Research at NIH, fighting for
inclusion of women in clinical trials, or ensuring that women receive
safe and accurate mammograms through the Mammography Quality Standards
Act, I have fought to make sure that women's health needs are met.
Contraception is a part of basic health care for women. This
amendment will ensure that federally-employed women will have the tools
they need to plan their families, to avoid unintended pregnancies and
to reduce the need for abortion.
Access to family planning is one of the most important issues facing
women today. Family planning improves maternal and child health. We
know that unwanted pregnancies are associated with lower birth weight
babies and jeopardize maternal health. They also too often put a young
woman's future academic and personal achievement in jeopardy. When the
resources are available to help women make good, responsible choices
about parenthood and their futures, we have no excuse for not making
those tools available.
I am proud that my own state of Maryland has been a leader in this
area. Earlier this year, Maryland became the first state in the nation
to require insurers that cover prescription drugs to also cover FDA-
approved prescription contraceptives. Maryland has once again shown
itself to be on the leading edge of progressive health care policy.
Today, the Senate has an opportunity to take the first steps in
following Maryland's example. We can adopt the Snowe amendment. We can
ensure that women in the federal workforce have equitable access to
prescription contraceptions.
I hope we will adopt this amendment today. And I hope we will bring
to the floor soon the Snowe-Reid bill to ensure that all insurance
plans that cover prescription drugs include contraceptive drugs and
devices in that coverage.
Ms. MURRAY. Madam. President, I want to thank the sponsor of this
important amendment for all his work and effort on behalf of women's
health. As a Senator who has long championed women's health issues and
fought to protect women's health, I commend him for his efforts. I am
pleased to join with him today in support of women's health equity.
There has been a great deal of debate lately regarding contraceptive
equity. Let me first start by explaining what this amendment does not
do. It does not mandate benefits. Let me repeat that, this is not a
mandate. If a plan does not have a prescription drug benefit then they
do not have to add contraceptives. If a plan has a copy of deductible
for prescription benefits, then contraceptives would also have the same
copy or deductible. If a plan requires payments or deductibles for
surgical services, then family planning benefits would also have the
same copayments and deductibles. This is not a mandate. It simply says
that plans cannot treat contraceptives any differently than medication
to treat high blood pressure or to treat diabetes.
This amendment does not increase federal spending. CBO has scored
this amendment as having a minimal effect on spending. The cost is such
that CBO cannot even estimate as it falls below their threshold for
calculating or determining budgetary impact. I would argue that in fact
it will have a positive impact on spending. Currently, 50 percent of
all pregnancies in this country are unintentional. Increasing access to
safe, affordable family planning can only reduce this number. The
average cost annually of oral contraceptives is estimated at $400 to
$500. The cost of an uncomplicated delivery is close to $4,000, this
excludes any prenatal or postnatal care. It does not take a budgetary
expert to conclude that there will actually be savings from this
amendment.
This amendment is also not about abortion. Let me make this very
clear. This is not an abortion debate. No part of this amendment would
require federal funding of abortions. It simply goes to those
contraceptives that are currently approved by the FDA to prevent
unintentional pregnancies. RU486 is not currently available in the
United States. No plan would be required to cover RU486. If you ask any
woman if there is a difference between abortion and contraceptives I
can assure you that the answer would be yes.
Now let me tell you all what this amendment does. This amendment goes
to the heart of women's health. Reproductive health and effective
family planning are women's health issues. It is hard to go a week
without hearing one of my colleagues talk about the importance of
women's health. There are probably well over 500 pieces of legislation
pending that impact women's health. Every member strives to have a
solid record on women's health issues. Every member claims to be a
champion of women's health. Yet denying access to safe, affordable
contraceptives for federal employees poses a serious threat to women's
health. On average, without effective, safe family planning, most women
could expect to endure 12 to 13 pregnancies in her life time. While
most women have safe and healthy pregnancies, for some it still can be
life threatening. And for most women 12 or 13 pregnancies does pose a
serious health threat.
In order to protect women's health and reduce infant mortality it is
critical to plan for pregnancy. To place economic barriers for women to
receive safe family planning services is to place a significant health
burden upon us.
Many women may not even be aware, but women can expect to pay up to
68 percent more in out of pocket health care costs than men. Ask any
woman if she is willing to pay 68 percent more for housing, or food or
transportation and I can assure you the answer would be a resounding
no. But, for health care this is actually what women face. I stand
today to say we must reverse this trend. We already know that women can
expect to earn 71 cents for every dollar earned by a man. Now we want
to say that they should pay 68 percent more for health care or for any
consumer product.
This is a basic question of equity and fairness. This is even more
evident in the federal work force. By and large the federal work force
is younger and paid less than the private sector. Effective family
planning is even more essential in a younger work force. Many federal
employees who live pay check to pay check. Yet, female federal
employees have no guarantee that their insurance will not discriminate
against them. If there is a health care benefit

[[Page S9196]]

program that should offer a wide range of affordable reproductive
health benefits, I would argue it must be the Federal Employees Health
Benefit Plan.
There are some of my colleagues who will argue it should be up to the
plan or even some who will argue that Members of Congress should decide
what methods of family planning are covered. It is these very Members
of Congress who also argue that only the physician and patient should
be making health care decisions. Not health plans or politicians. I
urge my colleagues to think very carefully about who they want making
life and death health care decisions. I would hope that my colleagues
would concur that only physicians and the patient should be making
these decisions. This is why the American College of Obstetricians and
Gynecologists endorses this amendment. They know how dangerous it is to
make life or death decisions based solely on economics or other
arbitrary criteria.
Economic barriers and discriminatory insurance practices do threaten
women's health. The National Commission to Prevent Infant Mortality
determined that ``infant mortality could be reduced by 10 percent if
all women not desiring pregnancy used contraceptives.'' With one action
we could be reducing our tragic infant mortality rate in this country.
The Institutes of Medicine's Committee on Unintended Pregnancy
recommended that ``financial barriers to contraception be reduced by
increasing the proportion of all health insurance policies that cover
contraceptive services and supplies.'' As the largest purchaser of
private health insurance in this country, the Federal Government should
set the example for the private market. We should listen to the
evidence of the medical community and research scientists and tear down
economic barriers within the Federal Employees Health Benefit Plan.
I urge my colleagues to let women and their doctors decide, not
politicians and certainly not economics. Having access to the most
appropriate family planning method without economic sanctions is a
women's health issue. Each woman must have the ability to make this
decision based on the recommendations of her doctor. To most women,
this is a major women's health vote. This is a question of equity and
fairness but more importantly it is an issue of access to safe,
affordable reproductive health care services.
How would any Member of this body feel if we found out that our
insurance policies would only provide access to one form of high blood
pressure medication, regardless of the side effects? How would we react
if a plan operating in the FEHBP said that they would charge a higher
copayment for prescription drugs to treat heart ailments? How we would
respond to these discriminatory practices that threaten quality,
affordable health care for FEHBP participants? I can tell you how this
member would respond. I would be on the floor offering amendments to
end discriminatory insurance practices that result in nothing more than
economic sanctions that diminished access to safe health care services.
We owe our federal employees more and we should be a leader on
women's health. I urge my colleagues to vote for women's health instead
of just talking about it.
Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I urge the Senate to approve the
amendment by Senator Snowe and Senator Reid to provide fairness in
prescription coverage for family planning.
The provisions of this amendment will benefit millions of American
women by helping to make the cost of preventing unintended pregnancy
more affordable. They will also help to reduce the number of unintended
pregnancies by providing women with greater access to a broad range of
safe and effective family planning services.
Too often, insurance companies refuse to cover these costs. Only a
third of all private health plans currently cover oral contraceptives--
the most widely used prescription method of family planning. According
to a study by the Alan Guttmacher Institute, nearly half of all large-
group plans do not cover such prescriptions--despite the fact that 97
percent of traditional fee-for-service plans routinely cover
prescriptions for other medicines and medical devices. In a recent
column in the Washington Post, David Broder called this lack of
coverage ``one of the great stupidities in the health care system.''
The result in that women are too often forced to rely on family
planning without the full range of available methods. Women pay 68
percent more than men in out-of-pocket health care costs--in large part
because of the high cost of preventing unintended pregnancies. As Ellen
Goodman noted in a column in The Boston Globe, ``Some women are making
hard economic choices between paying their bills and buying pills.''
Too often, women are forced to settle for the family planning method
that is most affordable, rather than the one that is most effective.
Inevitably, many of them are forced to settle for no method at all. The
result is large numbers of unintended pregnancies each year, and large
numbers of abortions. Clearly, greater access to reliable methods of
birth control will substantially reduce the number of abortions.
In the United States, it is estimated that half of all pregnancies
each year are unintended. Three million women use no method of birth
control, and they account for half of all unintended pregnancies.
Greater access to insurance coverage will significantly reduce this
number. As an editorial in the American Journal of Public Health points
out: ``Contraception is the keystone in the prevention of unintended
pregnancy.''

The vast majority of women who use some form of birth control do not
have insurance coverage to defray the cost. Often, they are forced to
choose inexpensive methods with high failure rates. The proposal by
Senator Snowe and Senator Reid is an important step in the right
direction. It requires private insurance companies to cover FDA-
approved, prescription birth control drugs and devices in a manner
comparable to all other prescription drugs and devices.
Just as more effective birth control means fewer unintended
pregnancies and fewer abortions, it also means more savings in health
costs. An April, 1995 study in the American Journal of Public Health
estimated that women who use prescription contraceptives will avoid far
more in other health costs than the cost of the prescriptions.
According to the Guttmacher Institute, the increased cost to
employers who provide this coverage to their employees would be $17.00
a person per year. That's an increase of just one-half-of-one percent
over current costs per employee.
This bill is sound public policy. It is supported by all major family
planning organizations and by the vast majority of the American people.
In surveys, 75 percent of Americans express support for increasing
access to family planning services. And, 73 percent of survey
respondents continue to be supportive, even if contraceptive coverage
modestly increases their insurance premiums.
Support for increasing this coverage clearly crosses party lines. It
is sound public policy that has been too long in coming. I urge the
Senate to approve it.
Mr. JEFFORDS. Madam President, over the past few years we have become
increasingly aware of the need to improve women's health. I am an
original cosponsor of S. 766, the Equity in Prescription Insurance and
Contraceptive Coverage Act and am proud to support Senators Snowe and
Reid today in their amendment to ensure contraception coverage for all
women covered by the Federal Employee Health Benefit Program.
I held a hearing on this issue in the committee on Labor and Human
Resources on July 21, 1998, and am pleased to see interest in and
support for this issue growing. It has been too long in coming, but I
am glad to have the opportunity to be part of providing equity in
health care for women. I look forward to the day when all American
women will enjoy the same equity in coverage this amendment provides to
women employed by the federal government.
Out-of-pocket health care expenses for women are 68 percent higher
than those for men, and most of the difference is due to noncovered
reproductive health care. It is disturbing how rapidly some insurance
plans began covering Viagra when it has taken so

[[Page S9197]]

long for many of them to begin covering contraceptives. This bill helps
achieve gender equity in health benefits, and its passage would be a
victory for women across the Nation.
``EPIC'' provides that if a health insurance plan covers benefits for
other FDA-approved prescription drugs or devices, it also must cover
benefits for FDA-approved prescription contraceptive drugs or devices.
Further, ``EPIC'' provides that if the plan covers benefits for other
outpatient services provided by a health care professional, it also
must cover outpatient contraceptive services.
The bill does not require special treatment of prescription
contraceptives or outpatient contraceptive services compared to other
prescription drugs or outpatient care.
Each year more than half of all pregnancies in the United States--
approximately 3.6 million pregnancies--are unintended, and almost half
of all unintended pregnancies end in abortion. Reducing unintended
pregnancies by making effective contraception more widely available
would reduce the need for abortion. For that reason, surveys suggest
that most people favor increasing coverage of contraception by health
insurance plans.
The vast majority of private insurers cover prescription drugs, but
many exclude coverage for prescription contraceptives. In contrast to
the lack of coverage for reversible contraception, most plans do cover
abortion and sterilization.
The gender equity issue has been highlighted recently by the
willingness of many health insurance plans to cover Viagra. A Kaiser
Family Foundation national survey on insurance coverage of
contraception conducted in May of this year demonstrated that 75
percent of Americans 18 years and older supported coverage of
contraception, but only 49 percent supported coverage of Viagra.
The Health Insurance Association of America (HIAA) has estimated that
the extra cost to employers who do not now cover reversible medical
methods of contraception is about $16 per employee per year--or less
than one percent of current health care premiums.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. Madam President, I would like to express my support
for the amendment offered by Senators Snowe and Reid.
I applaud the efforts of these two Senators in bringing to our
attention the inequities that exist for men and women in federal health
care plans.
Most federal employee health care plans (FEHBP) cover a wide range of
prescription drugs without covering prescription contraceptive drugs.
In fact, almost all federal insurance plans fail to cover all five of
the most widely used forms of contraception. Ten percent have no
coverage of contraception at all.
A health care plan's refusal to cover contraception is effective
discrimination against women. Access to contraception should be a basic
health benefit for female federal employees. And women should be able
to choose the best method of contraception for them, depending on their
medical history and personal health care needs.
If adopted, this amendment will certainly help lower the rate of
unintended pregnancies and reduce the need for abortion. That result is
something positive on which we can all agree.
The Federal Government should be conscientious and fair about how it
treats its employees. It should be a model for private insurance plans,
guiding them to provide the best health care possible for those who
enroll in government-sponsored plans. Not allowing access to a full
range of contraceptive services to the women who work in our own Senate
offices, to the civilian employees in the Pentagon, to FBI and DEA
agents, and to the female officers on the Capitol Police Force, to name
a few examples, is unfair and essentially creates a two-tiered health
care system for public and private sector employees.
I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I strongly support my colleague's
amendment to require Federal Employee Health Benefits plans to treat
prescription contraceptives the same as all other covered drugs. This
amendment is critical to improving both equity and health care for
federal employees.
The Federal Employee Health Benefits plans should be a model for
health insurance coverage for all Americans. Unfortunately, they fall
far short when it comes to reproductive health. Ten percent of Federal
Employee Health Benefits plans have no coverage for contraception. 81
percent of plans do not cover the range of contraceptive care for
women, including the most commonly used reversible contraceptives,
including (oral contraceptives, diaphragm, IUD, Depo-Provera, and
Norplant.
This is an issue of gender equity. Women spend 68 percent more in
out-of-pocket costs for health care than men. Much of this difference
is due to reproductive health costs. For many women, contraceptives
cost an additional $400 or more each year. By passing this amendment,
we can take an important step toward eliminating this economic
disparity.
I note with some concern that this amendment allows certain plans to
exempt themselves from complying with this requirement. This exemption
will limit the scope of these gains for American women. It was my hope
that we could ensure contraceptive parity for all, not some.
I urge my colleagues to continue to pursue that aim, but I
acknowledge that effort must be left for another day.
I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' for this amendment, ``yes'' for
equity, and ``yes'' for the reproductive health of our Federal
employees.
Mr. KOHL. Madam President, I rise in strong support of this
amendment. It would require Federal Employees Health Benefit (FEHB)
plans that cover prescription drugs to also cover FDA approved
prescription contraceptives. This same amendment was included in the
House version of our bill by a vote of 239-183.
The issue of family planning should be one that brings together both
sides of the abortion debate. Close to half of all pregnancies in the
United States are unintended, and tragically, those unintended
pregnancies often lead to abortion. By providing federal workers with
the most appropriate and safe means of contraception, we can reduce the
number of abortions performed and increase the number of children who
are born wanted, planned for, and loved.
I thank Senators Reid and Snowe for their leadership on this issue,
and I hope the Senate follows the House's lead and gives this amendment
our overwhelming support.
Mr. REID. Madam President, this amendment will help to create gender
equity in health care, will provide for healthier mothers and children,
will lower the rate of abortion and it will cost the government
nothing--in fact it may save money.
We can do all of this requiring the Federal Employee Health Benefits
(FEHB) plans to cover prescription contraception just as they cover
other prescriptions.
Currently, women of reproductive age spending 68 percent more in out
of pocket health costs than men.
The proposed amendment would require FEHB plans to treat prescription
contraceptives the same as all other cover drugs. In so doing, it would
help to achieve parity between the benefits offered to male
participants in FEHB plans and those offered to female participants,
there by narrowing the gender gap in insurance coverage.
The vast majority of FEHB plans offer prescription drug coverage, but
fail to cover the full range of prescription contraceptions.
I have said it many times now, but I believe if men were the ones who
needed prescription contraceptives, I have no doubt they would have
been covered by insurance years ago.
the FEHB Program should be the model for private plans. the United
States Government, as an employer, should provide basic health benefits
for women and families insured through FEHB.
Eight-one percent of FEHB plans do not cover all five leading
reversible methods of contraception. (Oral contraceptives, diaphram,
IUD's, Norplant and Depo-Provera)
Ten percent of FEHB plans have no coverage of contraceptives--they do
not cover any of the five leading methods.
Women should be receiving health care coverage equal to the coverage
that every man receives from the federal employee health care benefits

[[Page S9198]]

plan--which is probably a majority of the male Senators in this
chamber.
Contraceptive services also help to promote healthy pregnancies and
healthy birth outcomes. A study of 45,000 women suggests that women who
used family planning services in the 2 years before conception were
more likely to receive early and adequate prenatal care.
The National Commission to Prevent Infant Mortality estimated that 10
percent of infant deaths could be prevented if all pregnancies were
planned; in 1989 alone, 4000 infant lives could have been saved.
Now, we have all gone through the long abortion debates on this
floor. they are heated passionate debates.
Senator Snowe and I come from opposite sides of that debate. I am
pro-life. Senator Snowe is pro-choice. But we have one thing in common
regarding this issue: We both believe that abortions are to be avoided
and that the number that occur in this country every year needs to be
reduced.
How do we reduce the number of abortions? We reduce the number of
unintended pregnancies by providing women with the means to acquire
birth control.
Contraceptive help couples plan wanted pregnancies and reduce the
need for abortion. There are 3.6 million unintended pregnancies in this
Nation each year--about 60 percent of all pregnancies. And almost half
of these unintended pregnancies end in abortion.
I have a chart here that shows as the unintended pregnancy rate
drops, so does the number of abortions.
From 1981 to 1987 the unintended pregnancy rate dropped by about 1
percent and the abortion rate also slightly dropped. the unintended
pregnancy rate dropped 8.8 percent from 1987 to 1994, and the abortion
rate per 1000 women during those years dropped from 24 to 20. Given
this trend, I think it would be wise to do whatever we can to speed up
the drop in unintended pregnancies.
The cost effectiveness of family planning is well documented. Studies
indicate that in the private sector, for every dollar invested in
family planning, between $4 and $14 are saved in health care and
pregnancy related costs.
CBO has estimated that this amendment will cost less than $500,000.
Under CBO's practice of scoring bills to the nearest million dollars
this provision would have no effect on the budget total in fiscal year
1999.

Amendment No. 3371 to Amendment No. 3370

(Purpose: To provide a rule of construction relating to coverage)

Mr. REID. Madam President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask
for its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Nevada [Mr. Reid] proposes an amendment
numbered 3371 to amendment No. 3370.

Mr. REID. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of
the amendment be dispensed with.
Mr. CAMPBELL. Madam President, I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard. The clerk will report the
amendment.
The assistant legislative clerk continued to read as follows:

At the end of the amendment, add the following new
subsection:
(c) Nothing in this section shall be construed to require
coverage of abortion or abortion related services.

Mr. CAMPBELL. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. ROTH. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. ROTH addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware is recognized.

amendment no. 3365

Mr. ROTH. Madam President, as I stated earlier today, I am a strong
proponent of fixing the marriage penalty. it is a top priority of the
Finance Committee in our efforts to reform the Tax Code. But it must be
done properly. And such is not the case with this amendment--nor with
the amendment proposed this morning. As I said this morning, the bill
on which my colleagues are trying to attach marriage penalty
legislation is an appropriations bill. It is not a tax bill.
As this Treasury-Postal appropriations bill is not a revenue
measure--and as all revenue measures must originate in the House of
Representatives--this one amendment could subject the entire bill to a
blue slip. In other words, Madam President, adding a revenue measure
that originates in the Senate to a nonrevenue bill, will sink the
entire bill. Under the rules, any member in the House can raise an
objection and kill this appropriations bill. And that is in no one's
interest.
So while I agree in principle with the objective of reforming the
marriage penalty--I would be remiss in my duties if I did not make it
clear that passing this amendment at this time is inappropriate.
Whether the marriage penalty fix is paid for, or not, it must be
handled in Congress as the Constitution requires. Therefore, I urge my
colleagues to vote against the amendment.
Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, with regret, I must oppose Senator
Daschle's amendment to provide for marriage tax penalty relief.
Although I support the idea of a revenue-neutral solution to the
inequitable situation created by the Internal Revenue Code for millions
of married couples, an appropriations bill is not the proper forum for
debating and voting on resolution of this matter. To attach this
amendment to this bill would violate the constitutional requirement
that revenue measures originate in the House, and it would kill this
important appropriations legislation.
I agree with the distinguished chairman of the Finance Committee,
Senator Roth, that the issue of the marriage penalty should first be
considered by the Finance Committee and proceed to the floor in the
manner normally associated with tax legislation. I look forward to
working with him, and all the members of the committee in coming to a
bipartisan agreement on a measure that provides relief to taxpayers
saddled with the marriage penalty and is properly offset under the
budget rules.
Madam President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a
quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. CAMPBELL. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. CAMPBELL. Madam President, I further call for the regular order
with respect to the Daschle amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is now pending.
Mr. CAMPBELL. I further tell Members, the majority side yields back
all time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Ten minutes remains on the minority side for
this amendment, controlled by the minority leader or his designee. Who
yields time?
Mr. REID. Madam President, I ask the Daschle amendment be set aside.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to setting aside the
Daschle amendment?
Mr. REID. And, if necessary, the DeWine amendment, which is next in
order.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to setting aside the
Daschle amendment and the DeWine amendment? Without objection, it is so
ordered.

Amendment No. 3370, As Modified

Mr. REID. Madam President, on the Snowe-Reid amendment which is now
pending, on page 2 of the amendment, line 3, the word ``all'' is
listed. I would like to modify my amendment and delete the word
``all.''
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the Senator's request?
Without objection the amendment will be modified.
The amendment (No. 3370), as modified, is as follows:
At the appropriate place in the bill, insert the following:
Sec. __. (a) None of the funds appropriated by this Act may
be expended by the Office of Personnel Management to enter
into or renew any contract under section 8902 of title 5,
United States Code, for a health benefits plan--
(1) which provides coverage for prescription drugs, unless
such plan also provides

[[Page S9199]]

equivalent coverage for prescription contraceptive drugs or
devices approved by the Food and Drug Administration, or
generic equivalents approved as substitutable by the Food and
Drug Administration; or
(2) which provides benefits for outpatient services
provided by a health care professional, unless such plan also
provides equivalent benefits for outpatient contraceptive
services.
(b) Nothing in this section shall apply to a contract with
any of the following religious plans:
(1) SelectCare.
(2) PersonalCare's HMO.
(3) Care Choices.
(4) OSF Health Plans, Inc.
(5) Yellowstone Community Health Plan.
(6) and any other existing or future religious based plan
whose religious tenets are in conflict with the requirements
in this Act.
(c) For purposes of this section--
(1) the term ``contraceptive drug or device'' means a drug
or device intended for preventing pregnancy; and
(2) the term ``outpatient contraceptive services'' means
consultations, examinations, procedures, and medical
services, provided on an outpatient basis and related to the
use of contraceptive methods (including natural family
planning) to prevent pregnancy.

Mr. REID. I ask for the regular order.

Amendment No. 3365

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The regular order brings back the amendment by
Senator Daschle. The time is being charged against the amendment on the
minority side. All time has been yielded back on the majority side.
The Senator from North Dakota.
Mr. CONRAD. Madam President, I have been asked to yield back the rest
of our time on our side.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has been yielded back on both sides.
The Senator from Colorado.
Mr. CAMPBELL. On behalf of the majority leader, I move to table the
Daschle amendment. Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to
lay on the table the amendment of the Senator from South Dakota, Mr.
Daschle.
The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from North Carolina (Mr.
Helms) is absent because of illness.
I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from
North Carolina (Mr. Helms) would vote ``aye.''
The result was announced--yeas 57, nays 42, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 243 Leg.]

YEAS--57

Abraham
Allard
Ashcroft
Bennett
Bond
Brownback
Burns
Byrd
Campbell
Chafee
Coats
Cochran
Collins
Coverdell
Craig
D'Amato
DeWine
Domenici
Enzi
Faircloth
Frist
Gorton
Gramm
Grams
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Hatch
Hutchinson
Hutchison
Inhofe
Jeffords
Kempthorne
Kyl
Lott
Lugar
Mack
McCain
McConnell
Moynihan
Murkowski
Nickles
Robb
Roberts
Roth
Santorum
Sessions
Shelby
Smith (NH)
Smith (OR)
Snowe
Specter
Stevens
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Warner

NAYS--42

Akaka
Baucus
Biden
Bingaman
Boxer
Breaux
Bryan
Bumpers
Cleland
Conrad
Daschle
Dodd
Dorgan
Durbin
Feingold
Feinstein
Ford
Glenn
Graham
Harkin
Hollings
Inouye
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerrey
Kerry
Kohl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Mikulski
Moseley-Braun
Murray
Reed
Reid
Rockefeller
Sarbanes
Torricelli
Wellstone
Wyden

NOT VOTING--1

Helms

The motion to lay on the table the amendment (No. 3365) was agreed
to.
Mr. GRAMM. I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. WARNER. I move to lay it on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Faircloth). The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Amendments Nos. 3370, as modified, and 3371, En Bloc

Mr. CAMPBELL. I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now consider
amendment No. 3370 as modified and offered by Senator Reid of Nevada
for Senator Snowe and ask for its adoption.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The two amendments are pending; they are the
pending amendments.
Mr. CAMPBELL. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. CAMPBELL. I further ask unanimous consent that amendments Nos.
3370 and 3371 be considered and accepted en bloc. This is the Snowe-
Reid amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendments
en bloc.
The amendments (No. 3371 and No. 3370, as modified, as amended) were
agreed to en bloc.
Mr. REID. I move to reconsider the vote.
Ms. MIKULSKI. I move to lay that on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. REID. I ask unanimous consent that Senator Mikulski be listed as
a prime cosponsor of the amendment just agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Amendment No. 3354

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I call for regular order with respect to
amendment No. 3354, the DeWine amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is now pending.
Mr. CAMPBELL. I know of no further debate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
The amendment (No. 3354) was agreed to.
Ms. MIKULSKI. I thought there was going to be----
Mr. CAMPBELL. It is my understanding this amendment has been accepted
by both sides of the aisle.
Ms. MIKULSKI. I misunderstood the parliamentary situation. The
Senator from Colorado is correct.
I ask unanimous consent that the Record show that had there been a
recorded vote, I would have voted no.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. CAMPBELL. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. CAMPBELL. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent Senator Moseley-
Braun and Senator Gordon Smith be added as cosponsors of the Snowe-Reid
amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

[[Page S9200]]

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending
amendment be temporarily set aside.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Amendment No. 3372

(Purpose: To require a study of the conditions under which certain
grain products may be imported into the United States, and to require a
report to Congress)

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask
for its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Colorado [Mr. Campbell], for Mr. Dorgan,
proposes an amendment numbered 3372.

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of
the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:

SEC. . IMPORTATION OF CERTAIN GRAINS.

(a) Findings.--The Congress finds that--
(1) importation of grains into the United States at less
than the cost to produce those grains is causing injury to
the United States producers of those grains;
(2) importation of grains into the United States at less
than the fair value of those grains is causing injury to the
United States producers of those grains;
(3) the Canadian government and the Canadian Wheat Board
have refused to disclose pricing and cost information
necessary to determine whether grains are being exported to
the United States at prices in violation of United States
trade laws or agreements.
(B) Requirements.--
(1) The Customs Service, consulting with the United States
Trade Representative and the Department of Commerce, shall
conduct a study of the efficiency and effectiveness of
requiring that all spring wheat, durum or barely imported
into the United States be imported into the United States
through a single port of entry.
(2) The Customs Service, consulting with the United States
Trade Representative and the Department of Commerce, shall
determine whether such spring wheat, durum and barley could
be imported into the United States through a single port of
entry until either the Canadian Wheat Board or the Canadian
Government discloses all information necessary to determine
the cost and price for all such grains being exported to the
United States from Canada and whether such cost or price
violates any law of the United States, or violates, is
inconsistent with, or denies benefits to the United States
under, any trade agreement.
(3) The Customs Service shall report to the Committees on
Appropriations and Finance not later than ninety days after
the effective date of this act on the results of the study
required by subsections (1) and (2), above.

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, this amendment asks the Customs Service
to conduct a study regarding Canadian wheat. It has been agreed to by
both sides. I urge its adoption.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
The amendment (No. 3372) was agreed to.
Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, we are not making very good progress on
this bill. We have only cleared 14 amendments and we have yet to deal
with 43. I just say to all of the Senators that this is our second day.
We have been in here since 9:30 this morning. I urge them to help us
expedite the process of dealing with these outstanding 43 amendments.
It may be a very long evening and into the day tomorrow if we don't
start clearing some of them. So I ask the Senators are watching the
proceedings to come to the floor and help us move these forward.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Privilege of the Floor

Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Ellen Brown
of my staff be allowed floor privileges for the duration of the
discussion of the amendment that I am about to bring up.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Amendment No. 3353

Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, we brought up yesterday amendment No.
3353 to the bill. Senator Harkin had a situation he had to attend to
yesterday, so we set it aside for the consideration of other business.
Now Senator Harkin is here. I think he will be joining us momentarily.
We wanted to take advantage of the opportunity at this time to bring it
up. I have been discussing this item with Senator Harkin to see if we
could reach an agreement. I don't believe that we are going to be able
to.
Just basically, in summary, Mr. President, this has to do with
procurement legislation. This is a very complex area. I can't think of
an area that is more boring and more complex than the procurement laws.
For that reason, the staff of our committee--the Governmental Affairs
Committee, which has jurisdiction generally over the procurement laws--
spent many, many hours on this subject. The last two Congresses have
produced reform legislation that balances the interest in the
procurement field between the government and those who are selling
goods and services to the government.
This provision, section 642 in this Treasury-Postal bill, essentially
is a procurement piece of legislation. It has to do with child labor.
It essentially prohibits the Government from buying from those who use
child labor any goods or services produced by child labor. That is a
laudable goal. I support that. My amendment incorporates that goal. I
point out that it is already against the law. But it is certainly fine
with me if we put in this Treasury-Postal bill another law that says we
cannot procure services or goods from those who do that sort of thing.
My problem, other than the fact that I believe the best way to
legislate in this matter is to have hearings on a complex subject like
this, is that it sets up a procedure that basically is overreaching and
unfair, and probably unconstitutional. Because with regard to this
area, as in no others, a contractor is required to sign a statement
with the Government that will allow a Government official at any time
at his discretion to come in and look at the books and records, or talk
to the individual at any time at his discretion to see whether or not a
child labor law has been violated. He should not be required to give up
the fourth amendment rights in order to contract with the Government.
As I say, trafficking in those kinds of goods and services is against
the criminal law. There is provision that prohibits such immoral
activity by that company when dealing with the Federal Government as it
is. But it certainly does not call for an abrogation of rights that we
otherwise hold near and dear.
It says that the Secretary of Labor shall publish a list of items
that might have been produced by child labor. And then the contractor
has to certify that he is not using any of those items. Evidently, it
is difficult to determine sometimes whether or not child labor has been
used. The Government's only responsibility is to determine whether or
not they might have been used. And, yet, the contractor is required to
certify that they have not been used.
I am afraid this is a Catch-22 with regard to people in good faith
who are out trying to do the right thing and certainly would not
consider using child labor; but would allow unlimited access and
unfettered access, under the language of this statute as it is now
written, and would allow any Government official to come in and have
unlimited access to books and records.
One other feature of this provision that I think is erroneous is the
exception. This does not apply to countries that have signed NAFTA, for
example. There are a couple of other exceptions. But I will just
concentrate on that.
If a foreign country has signed the NAFTA agreement, then presumably
companies of that country do not have this law applied to them.
We are focusing in on our own companies. We signed NAFTA. But we are
focusing in on our own companies requiring this kind of intrusion with
regard to our own contractors, and we are not applying the same
standard to contractors of another country who might be supplying child
labor.
I don't think that is right. I don't think that is fair. I do not
want to make a mountain out of a molehill.
I think this is important. I feel a responsibility, as chairman of
the Governmental Affairs Committee, to bring this to the attention of
the Senate, and simply say that in matters that are this complex that
require a balancing of interests, we should go through the committee
process.
Senator Glenn had a piece of legislation that we considered last
year. We

[[Page S9201]]

have had the Clinger-Cohen Act, and lots and lots of working hours put
into this in trying to reach the right balance.
We should not come in with a provision in an appropriations bill that
basically upsets that balance and places new responsibilities, new
requirements, new intrusions on contractors that in the wisdom of their
deliberations the committees, after considering this thing for years,
have not decided to do.
I respectfully urge the support of my colleagues with regard to my
amendment.
I yield the floor, Mr. President.
Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I reserve the right to object. I will
not object, but if the Senator will hold off just a moment. Apparently,
we cannot find our copy of the amendment.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, let me supply a copy.
Mr. CAMPBELL. I thank the Senator. If he would like to proceed, I
have the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.

Amendment No. 3373 to Amendment No. 3362

(Purpose: To prevent Congress from enacting legislation which fails
to address the legislation's impact on family well-being and on
children.)
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I send this second-degree amendment to
the Abraham amendment to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Minnesota [Mr. Wellstone] proposes an
amendment numbered 3373 to amendment No. 3362.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of
the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
At the end of the amendment insert the following:

SEC. . FAMILY WELL-BEING AND CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT.

Consideration of any bill or joint resolution of a public
character reported by any committee of the Senate or of the
House of Representatives that is accompanied by a committee
report that does not contain a detailed analysis of the
probable impact of the bill or resolution on family well-
being and on children, including whether such bill or joint
resolution will increase the number of children who are
hungry or homeless, shall not be in order.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa is recognized.
Mr. HARKIN. Parliamentary inquiry. Before the Senator from Minnesota
starts, what is the order of precedence at the desk right now, of
amendments? What amendment are we on right now?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. We are on the Wellstone amendment to the
Abraham amendment.
Mr. HARKIN. Further parliamentary inquiry, I thought we were on the
Thompson amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. That amendment has been temporarily set aside.
Mr. HARKIN. I understand. Thank you, Mr. President.
Mr. WELLSTONE addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, do I have the floor? I believe I do.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee is recognized.
Mr. THOMPSON. I was not aware the amendment was set aside. I called
it up. No one moved that it be set aside that I am aware of. Maybe I am
mistaken. I thought we were on it. Senator Harkin is prepared to
address it.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask for the regular order.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee could call for the
regular order, which would bring his amendment back.
Mr. THOMPSON. I call for the regular order, Mr. President.
Mr. WELLSTONE. We have two different views. Might I ask what regular
order is? Is regular order the Abraham amendment that I have now
second-degreed? Or not? I was under the impression that it was.

Amendment No. 3353

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The regular order is the underlying Thompson
amendment. When we finish that, we will return to the amendment of the
Senator from Minnesota.
Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Chair and I thank my colleagues.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from Iowa.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I apologize to my friend and colleague
from Minnesota. Senator Thompson and I were prepared to engage in some
colloquies and debates and things on this amendment. I was surprised. I
thought it had been called up. I apologize to my friend from Minnesota.
We were scheduled to start this debate on the issue of child labor.
Mr. President, the Thompson amendment, which is the pending
amendment, seeks to strike from the bill a provision that was
incorporated at the committee level--subcommittee level and committee
level--by unanimous consent. I don't know of any votes that were held
on it. It seemed to be adopted overwhelmingly. No one raised any
questions about it in full committee or anything like that.
The provision deals with setting some parameters on procurement
policy for the Federal Government, to the maximum extent possible to
preclude the Federal Government from purchasing items made by forced or
indentured child labor.
I hardly know where to begin to respond to some of the issues raised
by my friend from Tennessee, but let me attempt to start here. First of
all, right now it is true that there are certain laws that we have that
cover child labor in this country. But that gets to the point where if
something happens, then you can take someone to court and you can fine
them and debar them and all that. There is a long process and procedure
for that.
What this provision that was put in the committee bill seeks to do is
to set up a structure to try to avoid or to preclude this from
happening in the first place. So that those who sell to the Federal
Government would be on notice that, first of all, there is a list of
items that would be promulgated--published by the Department of Labor
in consultation with the Department of State and Department of the
Treasury--a list of items which would be very small in number because
there are not that many items, a list of items that have historically
and traditionally been made with the use of forced or indentured child
labor; that if you are a seller to the Federal Government and if you
are procuring or selling those kinds of items--like hand-knitted
carpets, for example, or certain leather items, some apparel, rattan
furniture, things like that--where the Department of Labor over the
last 4 years in studying this issue has issued about four volumes on
the use of forced and indentured child labor and the products that are
made and that type of thing. These are very extensive studies that are
made by the Department of Labor. What this provision in the bill does
is it sets up a list. They put out a list. Then, if you are selling to
the Federal Government, you check a little box that you attest--
``attestation'' they call it--you attest that the item that you are
selling to the Federal Government was not made using forced or
indentured child labor. That is basically it.
The list is necessary for two reasons. First, it would narrow the
scope to only suspect industries, thus preventing a sort of widespread
kind of provision or a burdensome requirement on industries where the
use of forced or indentured child labor does not occur. For example, I
heard some mention made of Boeing aircraft. Boeing aircraft does not
make things made by forced or indentured child labor. There has never
been a scintilla of evidence to show that, so none of their products
would be on the list. So we narrow the scope right away to just a few
suspect industries.
Second, the list is necessary because procurement officers need
guidelines to enforce the intent of the legislation. Again, this list
would be compiled based on the four child labor studies already
released by the Department of Labor. Furthermore, the only companies
that would be affected by this are

[[Page S9202]]

ones that sell an item that appears on the list. If you don't sell an
item that appears on the list, you will not be affected by this. You
would not have to attest; you would not have to check the box and
attest that the item was not made by forced or indentured child labor
if you are not even on the list. Boeing and all those wouldn't even be
on the list, so they would not have to check the box. That is the first
thing. We keep it narrow, and that is why we have the list.

Mention was made by the Senator from Tennessee about the Fair Labor
Standards Act, that we already have this law. I say to the Senator from
Tennessee that this law doesn't cover U.S. embassies abroad purchasing
goods. For example, we could have an embassy, say in Pakistan, India,
or whatever country, buying glassware or buying hand-knitted carpets or
buying rattan furniture--I mentioned that--but they are not covered by
this at all. I would like to have them covered by it. That is the
intent of the provision that is in the committee bill. They are not
covered by it. They would be covered by this. U.S. law, the Fair Labor
Standards Act applies to the United States, but not to other countries.
That is why this provision is necessary.
These are not new requirements, as I have said before and in private
conversation with the Senator from Tennessee. There are similar
requirements for companies that sell to the Armed Forces. I will get
into that in a second. Even though it has to do with different types of
contracts, they are similar. I think there is a difference without a
distinction, but they are similar, and I will get into that in a
second.
They said it would be duplicative. It is not really duplicative.
Forced and indentured child labor is already illegal in interstate
commerce, that is true, but what I am seeking to do, for debarment
purposes, and what this amendment will do is have them attest up front
that they are not using child labor. There are no provisions, as I
understand, in law for that at this time.
Next, there was a question raised about the constitutionality of the
provision. It requires a contractor to agree to allow official access
to the records of the employees and premises. As I said, we already
have such a provision, and as I said, we discussed that in private.
FAR, title 10 of Armed Forces, 10 U.S.C. section 2313 says:

Agency authority. Section 2313, examination of records of
contractor.
(1) The head of an agency, acting through an authorized
representative, is authorized to inspect the plant and audit
the records of:
(A) a contractor performing a cost reimbursement,
incentive, time and materials, labor hour or price
redeterminable contract or any combination of such contracts
made by that agency under this chapter and,
(B) a subcontractor performing any cost reimbursement,
incentive, time and materials, labor hour or price
redeterminable subcontract or any combination of such
contracts under a contract referred to in subparagraph (A).

The head of an agency, acting through himself or through an
authorized representative can already have access to premises and to
records under Armed Forces procurement law, and that is under FAR.
I understand this has to do with different types of contracts. That
is OK, but that is, I think, a difference without distinction. It may
be a time reimbursable or cost reimbursement or labor hour or price
redeterminable contract. It is all fine and good, but I don't think
that is really a distinct difference with a contract that provides
goods or services to the Federal Government. So I say I don't think we
have any kind of a constitutional problem there.
Senator Thompson did raise, I believe, a good point, and I am going
to correct that with a technical amendment, to track the wording that
is already in the FAR and in title 10. I am going to make it
specifically that it is the head of an agency, acting through an
authorized representative, so that not just anyone would have access,
but that it would have to come from the head of an agency.
There is another question that the Senator from Tennessee raised, and
that is, why do we exempt NAFTA or WTO countries. I say to my friend
from Tennessee, I wish we didn't have to, but I am told we have to
because it is a treaty that we signed on NAFTA and WTO. My amendment
will exempt those countries that are parties to these two agreements. I
am not happy about it, but it is the current U.S. law. It is treaty,
and I guess we have to adhere to it, as I understand. We can't change
this law or negotiate new procurement agreements.
I will just point out that the Committee on Government Procurements,
the parties to this under WTO and NAFTA, basically are countries we
really don't have a problem with--Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Germany
and places like that we really don't have much of a problem. The only
problem that we do have, I say, in NAFTA is perhaps with Mexico. But
then, again, that is part of the NAFTA agreement and, quite frankly, we
are stuck with that for right now on that issue.
The Federal Acquisition Regulations govern acquisition by executive
branch agencies. Much of this regulation implements various statutes
and Executive orders. My amendment is not unique under the FAR in
seeking to implement U.S. standards and policies.
For example, Federal agencies cannot acquire supplies or services
originating from sources within or that are located in or transported
from or through North Korea, Cuba, Libya, Iran, Sudan and Iraq. We
already have that.
In addition, my amendment is not unique in seeking to address a
policy concern, such as protecting domestic industries through Federal
procurement legislation. For example, the Buy America Act provides an
advantage to U.S. domestic producers through the competitive bidding
process.
As a matter of fact, I include Senator Thompson's amendment as part
of my provision already. However, I crafted my provision to be more
targeted. My provision does treat forced or indentured child labor
differently than other procurement regulations because of the illegal
and hidden nature of the act it seeks to prevent.
For example, all goods shipped to the United States must carry a
country of origin label. No such provision in current Federal
procurement regulations exist for forced or indentured child labor.
Likewise, the Buy America Act model is different because it operates
through the bidding process. No such procedure exists for forced or
indentured child labor. You don't know where the forced or indentured
child labor is.
Therefore, it was necessary to create a special targeted mechanism to
address this issue in a meaningful way that is the least burdensome to
contractors. In short, to accomplish this, the provision that is in the
bill, one, calls on the Secretary of Labor, in consultation with the
Secretaries of Treasury and State, to draft a list of items which they
feel historically has been made with forced or indentured child labor.
That keeps the perspective narrow.
Next, this provision requires the contractor to sign an attestation
that their products were not made with forced or indentured child labor
and, yes, to provide access to records, premises and persons for a
lawful investigation arising from allegations that forced or indentured
child labor was used to produce the product.
Again, I read that other one that is already in Armed Forces, that
the head of an agency, acting through an authorized representative, can
inspect a plant and audit the records of, et cetera.
Lastly, this provision provides a debarment option for 3 years for
making a false certification. In other words, if you certify that you
did not use child labor, and inspections prove otherwise, then you
could be debarred for up to 3 years for making a false certification.

Senator Thompson's proposal, his amendment, is not targeted enough
for two reasons: One, procurement officers need specific information in
order to apply a statute. Senator Thompson's amendment will take away
the list which gives contract officers specific areas to look for
forced or indentured child labor problems. By removing this self-
certification, and the threat of debarment for a false certification,
you ensure that the provision will never be effectively enforced
because the Federal Government may never be able to track the forced or
indentured child labor practices of all of its contractors, much less
ever investigating them.
Quite simply, I do not believe that signing a simple attestation, if
you are providing items to the U.S. Government which appear on a list
of problem

[[Page S9203]]

items, will prove a very difficult burden. It will be burdensome if you
are illegally employing children. Then it will be burdensome. But if
you are not, then it will not be. So again, this provision seeks to
deter child labor, stopping it before it happens, or before the U.S.
Government buys goods made with forced or indentured child labor.
Obviously, the Thompson amendment seeks to debar those who have been
convicted or fined for using child labor. Nothing wrong with that. But
that is included in the provision that is in the bill already. But what
he carves out is a provision that seeks to prevent it from happening in
the first place by saying that if you use it, the U.S. Government just
simply will not do business with you.
I say, the difference might be that Senator Thompson's approach is:
``We'll do business with you. Now, if we can take you in and prove
through a lengthy court process and stuff, then we'll debar you.'' But
mine comes up front and says, ``Look, if you are using child labor, and
you are on this list, you are making these items, you have to attest
that you are not using child labor.'' That right away puts them on
notice--puts them on notice that they are going to be in for some
problems if they are on that list and that they would be subject to a
head of an agency to come in and inspect them and inspect their records
to see whether or not they actually were using child labor.
Mr. CAMPBELL. Would the Senator from Iowa yield for a question?
Mr. HARKIN. Yes, I would be glad to, without losing my right to the
floor.
Mr. CAMPBELL. The child labor issue is important to all of us. I
point out something I mentioned awhile ago. I say to the Senator, we
have 43 amendments yet to clear. I wonder if the Senator would agree to
a time limit on the debate. I talked to Senator Thompson. He is
agreeable to a 20-minute time debate equally divided on both sides.
Would the Senator from Iowa also agree with that?
Mr. HARKIN. How much time?
Mr. CAMPBELL. Twenty minutes equally divided; 10 minutes on each
side.
Mr. HARKIN. I will consider that. Just a second. Let me finish my
statement. It does not sound totally unreasonable.
Mr. CAMPBELL. Thank you.
Mr. HARKIN. Again, you might ask, well, why should they have to look
for this? Why should procurement officers have to be concerned about
this? Under 48 CFR 9.406-2, ``Causes for Debarment,'' there is a whole
list of things that they should look for that they made. The ``Made in
America'' inscription that I have mentioned, violations of the Drug-
Free Workplace Act--there is a whole list of things about which they
have to be concerned.
The fact is, they do not have to be concerned about child labor right
now. It is not even a concern of theirs. So we find ourselves in a
peculiar position that procurement laws for the Federal Government say
that you have to meet certain standards--a drug-free workplace; you
have to have a ``Made in America'' inscription if it is made in
America; you have to have country of origin--but you do not have to be
worried about child labor. I find that rather odd.
What this all really arises out of is that in the 1930 Tariff Act, a
provision was added that barred the entry into this country of any item
made with forced or indentured labor. That has been part of our law
since 1930.
Well, forced or indentured labor--what does that mean? It has been
interpreted to mean prison labor. There are other forms of forced or
indentured labor. A year ago I wrote a letter to the Department of the
Treasury asking for a clarification of this: Did forced or indentured
labor cover forced or indentured child labor? The letter they wrote
back was sort of: ``Well, yes, we think it does because we say `forced
or indentured labor.'' ' We didn't specify it has to be adult labor,
but it has never really been clarified. So we have sought to clarify
that.
Again, procurement officers have to take into account they have to be
aware of whether or not something is made by prison labor. Can the
Federal Government buy items made by prison labor? The answer is no,
absolutely not. Can the Federal Government today buy items made by
forced or indentured child labor? The answer is yes. We do it all the
time overseas. We buy carpets, we buy furniture, we buy glassware, we
buy leather. We buy a lot of items made by forced or indentured child
labor. And that is what this provision seeks to get to.
The Fair Labor Standards Act does not reach that far, does not reach
overseas, does not reach to these items. Our procurement policies do
not reach to our embassies abroad, for example. They are part of the
Federal Government. They are part of the executive branch. They do buy
items. But right now they are blind as to whether something is made by
forced or indentured child labor. That is why this provision is in the
bill.
Lastly, Mr. President, I just point out that the administration is in
support of this section, 642, of the Treasury-General Government
appropriations bill. I have a letter here from Secretary Alexis Herman
saying that this provision, a prohibition against the Federal
Government's purchase of Federal products made by forced or indentured
child labor ``would establish a system to ensure that contractors take
steps to avoid providing products to the Government that have been
mined, produced, or manufactured using forced or indentured child
labor.

The Administration agrees that we should tap the purchasing
power of the U.S. government in our efforts to eliminate
egregious forms of child labor. In addition, the President's
FY 1999 Budget includes an $89 million increase to address
both international and domestic child labor abuses. We
believe [this] amendment, coupled with our FY 1999
initiatives, will help reduce the prevalence of these forms
of child labor.
The Office of Management and Budget advises that there is
no objection to the presentation of this report from the
standpoint of the Administration's program.

Again, I think that the provision stands foursquare on constitutional
grounds. I do not believe there is any constitutional problem with it.
I do not believe it runs far afield of provisions that we already have
in present procurement law. It simply identifies one aspect, that is,
like the ``Made in America'' or the ``drug-free workplace'' or ``prison
labor.'' It identifies another one, and that is ``forced or indentured
child labor'' as one of those items that we want to put up front and to
have those who seek to sell items to the Federal Government attest that
they are not using forced or indentured child labor in the provision of
those goods.
Again, this will be based upon the list. There will be a list, yes,
publication of a list of prohibited items.
The Secretary of Labor, in consultation with the Secretary of
Treasury and the Secretary of State, shall publish in the Federal
Register every other year a list of items that such officials have
identified that might have been mined, produced, or manufactured by
forced or indentured child labor.
So we work from that list. And that list has to be published.
The head of an executive agency shall include in each
solicitation of offers for a contract for the procurement of
an item included on a list published under subsection (b)
[the list I just mentioned] the following clauses:
Again, the clauses stating that the contractor has not indeed used
forced or indentured child labor in the production of any of the items
that are on that list.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the amendment by the
Senator from Tennessee. The Senator, I believe, shares the concerns of
those of us who drafted section 642--we want to make sure the Federal
government does not buy goods made with child labor. However, his
amendment, by eliminating the list of suspect goods that Section 642
requires the Department of Labor to make, will make it very difficult
for Federal contractors to know whether they are buying a product
manufactured by children.
Section 642 requires the Department of Labor print a list of products
that may have been produced with forced child labor. Any federal
contractor that sells these products to the government will be put on
notice that the items he or she sells might have been produced by child
labor. Those businesses then will have to check their suppliers and get
assurances that they are not illegally selling a goods produced by
children to the government.
The importance of this list of products that are potentially made
with

[[Page S9204]]

child labor cannot be underestimated. This list will allow federal
agencies to focus on specific industries that use child labor most
often. It will allow us to be vigilant in our efforts to stop the
procurement of such goods. When the government buys soccer balls for
the West Point soccer team, we need to be sure they were not sewn
together by children. When the government buys tea for the cafeterias
and commissaries of federal facilities, we ought to know those leaves
were not picked by children.
I want to commend Senator Harkin for his tireless work on behalf of
the exploited children of the world. By putting in place a process by
which Federal contractors can know about and be held accountable for
products they sell to the government, Senator Harkin has done a
significant patriotic act. He has ensured that the United States is not
in any way sanctioning, promoting, or even tolerating shameful
exploitation of children.
I urge my colleagues to vote against the Thompson amendment--and to
vote against diluting protections against government purchase of goods
made with child labor.
Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, I say to my colleague from Colorado that
I think I will need perhaps 5 minutes.
Mr. CAMPBELL. If the Senator from Iowa is willing to agree to a time
agreement, I will make a unanimous consent request.
Mr. HARKIN. I have a couple of other items, then I will be ready to
yield.
Mr. CAMPBELL. Would 10 more minutes be enough?
Mr. HARKIN. As I said, after I get the floor again.
Mr. CAMPBELL. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, a couple of comments with regard to the
remarks of my distinguished colleague from Iowa.
First of all, let's keep in mind my amendment makes the use of child
labor grounds for disbarment and suspension. We need to keep that in
mind. We set it out in bold type. It is already against the law, and
now we are saying in addition to that you can't do business with the
Federal Government if you engage in that kind of activity. So we get
that out of the way to start with.
That is not the issue. The issue here is whether or not we want to
set up a mechanism whereby some Federal official has unlimited access
to your books and records and persons. Now, this whole area was
entirely rewritten in 1994. Senator Glenn's bill, the Federal
Acquisition Streamlining Act, provided for very circumspect, specific
audit authorities for agencies, and GAO provided some subpoena
authority in a very limited way. All this was debated and considered on
a bipartisan basis and the competing interests were balanced out over a
period of several days, and we came up with a law that we have now.
What we have here in the bill that we are seeking to amend departs
from that substantially. There can be no comparison with the bill
currently in force with existing law. Existing law under section 2313,
chapter 137, procurement generally, is so long and detailed that I am
not going to burden the record by going into it, but suffice it to say
that there are very limited circumstances. Only certain kinds of
contracts, certain circumstances are dealt with where subpoena
authority is issued under certain kinds of contracts--limited
authority, over contracts over $100,000.
Compare that with what we have before us in the bill today that says
a clause that obligates the contractor to cooperate fully to provide
access for it says any official--I understand that will be changed--but
you must agree to provide access for some Government official of the
United States to the contractors' records, documents, persons, or
premises, if requested by the official, for the purpose of determining
whether forced child labor is being issued. It is a total fishing
expedition. You are not only going to have to give unlimited access to
your books and records, but unlimited access to your person.
There is nothing I know of like this in law, much less procurement
law. We are really doing something substantially different here. We can
cover the child labor situation without opening up Pandora's box and
running contractors away from us.
One of the reforms that Senator Glenn and others carried out had to
do with the fact that we want to bring more contractors in. It is
better for the taxpayer to have more competition, more people coming in
to compete for these things.
My distinguished friend from Iowa suggests that we need to have a
certification on the front end. Prior committee action got rid of all
certification under the Governmental Affairs Committee and armed
services jurisdiction for the simple reason, first, if you are going to
violate the law, if you are going to use child labor, you are not going
to certify something on the front end. It will not make you quit doing
it.
Secondly, we got tired of raising so many hoops and intruding so much
that we were discouraging people from coming in and contracting with
the Government. Therefore, costs of things are higher than they ought
to be. This whole area has been addressed. It cannot even be discussed
in a limited period of time because it is so extensive.
But with regard to the question of opening up books and records and
persons by some anonymous Federal official to see whether or not you
might have done something wrong, and when they get in there they are
not limited to look just for the thing that you say they are looking
for. Their eyes can gaze on whatever it is they are to be gazed upon.
When you deal with something like that, you are dealing with very,
very, important constitutional rights and nobody is going to put up
with that. Nobody is going to contract or agree to do business with the
Government if they have that kind of burden. It has been well thought
out, it has been considered, it has been deliberated upon for a long,
long time, and we should not address something this important and this
complex in this fashion.
I respectfully urge this amendment be adopted.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, this provision is not unconstitutional and
does not interfere with the Constitution, and it does not interfere
with the exercise of any fourth amendment right a Government contractor
might have.
The provision makes it possible for the Federal Government to ensure
that it does not purchase items produced with forced or indentured
child labor. Without ready Government access to records, workers and
worker places, meaningful enforcement would be impossible.
Now this principle applies in a whole range of worker protection
laws. Now there is no need for a statutory probable cause requirement
or a statutory procedure for challenging a search by a Government
agency. A contractor who believes that a Federal agency had no probable
cause to inspect his business would be free to refuse entry to the
agency. It is a constitutional right. The agency would then be required
to seek a warrant from a court, and if necessary, to ask the court to
enforce the warrant. In this way, the court would ensure that the
fourth amendment was followed.
Lastly, this is how the process works under comparable statutes, like
the Occupational Safety and Health Act. Applying the fourth amendment,
the Supreme Court has held that OSHA must show probable cause or the
legal equivalent if an employer refuses OSHA entry. There is no
statutory probable cause requirement and no statutory procedure for
challenging a search. Government agencies can be expected to develop
reasonable and neutral criteria for seeking access. They would do so in
order to comply with the fourth amendment which the courts will apply.
OSHA, for example, has adopted such criteria, although the
Occupational Safety Health Act does not prescribe this, and they have
been upheld by the courts. Only Government agencies with a legitimate
need for access would be entitled to access. The access provision in
section 642 makes clear that the contractors' obligation is to provide
access only to the head of an agency, a Federal officer, and only for
the purpose of

[[Page S9205]]

determining whether forced indentured child labor was used.
So there is no reason to believe this provision would be invoked by
an official acting without authority. But, if it happened, the
contractor could not be sanctioned for refusing to cooperate, for
example.
The fourth amendment may not apply in these certain cases in any case
until a contractor's consent to providing access is required to provide
access. The accession provision is intended to be incorporated in a
Government contract. The contract provision would be required only for
companies who wish to supply the Federal Government with an item from a
list of items that may have been introduced by forced or indentured
child labor.
I keep coming back to that. The Senator raises the specter that you
will have the Government people all of a sudden going into Boeing and
places like that. That won't happen, first of all, because they won't
have anything on the list. So they won't have that. There will not be
items that have been identified produced by forced or indentured child
labor. Companies which choose to supply such items and which accept the
terms of the contract have agreed to provide access.
As I said, there is no constitutional problem with this provision
whatsoever.
Now, again, Mr. President, what we do have a problem with, and what
this amendment really gets to, and for which there is no provision in
law, is, when an arm of the Federal Government, such as the executive
branch, acting through embassies overseas, procures items and those
items are identified as having been produced by forced or indentured
child labor, there is nothing that we can do about that--unless we
adopt this provision, of course. And this is a good and reasonable
place for this provision to be, in this appropriations bill, since we
are providing appropriations for the running of the Government. So this
is an appropriate place for the amendment.
I think there is some urgency to this also. The urgency is that we
are gaining more and more information around the world about the use of
forced or indentured child labor. The United States has, quite
appropriately--and I am happy to see it--taken a forward position on
trying to do away with forced and indentured child labor. I mentioned
the letter from the Secretary of Labor indicating that the President
had already asked for, I think, $89 million in the budget to address
child labor abuses both here and abroad. We participate heavily in
IPEC, the International Program for the Elimination of Child Labor,
which has been increased this year from $30 million, up from $3
million.
So the U.S. Government has--and also through our work on the
International Labor Organization, UNICEF, and others, we have been
taking a very strong position against forced indentured child labor, as
we should. But if one arm of our Government overseas is openly
procuring items made by forced and indentured child labor, what kind of
a signal does that send? So that is what this provision in the bill
seeks to end, and would end, if this provision remains in.
Now, the things that the Senator from Tennessee is talking about we
already incorporate in our amendment. There is a debarment procedure
provision in the bill. That is already there. That debarment procedure
is already there. What the Senator's amendment does is, it takes away
those preliminary steps of publishing a list and then say to a
procurement officer, look out for these items, and if you are buying
one of these items, have that company attest on the form that they are
not using forced and indentured child labor. If they do, then they are
agreeing that you can, as we have under FAR--that the head of an agency
is authorized to inspect the records of that company.
As I said earlier, the Senator from Tennessee, I think, raised one
point that I think was very legitimate, and that was in the original
amendment. It says, on page 99, the words ``any official of the United
States.'' Quite frankly, that is too broad. As we look at the FAR and
at title X for the Department of Defense, it uses the words ``the head
of an agency.'' So I have a perfecting amendment that I am going to
offer that would strike out ``any official of the United States'' and
insert in lieu thereof ``the head of the executive agency or the
inspector general of the executive agency.''

Amendment No. 3374 to Amendment No. 3353

(Purpose: To provide a substitute that limits the scope of the
requirement relating to inspection of a contractor's records)

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask
for its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The bill clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Iowa [Mr. Harkin] proposes an amendment
numbered 3374 to amendment No. 3353.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of
the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:

Strike out all after Sec. 642.'' and insert in lieu thereof
the following:

PROHIBITION OF ACQUISITION OF PRODUCTS PRODUCED BY FORCED OR
INDENTURED CHILD LABOR.

(a) Prohibition.--The head of an executive agency may not
acquire an item that appears on a list published under
subsection (b) unless the source of the item certifies to the
head of the executive agency that forced or indentured child
labor was not used to mine, produce, or manufacture the item.
(b) Publication of List of Prohibited Items.--(1) The
Secretary of Labor, in consultation with the Secretary of the
Treasury and the Secretary of State, shall publish in the
Federal Register every other year a list of items that such
officials have identified that have been mined, produced, or
manufactured by forced or indentured child labor.
(2) The first list shall be published under paragraph (1)
not later than 120 days after the date of the enactment of
this Act.
(c) Required Contract Clauses.--(1) The head of an
executive agency shall include in each solicitation of offers
for a contract for the procurement of an item included on a
list published under subsection (b) the following clauses:
(A) A clause that requires the contractor to certify to the
contracting officer that the contractor or, in the case of an
incorporated contractor, a responsible official of the
contractor has made a good faith effort to determine whether
forced or indentured child labor was used to mine, produce,
or manufacture any item furnished under the contract and
that, on the basis of those efforts, the contractor is
unaware of any such use of child labor.
(B) A clause that obligates the contractor to cooperate
fully to provide access for the head of the executive agency
or the inspector general of the executive agency to the
contractor's records, documents, persons, or premises if
requested by the official for the purpose of determining
whether forced or indentured child labor was used to mine,
produce, or manufacture any item furnished under the
contract.
(2) This subsection applies with respect to acquisitions
for a total amount in excess of the micro-purchase threshold
(as defined in section 32(f) of the Office of Federal
Procurement Policy Act (41 U.S.C. 428(f)), including
acquisitions of commercial items for such an amount
notwithstanding section 34 of the Office of Federal
Procurement Act (41 U.S.C. 430).
(d) Investigations.--Whenever a contracting officer of an
executive agency has reason to believe that a contractor has
submitted a false certification under subsection (a) or
(c)(1)(A) or has failed to provide cooperation in accordance
with the obligation imposed pursuant to subsection (c)(1)(B),
the head of the executive agency shall refer the matter, for
investigation, to the Inspector General of the executive
agency and, as the head of the executive agency determines
appropriate, to the Attorney General and the Secretary of the
Treasury.
(e) Remedies.--(1) The head of an executive agency may
impose remedies as provided in this subsection in the case of
a contractor under a contract of the executive agency if the
head of the executive agency finds that the contractor--
(A) has furnished under the contract items that have been
mined, produced, or manufactured by forced or indentured
child labor or uses forced or indentured child labor in
mining, production, or manufacturing operations of the
contractor;
(B) has submitted a false certification under subparagraph
(A) of subsection (c)(1); or
(C) has failed to provide cooperation in accordance with
the obligation imposed pursuant to subparagraph (B) of such
subsection.
(2) The head of the executive agency, in the sole
discretion of the head of the executive agency, may terminate
a contract on the basis of any finding described in paragraph
(1).
(3) The head of an executive agency may debar or suspend a
contractor from eligibility for Federal contracts on the
basis of a finding that the contractor has engaged in an act
described in paragraph (1)(A). The period of the debarment or
suspension may not exceed three years.
(4) The Administrator of General Services shall include on
the List of Parties Excluded

[[Page S9206]]

from Federal Procurement and Nonprocurement Programs
(maintained by the Administrator as described in the Federal
Acquisition Regulation) each person that is debarred,
suspended, proposed for debarment or suspension, or declared
ineligible by the head of an executive agency or the
Comptroller General on the basis that the person uses forced
or indentured child labor to mine, produce, or manufacture
any item.
(5) This subsection shall not be construed to limit the use
of other remedies available to the head of an executive
agency or any other official of the Federal Government on the
basis of a finding described in paragraph (1).
(f) Report.--Each year, the Administrator of General
Services, with the assistance of the heads of other executive
agencies, shall review the actions taken under this section
and submit to Congress a report on those actions.
(g) Implementation in the Federal Acquisition Regulation.--
(1) The Federal Acquisition Regulation shall be revised
within 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act--
(A) to provide for the implementation of this section; and
(B) to include the use of forced or indentured child labor
in mining, production, or manufacturing as a cause on the
lists of causes for debarment and suspension from contracting
with executive agencies that are set forth in the regulation.
(2) The revisions of the Federal Acquisition Regulation
shall be published in the Federal Register promptly after the
final revisions are issued.
(h) Exception.--(1) This section does not apply to a
contract that is for the procurement of any product, or any
article, material, or supply contained in a product, that is
mined, produced, or manufactured in any foreign country or
instrumentality, if--
(A) the foreign country or instrumentality is--
(i) a party to the Agreement on Government Procurement
annexed to the WTO Agreement; or
(ii) a party to the North American Free Trade Agreement;
and
(B) the contract is of a value that is equal to or greater
than the United States threshold specified in the Agreement
on Government Procurement annexed to the WTO Agreement or the
North American Free Trade Agreement, whichever is applicable.
(2) For purposes of this subsection, the term ``WTO
Agreement'' means the Agreement Establishing the World Trade
Organization, entered into on April 15, 1994.
(i) Applicability.--(1) Except as provided in subsection
(c)(2), the requirements of this section apply on and after
the date determined under subsection (2) to any solicitation
that is issued, any unsolicited proposal that is received,
and any contract that is entered into by an executive agency
pursuant to such a solicitation or proposal on or after this
date.
(2) The date referred to is paragraph (1) is the date that
is 30 days after the date of the publication of the revisions
of the Federal Acquisition Regulation under subsection
(g)(2).

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, what this perfecting amendment does, very
simply, is it takes the suggestion of the Senator from Tennessee and
strikes out ``any official of the United States'' and inserts in lieu
thereof ``the head of the executive agency or the inspector general of
the executive agency.''
Secondly, it strikes the word ``might'' from page 99, because in the
original language it said that they shall publish in the Federal
Register every other year a list of items that ``might have been mined.
. ..'' We strike that out. That is a great suggestion, to say that they
have to publish a list of items that such officials have identified
that ``have been mined, produced, or manufactured by forced or
indentured child labor.''
So this perfecting amendment tightens up my original amendment in two
ways. It provides that only the head of an agency or the inspector
general of that agency may be the one to do the inspection or authorize
the inspection. Secondly, it says that the published list can only be
of items that have been identified as having been mined, manufactured,
or produced by forced or indentured child labor.
The rest of the provision remains the same as it is in the bill, but
this tightens up those two provisions.
Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. LOTT addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, with regard to the Treasury-Postal Service
appropriations bill, I know there are amendments that are pending. They
are trying to work out something on that. I urge my colleagues on both
sides of the aisle to agree to reasonable time limits, and let's have a
vote. But I am directing my remarks now more to other Senators who are
not on the floor who may have amendments.
We need to make it clear that we are going to finish this bill
tonight. We should be able to be through by 6 o'clock. But we still
have a number of amendments that have not been resolved and haven't
been worked out, or accepted, or offered.
We are going to have to just keep going. That could mean another late
night. The managers of the bill would like cooperation to get this
completed. But we are either going to be having votes at 11 or 12
o'clock, or we are going to agree to some process whereby we can finish
the amendments that are still out there and get final votes on them in
the morning in a stacked sequence. We can agree to that. But one of the
things that is required is that Senators who do want to offer
amendments have to come over here and offer them.
I am going to talk with Senator Daschle. I believe that he will
support me in supporting the managers. If at a certain hour tonight
Senators have not offered their amendments and have not come over here
to debate those amendments, we will go out of session, and all
amendments that have been agreed to would be stacked in sequence if
they have to have votes in the morning.
Once again, while this week has been a difficult week because of the
sadness we have all experienced, everybody has tried to be
understanding of that, but now we are beginning to get back into the
old routine. We have far too many amendments left on the bill that
really shouldn't be that difficult to finish.
I plead again with my colleagues to come over here and offer their
amendments. Let's get an agreement on how we are going to handle them
and get votes on those amendments. If we don't get amendments, I can
force votes tonight at all hours of the night. I don't want to do that.
But it is going to take some cooperation again.
Mr. President, do we have an agreement on how to dispose of the
present amendment? Do Senator Thompson and Senator Harkin have
something worked out in terms of a time agreement on this, or do I just
need to move to table everything right where we are?
Mr. THOMPSON. Will the leader yield?
Mr. LOTT. I am glad to yield.
Mr. THOMPSON. If the leader will give us just a moment, I think we
can ask for the yeas and nays momentarily.
Mr. LOTT. That would be very helpful.
Mr. President, unless somebody seeks the floor, I observe the absence
of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. THOMPSON. In response to the leader's request, I ask my colleague
from Iowa, is he agreeable to having an up-or-down vote on the Harkin
amendment, immediately followed by an up-or-down vote on the Thompson
amendment?
Mr. HARKIN. That is fine.
Mr. THOMPSON. I agree with that. Are we prepared to vote?
Mr. HARKIN. I am prepared to move forward with that agreement right
now.
Mr. THOMPSON. I ask unanimous consent, pursuant to that
understanding.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Chair informs Senators the yeas and nays have been ordered on the
Harkin amendment.
Mr. THOMPSON. I ask for the yeas and nays on the Thompson amendment,
and ask that vote occur immediately following that on the Harkin
amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. Is there
a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. At this time, the question is on agreeing to
the amendment offered by the Senator from Iowa.

[[Page S9207]]

The yeas and nays have been ordered.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from North Carolina (Mr.
Helms) is absent because of illness.
I further announce that if present and voting, the Senator from North
Carolina (Mr. Helms) would vote ``no.''
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
who desire to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 46, nays 53, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 244 Leg.]

YEAS--46

Akaka
Baucus
Biden
Bingaman
Boxer
Breaux
Bryan
Bumpers
Byrd
Cleland
Conrad
Daschle
Dodd
Dorgan
Durbin
Feingold
Feinstein
Ford
Glenn
Graham
Harkin
Hollings
Inouye
Jeffords
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerrey
Kerry
Kohl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Mikulski
Moseley-Braun
Moynihan
Murray
Reed
Reid
Robb
Rockefeller
Sarbanes
Torricelli
Wellstone
Wyden

NAYS--53

Abraham
Allard
Ashcroft
Bennett
Bond
Brownback
Burns
Campbell
Chafee
Coats
Cochran
Collins
Coverdell
Craig
D'Amato
DeWine
Domenici
Enzi
Faircloth
Frist
Gorton
Gramm
Grams
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Hatch
Hutchinson
Hutchison
Inhofe
Kempthorne
Kyl
Lott
Lugar
Mack
McCain
McConnell
Murkowski
Nickles
Roberts
Roth
Santorum
Sessions
Shelby
Smith (NH)
Smith (OR)
Snowe
Specter
Stevens
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Warner

NOT VOTING--1

Helms

The amendment (No. 3374) was rejected.
Mr. LOTT. I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. BAUCUS. I move to lay it on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, Senator Daschle and I are working with our
colleagues on both sides of the aisle to identify the remaining serious
amendments. I have here a list that looks like it is about 20, but I
think that we can probably identify half a dozen or so amendments.
Senator Daschle, do you have some information on that?
Mr. DASCHLE. In response to the majority leader, we have, I think,
four amendments that currently would require a rollcall vote. There are
two of those four that may actually still get worked out, so I think we
are getting relatively close to coming to closure on this bill. I hope
all Senators who wish to offer amendments will stay on the floor
because this could happen fairly quickly. I think it would be very
helpful if you are right on the floor to offer the amendment. It would
expedite our ability to complete our work on this bill.
Mr. LOTT. I thank Senator Daschle.
We have, it looks like, probably no more than two amendments left on
our side that might require a vote. With regard to one of the four you
identified, I believe Senator Baucus has an amendment. We are working
very hard to see if we can't get some agreement on that right now.
For the information of Senators, with regard to schedule, we think
the best thing to do is just keep going and not have a break for the
mealtime because we think that actually might wind up wasting time. If
we would stay on the floor and focus here, we could finish this by 8
o'clock and would be through with this bill and then could decide--
Senator Daschle and I need to discuss further--then, exactly whether we
are going to go to health care or go to the DOD appropriations bill. We
could get on that tonight, and then that would be the final business
for the week.
We need your cooperation. When you do offer an amendment, agree to a
short time so we don't have to go straight to a motion to table. We
want everyone to have a chance to explain their case. With your
cooperation, we can finish this at 8 o'clock.
I also note there are some Senators who would like to be able to go
to the funeral in the morning. If we could finish this at a reasonable
hour tonight, we wouldn't have to have stacked votes in the morning. We
tried very hard to not have a lot of late nights, but we are going to
have to in order to finish this, but with your cooperation we could
finish it in a couple of hours.
I urge Members to do that. I thank Senator Daschle. Let's keep this
working and see if we can't get this down to no more than two or three
votes.
Mr. THOMPSON. I ask the yeas and nays on the Thompson amendment be
vitiated.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the Thompson
amendment numbered 3353.
The amendment (No. 3353) was agreed to.

Amendment No. 3368

Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I enter a motion for reconsideration of the
amendment numbered 3368.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has that right.
Mr. GRAHAM. Is that motion debatable?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The motion has been entered but it has not
been made.
Mr. GRAHAM. I move to table the motion to reconsider.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The motion is not before the body, so the
motion to table would not be in order at this time.
Mr. WELLSTONE. What is the pending business?

Amendment No. 3373 to Amendment No. 3362

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The pending business before the Senate is the
Wellstone amendment numbered 3373.
Mr. WELLSTONE. If I could ask my colleague, I know Senator Graham
wants 10 seconds to dispose of an amendment, but I ask unanimous
consent as soon as he does this that I then have the floor and go for a
vote on my amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is the Senator making a unanimous-consent
request?
Mr. WELLSTONE. I am.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Presiding Officer, in his capacity as a
Senator from the State of Michigan, objects.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, the pending business is this amendment,
correct, the second-degree amendment?
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Smith of New Hampshire). The pending
business is amendment No. 3373, the Wellstone amendment.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Let me explain this amendment and speak on it for a
short period of time. I don't know that there will be a vote within the
next 2 or 3 minutes, I say to colleagues.
Mr. President, my amendment, which is a second-degree amendment to
the Abraham amendment, expands on what Senator Abraham is trying to do.
It applies to the Congress and not just to the administration.
Furthermore, what my amendment says is that when the Congress prepares
its report on family well-being --which I think is a real important
concept; I think it is something that we should be about--the Congress
also reports on the impact of our legislation on children.
The amendment doesn't strike the Abraham amendment. It expands on the
amendment. I believe that my colleagues, if I am given a little bit of
time, will want to support this.
Mr. President, I think the reason when we pass legislation out of
committee, that in our report language we need to talk about the impact
of children, is because of the reality of the lives of children in
America. Part of our definition of family well-being, surely, has to do
with parents, and we ought to make sure that parents are able to do
their very best by their children, because when parents do their very
best by their children, they do their very best by our country. It is
also true if we are going to talk about parents, we have to talk about
the impact of our legislation on children.
Mr. President, one out of every four children in our country under
the age of 3 is growing up poor. One in three children will be poor at
some point in their childhood. One in five children today under the age
of 6 is poor today in America. One in three is a year or more behind in
school. One in four children is born to a mother who did not graduate
from high school. One out of every four children lives with only one
parent. One out of every five children

[[Page S9208]]

lives in a family receiving food stamps. One out of every five children
is born to a mother who received no prenatal care in the first 3 months
of her pregnancy. One out of every seven children have no health
insurance. One out of every eight children are born to teenage
children. One out of every 12 children has a disability. One out of
every 13 children is born at low birthweight. One out of every 25
children lives with neither parent. One out of every 132 children in
America dies by the age of 1. And 1 in 680 children is killed by
gunfire before the age of 20.
Let me do it a different way as to why I believe when we pass
legislation we ought to talk about the impact of this legislation on
children, and we ought to make it clear.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. We will have order in the Chamber.
Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Chair. I will say to my colleagues, if I
don't get order, I will talk for a long time about this, because I
don't think there is anything inappropriate about having a focus on the
state of children in America.
So I hope that we can have order in the Chamber and I will be able to
go on. I will take as long as necessary.
Mr. President, every day in America, one mother dies in child birth.
Every day in America, three people under the age of 25 die from HIV
infection. Every day in America, six children or young people commit
suicide. Every day in America, 13 children and youths are murdered.
Every day in America, 16 children and youths are killed by firearms.
Every day in America, 36 children and youths die from accidents. Every
day in America, 81 babies die. Every day in America, 144 babies are
born at very low birth weight. Every day in America, 311 children are
arrested for alcohol offenses. Ever day in America, 316 children are
arrested for violent crime. Every day in America, 403 children are
arrested for drug offenses. Every day in America, 443 babies are born
to mothers who receive late or no prenatal care. Every day in America,
781 babies are born at low birth weight. Every day in America, 1,403
babies are born to mothers younger than 20. Every day in America, 2,377
babies are born to mothers who are not high school graduates. Every day
in America, 2,556 children--babies--are born into poverty. Every day in
America, 3,356 young people drop out of high school.
Colleagues, when I cite these figures from the Children's Defense
Fund Report of this summer--this last report was July 17, 1998. When I
cite the statistics that every day in America 3,356 high school
students drop out, there is a higher correlation between high school
dropouts and winding up in prison than between cigarette smoking and
lung cancer. Surely, we ought to be looking at the state of children in
America.
Mr. President, one quarter of all the homeless people in America are
children under the age of 18, and 100,000 of these kids live on the
streets right now. Mr. President, 5.5 million children go hungry in the
United States of America today.
Mr. President, I commend my colleague for his emphasis on families. I
commend my colleague for wanting to say that we want to do everything
we can to enable parents to do well by their children. I want to
commend my colleague for making the point that we want to make sure
that parents are really able to exercise their responsibilities as
parents with their children.
But I also want to say something else to my colleagues, which is that
this second-degree amendment adds a lot of strength to what is on the
floor. I don't think there should be any vote against this, because
what the second-degree amendment says is, let's also apply this to the
Congress. We simply say that whatever we vote out of committee, we
also, in report language, have a very careful child impact statement. I
see my colleague from Connecticut on the floor--probably the leading
Senator for years when it comes to focusing on children. I say to my
colleague, I think this is really an excellent idea. I think it is
important for us to be looking at the impact.
Mr. President, I have one question that I can't let go of in my own
mind, which I pose for every single colleague here: How can it be that
right now in the United States of America, at our peak economic
performance, we have one out of every four children under the age of 3
growing up poor in our country, and one out of every two children of
color growing up poor in our country today? This is the most affluent
country in the world, the most powerful country in the world, with
record low unemployment, record economic performance, low inflation, a
celebrated GDP, and we have a set of social arrangements that allow
children to be the poorest group of Americans in our country. That is a
national disgrace.
Now, Mr. President, I just want to go on and make one other point. In
some of the debate that we have had over the years, colleagues have
said, look, all right, Senator Wellstone, you disagree about proposed
cuts in affordable housing, or Head Start; you disagree with proposed
cuts in the Food Stamp Program, which is the major safety net food and
nutrition program for children in America; you disagree with some of
our other priorities, but we want to tell you that in no way, shape, or
form are we not committed to children in America. I accept that in good
faith. But what I want to say tonight is that, if so, we ought to at
least be willing to look at our actions. We ought to be willing to look
at our legislation, and we ought to be willing to analyze the impact on
children in America.
Mr. President, I have traveled not just in Minnesota, but in our
country, and the one thing that troubles me the most is, I just think
we have to do a lot better for kids, a lot better for kids in our
country.
We talk about low SAT scores; that is there. We talk about high rates
of high school dropouts; that is there. We talk about children being
arrested for substance abuse; that is happening. We talk about too many
children taking their own lives; that is happening. We talk about too
many children that are murdered; that is happening. We talk about too
much violence in our schools; that is happening. We talk about too many
hungry children in America; that is happening. We talk about too many
children that are 3 and 4 years old and are home alone because the
single parent is working and because there is no child care; that is
happening. Second graders and first graders come home alone with no
parent there, sometimes in very dangerous neighborhoods; that is
happening. We talk about the poverty in our country and the number of
children that are homeless children.
I say to the Chair, because of his commitment to veterans, that one
of the most disgraceful things going on in our country is that about
one-third of all the homeless are veterans--many Vietnam veterans. That
is a scandal; that is simply unconscionable.
But the fact of the matter is that all of us say that we are for the
children. All of us say that they are 100 percent of our future. All of
us say that we care about children. All of us want to have our pictures
taken next to children. All of us say that we are parents and
grandparents and that this is our commitment. Well, I am saying that
Senator Abraham has brought a good piece of legislation on the floor.
He wants to talk about the importance of parental responsibility. He
wants to talk about the importance of families. And what I believe is
that this second-degree amendment expands on his work, and I certainly
hope that this amendment will be accepted by my colleagues.
Mr. President, I know there is a lot that we are trying to do
tonight, and I have a lot more to say. In deference to colleagues--the
majority leader has been gracious enough to come over here and say that
this amendment will be accepted.
I just say to colleagues that, if so, I am delighted, I say to the
Senator from Colorado. Might I ask my colleague one thing?
Mr. CAMPBELL. There is no opposition to the amendment.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Knowing of the commitment of the Senator from Colorado
and just sort of knowing the way things work here, I wonder whether I
could ask my colleague something. I am sort of tempted to have a vote
because I would like to show a lot of support for this. I ask my
colleague whether or not he would be willing to fight hard to keep this
in conference committee?
I know my friend from Colorado being an honorable Senator--I am
delighted that it will be taken--I am

[[Page S9209]]

wondering whether my colleague would give me some sense of whether or
not he supports this, whether I can count on his support in the
conference committee so this doesn't get taken out.
Mr. CAMPBELL. I can't speak for everyone in the conference, but from
my own perspective I am very supportive.
Mr. WELLSTONE. That means a great deal to me.
I don't know whether my colleague from Wisconsin is on the floor
right now, Senator Kohl, but I believe that I can count on his support.
Is the Senator from Michigan, Senator Abraham, on the floor?
Mr. President, I thank my colleagues. I am delighted that the
amendment is accepted. We can vote on it.
Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, there is no opposition on the majority
side to the Abraham amendment.
With that, Mr. President, I voice my support for the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the Wellstone
amendment? If not, the question is on agreeing to the amendment of the
Senator from Minnesota.
The amendment (No. 3373) was agreed to.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which
the amendment was agreed to.
Mr. LOTT. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 3362, as amended

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The pending question is now on the Abraham
amendment, as amended, by the amendment of the Senator from Minnesota.
Is there further debate an the Abraham amendment?
Mr. CAMPBELL addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado.
Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum. We
are in the process of getting some technical corrections on the
amendment of the Senator from Michigan.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, we got ahead of ourselves on the
amendment of the Senator from Tennessee. I ask unanimous consent that
the motion to reconsider the amendment be laid upon the table.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is
so ordered.
Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Abraham amendment is the pending question.
Mr. BINGAMAN. I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be set
aside.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
The pending question is the Abraham amendment.
Mr. ABRAHAM addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico still has the
floor.
Mr. BINGAMAN. I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.

Amendment No. 3362, As Modified

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I send a modification of my amendment to
the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the modification of the
Abraham amendment?
Hearing no objection, it so ordered.
The amendment (No. 3362, as modified) is as follows:

At the appropriate place, insert the following:

SEC. __. ASSESSMENT OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS AND POLICIES ON
FAMILIES.

(a) Purposes.--The purposes of this section are to--
(1) require agencies to assess the impact of proposed
agency actions on family well-being; and
(2) improve the management of executive branch agencies.
(b) Definitions.--In this section--
(1) the term ``agency'' has the meaning given the term
``Executive agency'' by section 105 of title 5, United States
Code, except such term does not include the General
Accounting Office; and
(2) the term ``family'' means--
(A) a group of individuals related by blood, marriage,
adoption, or other legal custody who live together as a
single household; and
(B) any individual who is not a member of such group, but
who is related by blood, marriage, or adoption to a member of
such group, and over half of whose support in a calendar year
is received from such group.
(c) Family Policymaking Assessment.--Before implementing
policies and regulations that may affect family well-being,
each agency shall assess such actions with respect to
whether--
(1) the action strengthens or erodes the stability or
safety jof the family and, particularly, the marital
commitment;
(2) the action strengthens or erodes the authority and
rights of parents in the education, nurture, and supervision
of their children;
(3) the action helps the family perform its functions, or
substitutes governmental activity for the function;
(4) the action increases or decreases disposable income or
poverty of families and children;
(5) the proposed benefits of the action justify the
financial impact on the family;
(6) the action may be carried out by State or local
government or by the family; and
(7) the action establishes an implicit or explicit policy--
concerning the relationship between the behavior and personal
responsibility of youth, and the norms of society.
(d) Governmentwide Family Policy Coordination and Review.--
(1) Certification and rationale.--With respect to each
proposed policy or regulation that may affect family well-
being, the head of each agency shall--
(A) submit a written certification to the Director of the
Office of Management and Budget and to Congress that such
policy or regulation has been assessed in accordance with
this section; and
(B) provide an adequate rationale for implementation of
each policy or regulation that may negatively affect family
well-being.
(2) Office of management and budget.--The Director of the
Office of Management and Budget shall--
(A) ensure that policies and regulations proposed by
agencies are implemented consistent with this section; and
(B) compile, index, and submit annually to the Congress the
written certifications received pursuant to paragraph (1)(A).
(3) Office of policy development.--The Office of Policy
Development shall--
(A) assess proposed policies and regulations in accordance
with this section;
(B) provide evaluations of policies and regulations that
may affect family well-being to the Director of the Office of
Management and Budget; and
(C) advise the President on policy and regulatory actions
that may be taken to strengthen the institutions of marriage
and family in the United States.
(e) Assessments Upon Request by Members of Congress.--Upon
request by a Member of Congress relating to a proposed policy
or regulation, an agency shall conduct an assessment in
accordance with subsection (c), and shall provide a
certification and rationale in accordance with subsection
(d).
(f) Judicial Review.--This section is not intended to
create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural,
enforceable at law by a party against the United States, its
agencies, its officers, or any person.

SEC. . FAMILY WELL-BEING AND CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT.

Consideration of any bill or joint resolution of a public
character reported by any committee of the Senate or of the
House of Representatives that is accompanied by a committee
report that does not contain a detailed analysis of the
probable impact of the bill or resolution on family well-
being and on childen, including whether such bill or joint
resolution will increase the number of children who are
hungry or homeless, shall not be in order.

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, at this time I believe we have concluded
all debate on the amendment.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the Abraham
amendment?
If not, the question is on agreeing to the amendment of the Senator
from Michigan.
The amendment (No. 3362), as modified, as amended, was agreed to.
Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which
the amendment was agreed to.
Mr. ABRAHAM. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. BINGAMAN addressed the Chair.

[[Page S9210]]

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, what is the pending business?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The pending business is S. 2312, which is open
to amendment.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the
amendment be set aside so I can offer an amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is no amendment pending. The Senator has
a right to offer an amendment.

Amendment No. 3376

(Purpose: To provide emergency authority to the Secretary of Energy to
purchase oil for the Strategic Petroleum Reserve)

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from New Mexico [Mr. Bingaman], for himself,
Mr. Murkowski, Mr. Breaux, and Mr. Torricelli, proposes an
amendment numbered 3376.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of
the amendment be dispensed with.
Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I note
that we do not have copies of the amendment. We have not had a chance
to see it yet.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I will have my staff get a copy to the
manager immediately. I thought we had done that before.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Let me clarify. Is there objection to
dispensing with the reading of the Bingaman amendment?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:

At the appropriate place in the bill, add the following:

``ADDITIONAL PURCHASES OF OIL FOR THE STRATEGIC PETROLEUM RESERVE

``In response to historically low prices for oil produced
domestically and to build national capacity for response to
future energy supply emergencies, the Secretary of Energy
shall purchase and transport an additional $420,000,000 of
oil for the Strategic Petroleum Reserve upon a determination
by the President that current market conditions are
imperiling domestic oil production from marginal and small
producers: Provided, That an official budget request for the
purchase of oil for the Strategic Petroleum Reserve and
including a designation of the entire request as an emergency
requirement as defined in the Balanced Budget and Emergency
Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended, is transmitted by
the President to the Congress: Provided further, That the
entire amount in the preceding proviso is designated by the
Congress as an emergency requirement pursuant to section
251(b)(2)(A) of such Act.''.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico is recognized.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I would like to talk about a critical
energy issue facing the country today that calls for urgent action.
That is the price collapse that we have seen for crude oil. We are
near historically low prices for crude oil in the world, in real terms,
due in part to the economic turmoil in Asia. This is leading to several
serious problems.
First, we are threatened with the loss of a major domestic industry.
When the wellhead price of crude oil is in the vicinity of $10 a
barrel, as it has been recently in the Permian basin and elsewhere in
the country), we drive producers of oil from marginal wells out of the
business. There are about a half million marginal wells in this
country. The employment from operating those wells puts food on the
table for a lot of families all over the country, and we need to be
concerned about their economic future.
Second, low prices mean we lose royalty and tax revenues that fund
public education. Since October 1997, the drop in crude oil prices has
triggered a revenue shortfall in the States totaling $819 million.
That's close to a billion dollar loss for public education in less than
one year. In New Mexico, counties and towns are canceling planned
school construction and renovation projects.
Third, our national energy security is threatened. During the Arab
oil embargo of the 1970s, we imported 30 percent of our oil. Today,
it's 56 percent. Even before the current price decline, the Energy
Information Administration was predicting that imports would go to 68
percent by 2015. With lower prices, though, EIA's projection rises to
75 percent oil import dependence.
Finally, international stability is put at risk by current oil
prices. Earlier this month, the IMF approved $11.2 billion in aid for
Russia. $2.9 billion of that amount was to make up for shortfalls in
Russia's export earnings. Over half of Russia's oil is exported, but
the benchmark price for that oil has declined by 25 percent in this
year alone. Continued low world oil prices could undo whatever gains in
stability are accomplished in Russia by IMF funding. The same is true
of other major oil-producing countries such as Indonesia and Malaysia.
The Senate has recently focused on the problems confronting farmers
growing out of collapsing world commodity prices. When it considered
the agriculture appropriations bill, the Senate agreed to help address
this urgent farm crisis by providing the Secretary of Agriculture with
$500 million, under an emergency appropriation, to help agricultural
producers, including family farmers, to stay in business. We need to do
the same thing for the domestic oil industry.
The amendment that I have sent to the desk does just that. It is an
emergency appropriation to allow the Administration to buy back all the
oil the government has sold out of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve for
budgetary purposes since the Gulf War. That amount comes to 28 million
barrels.
We sold this oil out of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to pay for
other unrelated spending on appropriations bills. In effect, we were
using one of the country's prime energy security tools as a giant ATM
machine. The Chairman of the Senate Energy Committee and I led an
effort last year and this to put a stop to such sales.
I am gratified that the Committee on Appropriations is not proposing
any further sales this year. But the energy security concerns that I
have mentioned, particularly our continuing and growing reliance on
foreign oil imports, make repurchase of the oil for the SPR a good
idea. Also, at current world oil prices, the oil we put back will cost
less than what we sold it for. At an estimated cost of $15 per barrel
delivered to the SPR, this amendment would require a $420 million
emergency appropriation.
The use of an emergency appropriation in this case is well justified.
It is somewhat less than what the Senate has done for farmers who are
facing similar financial losses from the same sort of world economic
forces and collapsing prices. And there can be no doubt that the
economic implosion that threatens the oil-producing regions of the
Southwest, if we allow current trends to continue, qualifies as an
emergency.
This amendment gives the kind of help that does the most good here in
the United States and internationally. It gets excess oil off the
market. This would have a significant beneficial impact on wellhead
prices, but not enough to trigger a price spike for refined oil
products.
I think this is a good amendment. I think it is consistent with our
concern for our long-term energy security. I think it is a very good
investment. This is the time when we should, as a country, be thinking
about replenishing the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. I hope very much
the managers of the bill will be able to accept this amendment and that
we will be able to add it to this piece of legislation.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. DOMENICI. Senator Bingaman, will you add me as a cosponsor,
please?
Mr. BINGAMAN. I am very pleased to add Senator Domenici as a
cosponsor. I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico, Senator Domenici.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, it probably will come as a big surprise
that, for example, the current price for a gallon of crude oil is
cheaper than the price for a gallon of bottled water. Many people will
say, ``That is great.'' Those who look at the American economy and
forget about our oil production and our oilfield workers, they would
say, ``Great.'' But if you are looking at how far we have gone in our
oil dependence, you will see the small producers of oil in the United
States are in the most serious problem they have been in in modern
times. The prices are so low that I had two of them come to see me the
other day.

[[Page S9211]]

One last year had $15 million invested in new wells; this year, zero.
One drilled 31 new wells last year; this year, 1. We have hundreds of
thousands of small wells, called stripper wells, producing 15 barrels a
day or less. Many of those, if they shut them in, the oil is gone. The
entire reserve is lost.
We are not sure how to fix that. It is a very complicated problem.
But the amendment that is being offered, which I join in, is saying,
with prices this low and the fact that we used a lot of our expensive
oil during the Iraqi war, we ought to replenish with $420 million worth
of purchases. At least it will stabilize somewhat the faltering prices
here and may stabilize the stripper wells that are going down the tube
and will not be available to America for the production of oil. The way
it is paid for is to say: If the President of the United States deems
it to be an emergency, then it will be an emergency under the budget.
That is not exceptional. We do that for emergencies all the time. We
think the oil patch is in a state of emergency.
Mr. President, the head of the National Stripper Well Association,
estimated that small producers already have closed 100,000 wells this
year, and cut production by 300,000 barrels a day and has been forced
to eliminate 10,000 jobs because of falling prices.
Small oil companies are sinking with crude oil prices.
Behind the price drop is the reduced demand in Asia because of its
financial crisis, the prospect of Iraq selling more oil and the
inability of the OPEC to agree on production cuts.
The state, receives about 30 percent of its funds from oil and gas.
Each dollar drop in the price of a barrel of oil translates roughly
into a drop of $20 million in state revenues.
In Oklahoma, the continuation of low oil prices could lead to the
permanent abandonment of about three-fourths of Oklahoma's almost
90,000 oil wells.
This amendment will direct the Secretary of Energy to purchase and
transport and additional $420,000,000 of oil for the Strategic
Petroleum Reserve upon a determination by the President that the
current market conditions are imperiling domestic oil productions from
marginal and small producers.
This is a small step to show support for our domestic oil industry.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader is recognized.

____________________